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. Mr. Justice Douglas delivered the opinion of the Court. Petitioners were partners operating eight finance offices in Alabama. The partnership reported its income on the accrual method of accounting and instead of deducting bad debts within the taxable year as permitted by § 166 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 it used the reserve method of accounting as permitted by § 166 (c). Under the reserve method of accounting a taxpayer includes in his income the full face amount of a receivable on its creation and adjusts at the end of each taxable year the reserve account so that it equals that portion of current accounts receivable that is estimated to become worthless in subsequent years. Any additions necessary to increase the reserve are currently deductible. When an account receivable becomes worthless during the year, the reserve account is decreased and no additional bad debt deduction is allowed. As of May 31, 1960, the partnership books showed accounts receivable of $486,853.69 and a reserve for bad debts of $73,028.05. On June 1, 1960, petitioners formed eight new corporations and transferred the assets of the eight partnership offices, including the accounts receivable, to the corporations in exchange for shares of the corporations— a transfer that concededly provided no gain or loss under § 351 of the Code. The Commissioner determined that the partnership should have included in income the amount of the bad debt reserve ($73,028.05) applicable to the accounts receivable that had been transferred. Tax deficiencies were computed; and petitioners, having paid them, brought this suit for refunds. The District Court allowed recovery and the Court of Appeals reversed, 414 F. 2d 627. We granted the petition for certiorari to resolve the conflict between the Fifth and the Ninth Circuits on this question of law. 396 U. S. 1000. We share the view of the Ninth Circuit and reverse the present judgment. There is no provision of the Code that deals precisely with this question. But the Commissioner’s basic premise rests on the so-called tax benefit rule, viz., that a recovery of an item that has produced an income tax benefit in a prior year is to be added to income in the year of recovery. The Commissioner argues that that rule, applicable here, means that unused amounts in a bad debt reserve must be restored to income when the reserve is found to be no longer necessary, as it was here, when the partnership’s “need” for the reserve ended with the termination of its business. Congress could make the end of “need” synonymous with “recovery” in the meaning of the tax benefit rule and make the rule read: “[A] bad debt reserve that has produced an income tax benefit in a prior year is to be added to income in the year when it was recovered or when its need is ended.” The semantics would then be honored by the Commissioner’s ruling. But we do not feel free to state the tax benefit rule in those terms in the present context. We deal with § 351 (a) of the Code which provides: “No gain or loss shall be recognized if property is transferred to a corporation by one or more persons solely in exchange for stock or securities in such corporation and immediately after the exchange such person or persons are in control ... of the corporation.” All that petitioners received from the corporations were securities equal in value to the net worth of the accounts transferred, that is the face value less the amount of the reserve for bad debts. If, as conceded, there is no “gain” or “loss” recognized as a result of the transaction, it seems anomalous to treat the bad debt reserve as “income” to the transferor. Deduction of the reserve from the face amount of the receivables transferred conforms to the reality of the transaction, as the risk of noncollection was on the transferee. Since the reserve for purposes of this case was deemed to be reasonable and the value of the stock received upon the transfer was equal to the net value of the receivables, there does not seem to us to have been any “recovery.” A tax benefit was received by the partnership when the bad debt reserve was originally-taken as a deduction from income. There would be a double benefit to the partnership if securities were issued covering the face amount of the receivables. We do not, however, understand how there can be a “recovery” of the benefit of the bad debt reserve when the receivables are transferred less the reserve. That merely perpetuates the status quo and does not tinker with it for any double benefit out of the bad debt reserve. For these reasons, the Court of Appeals in the Schmidt case held that although the “need” for the reserve ended with the transfer, the end of that need did not mark a “recovery” within the meaning of the tax benefit cases, 355 F. 2d, at 113. We agree and accordingly reverse the judgment below. Reversed. Estate of Schmidt v. Commissioner, 355 F. 2d 111. See Rev. Rui. 62-128, 1962-2 Cum. Bull. 139. Section 111 (a) of the 1954 Code provides: “Gross income does not include income attributable to the recovery during the taxable year of a bad debt, prior tax, or delinquency amount, to the extent of the amount of the recovery exclusion with respect to such debt, tax, or amount.” As stated in Geyer, Cornell & Newell, Inc. v. Commissioner, 6 T. C. 96, 100: “A reserve consists of entries upon books of account. It is neither an asset nor a liability. It has no existence except upon the books, and, unlike an asset or a liability, it can not be transferred to any other entity.” “[T]he infirmities in the accounts receivable which justify the bad debt reserve carry over to those accounts in the hands of the corporation. Presumably the amount that will ultimately be collected by the corporation will not be the gross amount of the receivables, but rather the net amount after deducting the bad debt reserve. Thus, the stock received in exchange for such accounts receivable can only be worth what the receivables themselves are worth, namely, the net collectable amount rather than the gross amount.” Arent, Reallocation of Income and Expenses in Connection with Formation and Liquidation of Corporations, 40 Taxes 995, 998 (1962). N. 1, 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:

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. Appellants, on behalf of themselves and other Negroes “similarly situated,” sued in the District Court to enjoin appellees from alleged violations of the Fourteenth Amendment in refusing to admit Negroes to the University of Tennessee. A three-judge cohrt, convened at appellants’ request, held that this case was not within the jurisdiction of a three-judge court under 28 U. S. C. (Supp. IV) § 2281 and ordered that the case proceed before a single district judge. 100 F. Supp. 113. The single judge held that appellants were entitled to relief but did not enter an order. 97 F. Supp. 463. Appellants contend that only a court of three judges has jurisdiction over the cause. No. 120 is an appeal from the order dissolving the three-judge court brought directly to this Court under 28 U. S. C. (Supp. IV) § 1253. We set the appeal down for argument, postponing consideration of jurisdictional questions. In No. 159 Misc., appellants asked, in the alternative, that we issue a writ of mandamus to vacate the order dissolving the three-judge court. We issued a rule to show cause why the petition for mandamus should not be granted, 342 U. S. 846, and, upon the filing of a response to the rule, set the petition down for argument with the appeal. At the argument, counsel for appellees stated that appellants would be admitted to the University of Tennessee as requested. Thereafter, appellants filed a motion stating that appellant Gray has been admitted to the University and that the other appellants were, because of changed circumstances, unable to avail themselves of the opportunity at present. Appellants moved this Court to vacate the order dissolving the three-judge court and to remand the case to that court for further proceedings. Since appellants’ requests for admission to the University of Tennessee have been granted and since there is no suggestion that any person “similarly situated” will not be afforded similar treatment, appellants’ motion is denied and the judgments below are vacated and the District Court is directed to dismiss the action upon the ground that the cause is moot. It is so ordered. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

I

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Justice O’Connor delivered the opinion of the Court. Section 803(d)(3) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA or Act), 110 Stat. 1321-72, 42 U. S. C. § 1997e(d)(3) (1994 ed., Supp. III), places limits on the fees that may be awarded to attorneys who litigate prisoner lawsuits. We are asked to decide how this section applies to cases that were pending when the PLRA became effective on April 26, 1996. We conclude that § 803(d)(3) limits attorney’s fees with respect to postjudgment monitoring services performed after the PLRA’s effective date but it does not so limit fees for postjudgment monitoring performed before the effective date. I The fee disputes before us arose out of two class action lawsuits challenging the conditions of confinement in the Michigan prison system. The first case, which we will call Glover, began in 1977 when a now-certified elass of female prisoners filed suit under Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The Glover plaintiffs alleged that the defendant prison officials had violated their rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by denying them access to vocational and educational opportunities that were available to male prisoners. They also claimed that the defendants had denied them their right of access to the courts. After a bench trial, the District Court found “[significant discrimination against the female prison population” in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, Glover v. John son, 478 F. Supp. 1075, 1083 (1979), and concluded that the defendants’ policies had denied the Glover plaintiffs their right of meaningful access to the courts, id., at 1096-1097. In 1981, the District Court entered a “Final Order” detailing the specific actions to be undertaken by the defendants to remedy the constitutional violations. Glover v. Johnson, 510 F. Supp. 1019 (ED Mich.). One year later, the court found that the plaintiffs were “prevailing parties” and thus entitled to attorney’s fees under 42 U. S. C. § 1988 (1994 ed. and Supp. III). Glover v. Johnson, Civ. Action No. 77-71229 (ED Mich., Feb. 2, 1982), App. 103a. In 1985, the parties agreed to, and the District Court entered, an order providing that the plaintiffs were entitled to attorney’s fees for postjudgment monitoring of the defendants’ compliance with the court’s remedial decrees. Glover v. Johnson, No. 77-71229 (ED Mich., Nov. 12, 1985), App. 125a (Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for System for Submission of Attorney Fee). This order also established the system for awarding monitoring fees that was in place when the present dispute arose. Under this system, the plaintiffs submit their fee requests on a semiannual basis, and the defendants then have 28 days to submit any objections to the requested award. The District Court resolves any disputes. Ibid. In an appeal from a subsequent dispute over the meaning of this order, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed that the plaintiffs were entitled to attorney’s fees, at the prevailing market rate, for postjudgment monitoring. Glover v. Johnson, 934 F. 2d 703, 715-716 (1991). The prevailing market rate has been adjusted over the years, but it is currently set at $150 per hour. See Hadix v. Johnson, 143 F. 3d 246, 248 (CA6 1998) (describing facts of Glover). The second case at issue here, Hadix, began in 1980. At that time, male prisoners at the State Prison of Southern Michigan, Central Complex (SPSM-CC), filed suit under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan claiming that the conditions of their confinement at SPSM-CC violated the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. Five years later, the Hadix plaintiffs and the defendant prison officials entered into a consent decree to “ ‘assure the constitutionality”’ of the conditions of confinement at SPSM-CC. Hadix v. Johnson, 144 F. 3d 925, 930 (CA6 1998) (quoting consent decree). The consent decree, which was approved by the District Court, addressed a variety of issues at SPSM-CC, ranging from sanitation and safety to food service, mail, and access to the courts. In November 1987, the District Court entered an order awarding attorney’s fees to the Hadix plaintiffs for post-judgment monitoring of the defendants’ compliance with the consent decree. Hadix v. Johnson, No. 80-CY-73581 (ED Mich., Nov. 19, 1987), App. 79a. Subsequently, the Hadix plaintiffs were awarded attorney’s fees through a procedure similar to the procedure that had been established for the Glover plaintiffs: The plaintiffs submitted semiannual fee requests, the defendants filed timely objections to these requests, and the District Court resolved any disputes. The District Court set, and periodically adjusted, a specific market rate for the fee awards; by 1995, that rate was set at $150 per hour for lead counsel. See Hadix v. Johnson, 65 F. 3d 532, 536 (CA6 1995). Thus, by 1987, Glover and Hadix were on parallel paths. In both eases, the District Court had concluded that the plaintiffs were entitled to postjudgment monitoring fees under 42 U. S. C. § 1988, and the parties had established a system for awarding those fees on a semiannual basis. Moreover, in both cases, the District Court had established specific market rates for awarding fees. By the time the PLRA was enacted, the prevailing market rate in both cases had been set at $150 per hour. The fee landscape changed with the passage of the PLRA on April 26, 1996. The PLRA, as its name suggests, contains numerous provisions governing the course of prison litigation in the federal courts. It provides, for example, limits on the availability of certain types of relief in such suits, see 18 U. S. C. § 3626(a)(2) (1994 ed., Supp. III), and for the termination of prospective relief orders after a limited time, § 8626(b). The section of the PLRA at issue here, § 803(d)(3), places a cap on the size of attorney’s fees that may be awarded in prison litigation suits: "(d) Attorney’s fees "(1) In any action brought by a prisoner who is confined to any jail, prison, or other correctional facility, in which attorney’s fees are authorized under [42 U. S. C. §1988], such fees shall not be awarded, except to the extent [authorized here]. "(3) No award of attorney’s fees in an action described in paragraph (1) shall be based on an hourly rate greater than 150 percent of the hourly rate established under [18 U. S. C. § 3006A (1994 ed. and Supp. III)], for payment of court-appointed counsel.” § 803(d), 42 U. S. C. § 1997e(d) (1994 ed., Supp. III). Court-appointed attorneys in the Eastern District of Michigan are compensated at a maximum rate of $75 per hour, and thus, under § 803(d)(3), the PLRA fee cap for attorneys working on prison litigation suits translates into a maximum hourly rate of $112.50. Questions involving the PLRA first arose in both Glover and Radix with respect to fee requests for postjudgment' monitoring performed before the PLRA was enacted. In both cases, in early 1996, the plaintiffs submitted fee requests for work performed during the last half of 1995. These requests were still pending when the PLRA became effective on April 26, 1996. In both cases, the District Court concluded that the PLRA fee cap did not limit attorney’s fees for services performed in these eases prior to the effective date of the Act. Glover v. Johnson, Civ. Action No. 77-71229 (ED Mich., June 8, 1996), App. 148a; Hadix v. Johnson, Civ. Action No. 80-73581 (ED Mch., May 30, 1996), App. 91a. The Sixth Circuit affirmed this interpretation of the PLRA on appeal. Glover v. Johnson, 138 F. 3d 229,249-251 (1998); Hadix v. Johnson, 144 F. 3d, at 946-948. Fee requests next were filed in both Glover and Radix for services performed between January 1, 1996, and June 30, 1996, a time period encompassing work performed both before and after the effective date of the PLRA. As relevant to this ease, the defendant state prison officials argued that these fee requests were subject to the fee cap found in § 803(d)(3) of the PLRA, and the District Court accepted this argument in part. In nearly identical orders issued in the two eases, the court reiterated its earlier conclusion that the PLRA does not limit fees for work performed before April 26, 1996, but concluded that the PLRA fee cap does limit fees for services performed after the effective date. Radix v. Johnson, Case No. 80-73581 (ED Mich., Dec. 4, 1996), App. to Pet. for Cert. 27a; Glover v. Johnson, Case No. 77-71229 (ED Mich., Dec. 4, 1996), App. to Pet. for Cert. 33a. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit consolidated the appeals from these orders, and, as relevant here, affirmed in part and reversed in part. Hadix v. Johnson, 143 F. 3d 246 (1998). According to the Court of Appeals, the PLRA’s fee limitation does not apply to fee requests such as those in Radix and Glover that relate to cases that were pending on the date of enactment. If it were applied to pending eases, the court held, it would have an impermissible retroactive effect, regardless of when the work was performed. 143 F. 3d, at 250-256. The Court of Appeals’ holding — that the PLRA’s attorney’s fees provisions do not apply to pending cases — is inconsistent with the holdings of other Circuits on these issues. For example, the Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and Ninth Circuits have held that § 808(d) caps all fees that are ordered to be paid after the enactment of the PLRA, even when those fees compensate attorneys for work performed prior to the enactment of the PLRA. Alexander S. v. Boyd, 113 F. 3d 1373, 1385-1388 (CA4 1997), cert. denied, 522 U. S. 1090 (1998); Madrid v. Gomez, 150 F. 3d 1030 (CA9 1998). See also Blissett v. Casey, 147 F. 3d 218 (CA2 1998) (PLRA does not necessarily limit fees when work performed before effective date but award rendered after effective date), cert. pending, No. 98-527; Inmates of D. & Jail v. Jackson, 158 F. 3d 1357, 1360 (CADC 1998) (holding that PLRA limits fees for work performed after effective date of Act, and suggesting in dicta that it does not apply to work performed prior to effective date), cert. pending, No. 98-917. We granted certiorari to resolve these conflicts. 525 U. S. 1000 (1998). In this Court, the Radix and Glover plaintiffs are respondents, and the defendant prison officials from both cases are petitioners. II Petitioners contend that the PLRA applies to Glover and Radix, eases that were pending when the PLRA was enacted. This fact pattern presents a recurring question in the law: When should a new federal statute be applied to pending cases? See, e. g., Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U. S. 320 (1997); Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States ex rel. Schumer, 520 U. S. 939 (1997). To answer this question, we ask first “whether Congress has expressly prescribed the statute’s proper reach.” Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U. S. 244, 280 (1994). If there is no congressional directive on the temporal reach of a statute, we determine whether the application of the statute to the conduct at issue would result in a retroactive effect. Ibid. If so, then in keeping with our “traditional presumption” against retroactivity, we presume that the statute does not apply to that conduct. Ibid. See also Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States ex rel. Schumer, supra, at 946. A 1 Congress has not expressly mandated the temporal reach of § 808(d)(3). Section 803(d)(1) provides that “[i]n any action brought by a prisoner who is confined [to a correctional facility]... attorney’s fees ... shall not be awarded, except” as authorized by the statute. Section 803(d)(3) further provides that “[n]o award of attorney’s fees . . . shall be based on an hourly rate greater than 150 percent of the hourly rate established under [18 U. S. C. §3006A], for payment of court-appointed counsel.” Petitioners contend that this language — particularly the phrase “[i]n any action brought by a prisoner who is confined,” § 803(d)(1) (emphasis added)— clearly expresses a congressional intent that § 803(d) apply to pending eases. They argue that “any” is a broad, encompassing word, and that its use with “brought,” a past-tense verb, demonstrates congressional intent to apply the fees limitations to all fee awards entered after the PLRA became effective, even when those awards were for services performed before the PLRA was enacted. They also contend that § 803(d)(3), by its own terms, applies to all “award[s]” — understood as the actual court order directing the payment of fees — entered after the effective date of the PLRA, regardless of when the work was performed. The fundamental problem with all of petitioners’ statutory arguments is that they stretch the language of § 803(d) to find congressional intent on the temporal scope of that section when we believe that § 803(d) is better read as setting substantive limits on the award of attorney’s fees. Section 803(d)(1), for example, prohibits fee awards unless those fees were “directly and reasonably incurred” in the suit, and unless those fees are “proportionately related” to, or “directly and reasonably incurred in enforcing,” the relief ordered. 42 U.S.C. §1997e(d)(1) (1994 ed., Supp. III). Similarly, § 803(d)(3) sets substantive limits by prohibiting the award of fees based on hourly rates greater than a specified rate. In other words, these sections define the substantive availability of attorney’s fees; they do not purport to define the temporal reach of these substantive limitations. This language falls short of demonstrating a “clear congressional intent” favoring retroactive application of these fees limitations. Landgraf, 511 U. S., at 280. It falls short, in other words, of the “unambiguous directive” or “express command” that the statute is to be applied retroactively. Id., at 263, 280. In any event, we note that “brought,” as used in this section, is not a past-tense verb; rather, it is the participle in a participial phrase modifying the noun “action.” And although the word “any” is broad, it stretches the imagination to suggest that Congress intended, through the use of this one word, to make the fee limitations applicable to all fee awards. Finally, we do not believe that the phrase “[n]o award” in § 803(d)(3) demonstrates congressional intent to apply that section to all fee awards (i. e., fee payment orders) entered after the PLRA’s effective date. Had Congress intended § 803(d)(3) to apply to all fee orders entered after the effective date, even when those awards compensate for work performed before the effective date, it could have used language more obviously targeted to addressing the temporal reach of that section. It could have stated, for example, that “No award entered after the effective date of this Act shall be based on an hourly rate greater than the ceiling rate.” The conclusion that § 803(d) does not clearly express congressional intent that it apply retroactively is strengthened by comparing § 803(d) to the language that we suggested in Landgraf might qualify as a clear statement that a statute was to apply retroactively: “[T]he new provisions shall apply to all proceedings pending on or commenced after the date of enactment.” Id., at 260 (internal quotation marks omitted). This provision, unlike the language of the PLRA, unambiguously addresses the temporal reach of the statute. With no such analogous language making explicit reference to the statute’s temporal reach, it cannot be said that Congress has “expressly prescribed” §803(d)’s temporal reach. Id., at 280. 2 Respondents agree that § 803(d) of the PLRA lacks an express directive that the statute apply retroactively, but they contend that the PLRA reveals congressional intent that the fees provisions apply prospectively only. That is, respondents insist that the PLRA’s fees provisions demonstrate that they only apply to cases filed after the effective date of the Act, For respondents, this congressional intent is evident from a study of the Act’s structure and legislative history. According to respondents, a comparison of §§802 and 803 of the PLRA leads to the conclusion that § 803(d) should only apply to cases filed after its enactment. The attorney’s fees provisions are found in §803 of the PLRA, and, as described above, this section contains no explicit directive that it should apply to pending cases. By contrast, §802— addressing “appropriate remedies” in prison litigation— explicitly provides that it applies to pending eases: “[This section] shall apply with respect to all prospective relief whether such relief was originally granted or approved before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this title.” § 802(b)(1), note following 18 U. S. C. §3626 (1994 ed., Supp. III). According to respondents, the presence of this express command in §802, when coupled with §803’s silence, supports the negative inference that §803 is not to apply to pending cases. Respondents buttress this “negative inference” argument by reference to the legislative history of the fees provisions. Respondents contend that when the attorney’s fees limitations were originally drafted, they were in the section that became § 802 of the PLRA, which at the time contained language making them applicable to pending cases. Later, the fees provisions were moved to what became §803 of the PLRA, a section without language making it applicable to pending cases. Thus, according to respondents, when Congress moved the fees provisions out of § 802, with its explicitly retroactive language, it demonstrated its intent to apply the fees provisions prospectively only. Brief for Respondents 15-18. Respondents' "negative inference" argument is based on an analogy to our decision in Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U. S. 320 (1997). In Lindh, we considered whether chapter 153 of the newly enacted Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 110 Stat. 1214, was applicable to pending cases. In concluding that chapter 153 does not apply to such eases, we relied heavily on the observation that chapter 154 of AEDPA includes explicit language making that chapter applicable to pending eases. We concluded that “[n]othing . . . but a different intent explains the different treatment.” 521 U. S., at 329. This argument carried special weight because both chapters addressed similar issues: Chapter 153 established new standards for review of habeas corpus applications by state prisoners, and chapter 154 created new standards for review of habeas corpus applications by state prisoners under capital sentences. Because both chapters “governed] standards affecting entitlement to relief” in habeas eases, “[i]f . . . Congress was reasonably concerned to ensure that chapter 154 be applied to pending cases, it should have been just as concerned about chapter 153.” Ibid. Because §§802 and 803 address wholly distinct subject matters, the same negative inference does not arise from the silence of §803. Section 802 addresses “[appropriate remedies” in prison litigation, prohibiting, for example, prospective relief unless it is “narrowly drawn” and is “the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation.” § 802(a), 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) (1994 ed., Supp. III). That section also creates new standards designed to encourage the prompt termination of prospective relief orders, providing, for example, for the “immediate termination of any prospective relief if the relief was approved or granted in the absence of a finding by the court that the relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.” § 802(a), 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(2). Section 803(d), by contrast, does not address the propriety of various forms of relief and does not provide for the immediate termination of ongoing relief orders. Rather, it governs the award of attorney’s fees. Thus, there is no reason to conclude that if Congress was concerned that §802 apply to pending cases, it would “have been just as concerned” that § 803 apply to pending cases. Finally, we note that respondents’ reliance on the legislative history overstates the inferences that can be drawn from an ambiguous act of legislative drafting. Even if respondents are correct about the legislative history, the inference that respondents draw from this history is speculative. It rests on the assumption that the reason the fees provisions were moved was to move them away from the language applying §802 to pending cases, when they may have been moved for a variety of other reasons. This weak inference provides a thin reed on which to rest the argument that the fees provisions, by negative implication, were intended to apply prospectively. B Because we conclude that Congress has not “expressly prescribed” the proper reach of § 803(d)(3), Landgraf, 511 U. S., at 280, we must determine whether application of this section in this case would have retroactive effects inconsistent with the usual rule that legislation is deemed to be prospective. The inquiry into whether a statute operates retroactively demands a eommonsense, functional judgment about “whether the new provision attaches new legal consequences to events completed before its enactment.” Id., at 270. This judgment should be informed and guided by “familiar considerations of fair notice, reasonable reliance, and settled expectations.” Ibid. 1 For postjudgment monitoring performed before the effective date of the PLRA, the PLRA’s attorney’s fees provisions, as construed by respondents, would have a retroactive effect contrary to the usual assumption that congressional statutes are prospective in operation. The attorneys in both Hadix and Glover had a reasonable expectation that work they performed prior to enactment of the PLRA in monitoring petitioners’ compliance with the court orders would be compensated at the pre-PLRA rates as provided in the stipulated order. Long before the PLRA was enacted, the plaintiffs were declared prevailing parties, and the parties agreed to a system for periodically awarding attorney’s fees for postjudgment monitoring. The District Court entered orders establishing that the fees were to be awarded at prevailing market rates, and specifically set those rates, as relevant here, at $150 per hour. Respondents’ counsel performed a specific task — monitoring petitioners’ compliance with the court orders — and they were told that they would be compensated at a rate of $150 per hour. Thus, when the lawyers provided these postjudgment monitoring services before the enactment of the PLRA, they worked in reasonable reliance on this fee schedule. The PLRA, as applied to work performed before its effective date, would alter the fee arrangement post hoc by reducing the rate of compensation. To give effect to the PLRA’s fees limitations, after the fact, would “attac[h] new legal consequences” to completed conduct. Landgraf, supra, at 270. Petitioners contest this conclusion. They contend that the application of a new attorney’s fees provision is “‘unquestionably proper,”’ Brief for Petitioners 24 (quoting Landgraf, supra, at 273), because fees questions “are incidental to, and independent from, the underlying substantive cause of action.” They do not, in other words, change the substantive obligations of the parties because they are “collateral to the main cause of action.” Brief for Petitioners 24-25 (quoting Landgraf, 511 U. S., at 277) (internal quotation marks omitted). Attaching the label “collateral” to attorney’s fees questions does not advance the retroactivity inquiry, however. While it may be possible to generalize about types of rules that ordinarily will not raise retroactivity concerns, see, e. g., id., at 273-275, these generalizations do not end the inquiry. For example, in Landgraf, we acknowledged that procedural rules may often be applied to pending suits with no retroactivity problems, id., at 275, but we also cautioned that “the mere fact that a new rule is procedural does not mean that it applies to every pending case,” id., at 275, n. 29. We took pains to dispel the “suggestion] that concerns about retroactivity have no application to procedural rules.” Ibid. See also Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U. S., at 327-328. When determining whether a new statute operates retroactively, it is not enough to attach a label (e. g., “procedural,” “collateral”) to the statute; we must ask whether the statute operates retroactively. Moreover, petitioners’ reliance on our decision in Bradley v. School Bd. of Richmond, 416 U. S. 696 (1974), to support their argument that attorney’s fees provisions can be applied retroactively is misplaced. In Bradley, the District Court had awarded attorney’s fees, based on general equitable principles, to a group of parents who had prevailed in their suit seeking the desegregation of the Richmond schools. While the case was pending on appeal, Congress passed a statute specifically authorizing the award of attorney’s fees for prevailing parties in school desegregation cases. The Court of Appeals held that the new statute could not authorize fee awards for work performed before the effective date of the new law, but we reversed, holding that the fee award in that case was proper. Because attorney’s fees were available, albeit under different principles, before passage of the statute, and because the District Court had in fact already awarded fees invoking these different principles, there was no manifest injustice in allowing the fee statute to apply in that case. Id, at 720-721. We held that the award of statutory attorney’s fees did not upset any reasonable expectations of the parties. See also Landgraf, supra, at 276-279 (distinguishing Bradley on these same grounds). In this case, by contrast, from the beginning of these suits, the parties have proceeded on the assumption that 42 U. S. C. § 1988 would govern. The PLRA was not passed until well after respondents had been declared prevailing parties and thus entitled to attorney’s fees. To impose the new standards now, for work performed before the PLRA became effective, would upset the reasonable expectations of the parties. 2 With respect to postjudgment monitoring performed after the effective date of the PLRA, by contrast, there is no ret-roactivity problem. On April 26, 1996, through the PLRA, the plaintiffs’ attorneys were on notice that their hourly rate had been adjusted. Prom that point forward, they would be paid at a rate consistent with the dictates of the law. After April 26, 1996, any expectation of compensation at the pre-PLRA rates was unreasonable. There is no manifest injustice in telling an attorney performing postjudgment monitoring services that, going forward, she will earn a lower hourly rate than she had earned in the past. If the attorney does not wish to perform services at this new, lower pay rate, she can choose not to work. In other words, as applied to work performed after the effective date of the PLRA, the PLRA has future effect on future work; this does not raise retro-activity concerns. Respondents contend that the PLRA has retroactive effect in this context because it attaches new legal consequences (a lower pay rate) to conduct completed before enactment. The preenactment conduct that respondents contend is affected is the attorney’s initial decision to file suit on behalf of the prisoner clients. Brief for Respondents 29-31. Even assuming, arguendo, that when the attorneys filed these cases in 1977 and 1980, they had a reasonable expectation that they would be compensated for postjudgment monitoring based on a particular fee schedule (i e., the pre-PLRA, “prevailing market rate” schedule), respondents’ argument that the PLRA affects pre-PLRA conduct fails because it is based on the assumption that the attorney’s initial decision to file a case on behalf of a client is an irrevocable one. In other words, respondents’ argument assumes that once an attorney files suit, she must continue working on that ease until the decree is terminated. Respondents provide no support for this assumption, however. They allude to ethical constraints on an attorney’s ability to withdraw from a case midstream, see Brief for Respondents 29 (“And finally, it is at that time that plaintiffs’ counsel commit themselves ethically to continued representation of their clients to ensure that the Constitution is honored, a course of conduct that cannot lightly be altered”), but they do not seriously contend that the attorneys here were prohibited from withdrawing from the case during the postjudgment monitoring stage, see, e. g., Tr. of Oral Arg. 42-43. It cannot be said that the PLRA changes the legal consequences of the attorneys’ pre-PLRA decision to file the case. C In sum, we conclude that the PLRA contains no express command about its temporal scope. Because we find that the PLRA, if applied to postjudgment monitoring services performed before the effective date of the Act, would have a retroactive effect inconsistent with our assumption that statutes are prospective, in the absence of an express command by Congress to apply the Act retroactively, we decline to do so. Landgraf, 511 U. S., at 280. With respect to postjudgment monitoring performed after the effective date, by contrast, there is no retroactive effect, and the PLRA fees cap applies to such work. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is affirmed in part and reversed in part. It is so ordered. It is so ordered. For the reasons stated in his separate opinion, Justice Scalia joins Parts I, II-A, and II-C of this opinion. For the reasons stated in Justice Ginsburg’s separate opinion, she and Justice Stevens join Parts I, II-A-1, and II-B-1 of this opinion. Subsection (d) of § 803(d) is the fee provision we consider today, and is codified at 42 U. S. C. § 1997e(d). Although that provision is technically §803(d)(d) of the PLRA, like the parties, we refer to it simply as § 803(d) of the PLRA. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

F

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. MR. Justice Black delivered the opinion of the Court. The question here is whether the defendant, in a suit to recover royalties only under a terminated patent license agreement containing price-fixing provisions, can challenge the validity of the patent despite a covenant in the license contract that he would not do so. The petitioner, Edward Katzinger Company, and the respondent, Chicago Metallic Mfg. Company, make and sell tin baking pans. The undenied testimony was that Metallic sold its pans over a large part of the United States, probably in every state in the country. Katzinger became owner of Jackson patent No. 2,077,757 on a certain type of pan. Metallic, accused of infringing, entered into a licensing contract under which, upon payment of stipulated royalties, it was authorized to manufacture and sell pans made in accordance with the claimed invention. Sections 3 and 11 of the license contract, set out below, provided that Metallic, like all other licensees, should sell these pans at prices fixed by Katzinger. Royalties were to be computed on the basis of “net sales” of articles “made in accordance with any of the patents or applications under this license.” Section 14 provided that if Metallic elected to terminate the contract, without ceasing to manufacture the pans, Metallic should “be estopped from denying the validity of said patent . . . and be deemed an infringer thereof.” Metallic maintained the patentee-fixed prices and paid royalties on pans deemed by it to be covered by the patent. A controversy later arose as to whether certain types of pans manufactured by Metallic were covered. Declining to pay royalties on this type of pan, Metallic gave notice of termination of the contract and initiated this action for a declaratory judgment praying that the court declare that the patent was invalid for want of invention and that the controversial pans were not covered by, and did not infringe, any of Katzinger’s patents. Katzinger in an answer and counterclaim alleged, so far as material here, that the patent covered all the Metallic pans, that Metallic was estopped to challenge validity of the patent by § 14 of the contract, and that Metallic either owed royalties or was liable for infringement. It prayed, among other things, for an accounting for unpaid royalties which were to be computed at 2.5% to 5% of the sales price which was governed by the minimum price list attached to the license. In the alternative it prayed that Metallic be required to account for profits and damages as an infringer. The District Court held that Metallic was estopped to challenge the validity of the patents, and, treating them as valid, found that the patent claims did cover all the pans. Accordingly, it ordered an accounting to determine royalties due for the period prior to termination of the license contract, and for infringement damages thereafter. Relying upon our decision in Sola Electric Co. v. Jefferson Electric Co., 317 U. S. 173, the Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. It held that the agreement to fix prices was inseparably connected with the agreement to pay royalties; that if the patent was invalid, the price-fixing provision violated the federal anti-trust laws; that conflict of the price-fixing provision with the anti-trust laws would make the agreement to pay royalties unenforceable; and that the District Court had erred in barring Metallic from challenging the patent’s validity as a predicate to establishing the illegality and consequent unenforceability of the royalty covenant. The cause was remanded to the District Court to pass upon validity of the patent. 139 F. 2d 291. That Court then held the patent invalid and rendered judgment for Metallic. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. 153 F. 2d 149. We granted certiorari because of a conflicting decision in Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. MacGregor, 350 Pa. 333, 38 A. 2d 244. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in the MacGregor case ruled that price-fixing provisions in a license agreement such as the one before us were severable from the agreement to pay royalties, and read our Sola case as though it were a holding that a licensee was estopped to challenge a patent’s validity except in cases where a licensor sought affirmative relief to enforce price-fixing provisions of a license. We need not consider whether under the ruling of Bement v. National Harrow Co., 186 U. S. 70, 87-91, these price-fixing provisions would be lawful if the patent were valid. The question here is entirely different. Nor need we, as it has been suggested, discuss this Court’s opinions in Kinsman v. Parkhurst, 18 How. 289, and United States v. Harvey Steel Co., 196 U. S. 310, which were concerned with particular circumstances there involved. In the Sola case we declined to examine these prior decisions, holding that neither of them was relevant because “no price-fixing stipulation was involved in the license contract” at issue in those cases. So here, it would be inappropriate to re-examine those decisions now. Under what other circumstances a federal rule of estoppel might be applied is a question which can be met when particular facts present it. The Sola case reaffirmed past decisions holding that price-fixing agreements such as those here involved are unenforceable because of violations of the Sherman Act save as they may be within the protection of a lawful patent. That case held further that local rules of estoppel cannot screen such agreements from court scrutiny, and that federal courts must, in the public interest, keep the way open for the challenge of patents which are utilized for price-fixing of interstate goods. It is true that the licensor there not only sought a recovery of royalties, but prayed generally for an injunction to require observance of all the provisions of the license agreement, one of which provisions was for price-fixing. But that the chief object of that suit was to recover royalties and not to require observance of the price-fixing provisions is indicated by the fact that, while breaches of other covenants of the contract were alleged in the petition, and specific prayers for their observance were included, there was no charge that the licensee had breached the price-fixing covenant and there was no specific prayer to require observance of it. Nor did this Court indicate that the patent would have been immune from challenge had the licensor sued for royalties only. This would have permitted a licensor to be protected on an illegal contract merely because he chose one remedy rather than another on the same substantive issue. If we had intended to draw such a fine line, it is hard to believe that such a careful writer as the late Chief Justice would have failed to indicate in the opinion or the mandate of the Court in the Sola case that on remand the trial court, while permitting challenge of the patent to defeat the injunction, must treat the price-fixing provision as severable, and forbid challenge for the purpose of defeating the claim for recovery of royalties. That decision, instead of resting on such a narrow procedural base, was firmly grounded upon the broad ¡public interest in freeing our competitive economy from the trade restraints which might be imposed by price-fixing agreements stemming from narrow or invalid patents. Sola Electric Co, v. Jefferson Electric Co., supra at 177. In Scott Paper Co. v. Marcalus Co., 326 U. S. 249, it was held that even an assignor who had sold a patent issued to itself was free to challenge the validity of the patent and thereby defeat an action for infringement by showing that the invention had been described in an expired patent. In thus emphasizing the necessity of protecting our competitive economy by keeping open the way for interested persons to challenge the validity of patents which might be shown to be invalid, the Court was but stating an often expressed policy that “It is the public interest which is dominant in the patent system." Mercoid Corp. v. Mid-Continent Investment Co., 320 U. S. 661, 665, and that the right to challenge “is not only a private right to the individual, but it is founded on public policy which is promoted by his making the defence, and contravened by his refusal to make it.” Pope Mfg. Co. v. Gormully, 144 U. S. 224, 235. If the question of severability, urged by the petitioner here, were a new one, we should again arrive at the conclusion we reached in the Sola case. Metallic's obligation to pay royalties and its agreement to sell at prices fixed by Katzinger constituted an integrated consideration for the license grant. Consequently, when one part of the consideration is unenforceable because in violation of law, its integrated companion must go with it. See Hazelton v. Sheckells, 202 U. S. 71, 78. Moreover, solicitude for the interest of the public fostered by freedom from invalid patents and from restraints of trade, which has been manifest by the line of decisions of which the Scott Paper Co. and Sola cases are two of the latest examples, requires that there should be no departure from the guiding principles they announced. The royalties here claimed accrued, if they accrued at all, prior to the time the license agreement terminated. Consequently, the fact of subsequent termination does not free the promise to pay royalties from the taint of the price-fixing provision. Nor does the fact, if it be a fact, that Metallic itself suggested the price-fixing provision, bar Metallic's challenge to the patent’s validity. For the contract was still illegal, whoever suggested it, so that there is no less reason for leaving the way open to challenge the patent as a service to the public interest than if Katzinger had suggested price-fixing. Finally, Metallic’s specific contract not to challenge the validity of Katz-inger’s patent can no more override congressional policy than can an implied estoppel. See Scott Paper Co. v. Marcalus Mfg. Co., supra, at 257 and cases cited. Affirmed. [For dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Frankfurter, concurred in by Mr. Justice Reed, Mr. Justice Jackson and Mr. Justice Burton, in this case and in MacGregor v. Westinghouse Mfg. Co., seepost, p. 408.] Other patents, originally in suit, are not involved in this case. “3. Licensor agrees that while this agreement remains in force and effect, if it permits others under license or other agreement to manufacture or sell articles or devices embodying or made in accordance with any of the patents or applications hereinbefore described, upon terms more favorable than those granted the Licensee hereunder, the Licensor shall immediately notify the Licensee hereunder and grant the same terms to the Licensee.” “11. Licensor reserves the right to establish a minimum sales price for the articles or products which Licensee is licensed to manufacture hereunder and to modify or change such minimum prices from time to time during the life of this agreement. The Licensor, as well as Licensee and any other person, persons or corporation licensed by Licensor, shall not, with the consent of Licensor, sell or offer for sale, or otherwise dispose of any of the licensed devices or products below said minimum sales price, or on more favorable terms of sale than those set forth in any such scale of prices so established by Licensor. Contemporaneously with the execution and delivery of this license agreement, Licensee has received from Licensor a schedule of minimum prices, effective as of the date hereof, below which none of the products or devices made under this license shall be sold. Licensor reserves the right, upon thirty (30) days’ notice in writing given by Licensor to Licensee, to change said minimum prices from time to time during the life hereof. On such articles or devices made and sold by Licensee as to which Licensor shall have failed or neglected to establish a minimum sales price, the royalty shall likewise be computed on the net sales price received by Licensee from its customers. Licensee or its duly authorized representatives shall have access from time to time to the books of account of Licensor during ordinary business hours for the purpose of determining whether or not Licensor has complied with the provisions of this paragraph.” Of course it is the unlawful agreement, whether it is executed or not, which violates the anti-trust laws. United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U. S. 150; American Tobacco Co. v. United States, 328 U. S. 781, 809. In the cases here the parties stipulated that "in pursuance of this license agreement Metallic did, for a period of two years more or less, exercise the license therein given by making certain tinware products,” maintaining “minimum prices and paying therefor the applicable royalties.” While the court originally made findings to the effect that Metallic did not attempt to carry out the price-fixing agreement and was willing to have it removed from the contract, these findings were expressly vacated on remand. The schedule of minimum prices incorporated by reference into the license agreement was set out as an exhibit in Katzinger’s counterclaim. The cases cited in the Sola decision rejected contentions that the offending price-fixing provisions should be considered severable from the rest of the contract and therefore enforceable. See e. g., Bement v. National Harrow Co., 186 U. S. 70, 88; Continental Wall Paper Co. v. Louis Voight & Sons Co., 212 U. S. 227, 230, 266. That this Court’s attention was called in the Sola case to this question is shown by examination of the brief filed here for Sola which cited decisions of this Court to support a contention that the provisions for royalties and price-fixing were inseparable and that royalties must be denied if the price-fixing provision were illegal. Morton Salt Co. v. Suppiger Co., 314 U. S. 488; Loud v. Pomona Land & Water Co., 153 U. S. 564, 576; Williams v. Bank of the United States, 2 Pet. 96. See Morton Salt Co. v. Suppiger Co., supra at 492. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy 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 Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court. This case requires interpretation of the “spousal impoverishment” provisions of the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988 (MCCA or Act), 102 Stat. 754, 42 U. S. C. § 1396r-5 (1994 ed. and Supp. V), a complex set of instructions made part of the federal Medicaid statute. The spousal impoverishment provisions permit a spouse living at home (called the “community spouse”) to reserve certain income and assets to meet the minimum monthly maintenance needs he or she will have when the other spouse (the “institutionalized spouse”) is institutionalized, usually in a nursing home, and becomes eligible for Medicaid. The Act shelters from diminution a standard amount of assets (called the “community spouse resource allowance,” “CSRA,” or “resource allowance”). The MCCA allows an increase in the standard allowance if either spouse shows, at a state-administered hearing, that the community spouse will not be able to maintain the statutorily defined minimum level of income on which to live after the institutionalized spouse gains Medicaid eligibility. In determining whether the community spouse is entitled to a higher CSRA, i. e., to shelter assets in excess of the standard resource allowance, Wisconsin, like a majority of other States, uses an “income-first” method. Under that method, the State considers first whether potential income transfers from the institutionalized spouse, which the MCCA expressly permits, will suffice to enable the community spouse to meet monthly needs once the institutionalized spouse qualifies for Medicaid. Respondent Irene Blumer, whose Medicaid eligibility was delayed by the application of petitioner Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services’ income-first method, challenges that method as inconsistent with the MCCA provision governing upward revision of the community spouse resource allowance, § 1396r-5(e)(2)(C) (1994 ed.). The Wisconsin Court of Appeals upheld her challenge. We reverse that court’s judgment. Neither the text of § 1396r-5(e)(2)(C) nor the structure of the MCCA, we conclude, forbids Wisconsin’s chosen approach. Consistent with the position adopted by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, we hold that the income-first method represents a permissible interpretation of the Act. I A The federal Medicaid program provides funding to States that reimburse needy persons for the cost of medical care. See Social Security Act, tit. XIX, as added, 79 Stat. 343, and as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1396 et seq. (1994 ed. and Supp. V). “Each participating State develops a plan containing reasonable standards... for determining eligibility for and the extent of medical assistance” within boundaries set by the Medicaid statute and the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Schweiker v. Gray Panthers, 453 U. S. 34, 36-37 (1981) (internal quotation marks omitted); § 1396a(a)(17) (1994 ed.). In formulating those standards, States must “provide for taking into account only such income and resources as are, as determined in accordance with standards prescribed by the Secretary, available to the applicant.” § 1396a(a)(17)(B) (emphasis added). Because spouses typically possess assets and income jointly and bear financial responsibility for each other, Medicaid eligibility determinations for married applicants have resisted simple solutions. See, e.g., id., at 44-48. Until 1989, the year the MCCA took effect, States generally considered the income of either spouse to be “available” to the other. We upheld this approach in Gray Panthers, observing that “from the beginning of the Medicaid program, Congress authorized States to presume spousal support.” Id., at 44; see id., at 45 (quoting passage from S. Rep. No. 404, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 1, p. 78 (1965), including statement that “it is proper to expect spouses to support each other”). Similarly, assets held jointly by the couple were commonly deemed “available” in full to the institutionalized spouse. At the same time, States generally did not treat resources held individually by the community spouse as available to the institutionalized spouse. Accordingly, assets titled solely in the name of the community spouse often escaped consideration in determining the institutionalized spouse’s Medicaid eligibility. See H. R. Rep. No. 100-105, pt. 2, pp. 66-67 (1987). As Congress later found when it enacted the MCCA in 1988, these existing practices for determining, a married applicant’s income and resources produced unintended consequences. Many community spouses were left destitute by the drain on the couple’s assets necessary to qualify the institutionalized spouse for Medicaid and by the diminution of the couple’s income posteligibility to reduce the amount payable by Medicaid for institutional care. See id., at 66-68. Conversely, couples with ample means could qualify for assistance when their assets were held solely in the community spouse’s name. In the MCCA, Congress sought to protect community spouses from “pauperization” while preventing financially secure couples from obtaining Medicaid assistance. See id., at 65 (bill seeks to “end th[e] pauperization” of the community spouse “by assuring that the community spouse has a sufficient — but not excessive — amount of income and resources available”). To achieve this aim, Congress installed a set of intricate and interlocking requirements with which States must comply in allocating a couple’s income and resources. Income allocation is governed by §§1396r-5(b) and (d). Covering any month in which “an institutionalized spouse is in the institution,” § 1396r-5(b)(l) provides that “no income of the community spouse shall be deemed available to the institutionalized spouse.” The community spouse’s income is thus preserved for that spouse and does not affect the determination whether the institutionalized spouse qualifies for Medicaid. In general, such income is also disregarded in calculating the amount Medicaid will pay for the institutionalized spouse’s care after eligibility is established. Other provisions specifically address income allocation in the period after the institutionalized spouse becomes Medicaid eligible. Section 1396r-5(b)(2)(A) prescribes, as a main rule, that if payment of income is made solely in the name of one spouse, that income is treated as available only to the named spouse (the “name-on-the-check” rule). Section 1396r-5(d) provides a number of exceptions to that main rule designed to ensure that the community spouse and other dependents have income sufficient to meet basic needs. Among the exceptions, § 1396r-5(d)(3) establishes for the community spouse a “minimum monthly maintenance needs allowance,” or MMMNA. The MMMNA is calculated by multiplying the federal poverty level for a couple by a percentage set by the State. Since 1992, that percentage must be at least 150%, §§ 1396r-5(d)(3)(A)-(B), but the resulting MMMNA may not exceed $1,500 per month in 1988 dollars ($2,175 in 2001 dollars), §§ 1396r-5(d)(3)(C), (g). If the income of the community spouse determined under § 1396r-5(b)(2), which states the “name-on-the-check” rule, is insufficient to yield income equal to or above the MMMNA, § 1396r-5(d)(l)(B) comes into play. Under that provision, the amount of the shortfall is “deducted” from the income of the institutionalized spouse — reducing the amount of income that would otherwise be considered available for the institutionalized spouse’s care — so long as that income is actually made available to the community spouse. The amount thus reallocated from the institutionalized spouse to the community spouse is called the “community spouse monthly income allowance,” or CSMIA, § 1396r-5(d)(l)(B). The provision for this allowance ensures that income transferred from the institutionalized spouse to the community spouse to meet the latter’s basic needs is not also considered available for the former’s care. As a result, Medicaid will pay a greater portion of the institutionalized spouse’s medical expenses than it would absent the CSMIA provision. Resource allocation is controlled by §§ 1396r-5(c) and (f). For purposes of establishing the institutionalized spouse’s Medicaid eligibility, a portion of the couple’s assets is reserved for the benefit of the community spouse. §1396r-5(c)(2). To determine that reserved amount (the CSRA), the total of all of the couple’s resources (whether owned jointly or separately) is calculated as of the time the institutionalized spouse’s institutionalization commenced; half of that total is then allocated to each spouse (the “spousal share”). § 1396r-5(c)(l)(A). The spousal share allocated to the community spouse qualifies as the CSRA, subject to a ceiling of $60,000 indexed for inflation (in 2001, the ceiling was $87,000) and a floor, set by the State, between $12,000 and $60,000 (also indexed for inflation; in 2001, the amounts were $17,400 and $87,000). §§ 1396r-5(c)(2)(B), (f)(2)(A), (g). The CSRA is considered unavailable to the institutionalized spouse in the eligibility determination, but all resources above the CSRA (excluding a small sum set aside as a personal allowance for the institutionalized spouse, currently $2,000, see 20 CFR §416.1205 (2001)) must be spent before eligibility can be achieved. § 1396r-5(c)(2). The MCCA provides for a “fair hearing” mechanism through which a couple may challenge the State’s determination of a number of elements that affect eligibility for, or the extent of assistance provided under, Medicaid. §§1396r-5(e). The dispute in this case centers on § 1396r-5(e)(2)(C), which allows a couple to request a higher CSRA. That section provides in relevant part: “If either... spouse establishes that the [CSRA] (in relation to the amount of income generated by such an allowance) is inadequate to raise the community spouse’s income to the [MMMNA], there shall be substituted, for the [CSRA] under subsection (f)(2) of this section, an amount adequate to provide [the MMMNA].” If the couple succeeds in obtaining a higher CSRA, the institutionalized spouse may reserve additional resources for posteligibility transfer to the community spouse. The enhanced CSRA will reduce the resources the statute deems available for the payment of medical expenses; accordingly, the institutionalized spouse will become eligible for Medicaid sooner. In allocating income and resources between spouses for purposes of § 1396r-5(e)(2)(C), the States have employed two divergent methods: an “income-first” method, used by most States; and a “resources-first” method, preferred by the others. The two methods differ in their construction of the term “community spouse’s income” in subsection (e)(2)(C). Under the income-first method, “community spouse’s income” is defined to include not only the community spouse’s actual income at the time of the § 1396r-5(e) fair hearing, but also a potential posteligibility income transfer from the institutionalized spouse — the CSMIA authorized by § 1396r-5(d)(1)(B), see supra, at 481-482. Thus, only if the community spouse’s preeligibility income plus the CSMIA will fall below the MMMNA may the couple reserve a greater portion of assets through an enhanced CSRA. . The resources-first method, by contrast, excludes the CSMIA from consideration. “Community spouse’s income” under that approach includes only income actually received by the community spouse at the time of the § 1396r-5(e) hearing, not any anticipated posteligibility income transfer from the institutionalized spouse pursuant to § 1396r-5(d)(l)(B). If the community spouse’s income so defined will fall below the MMMNA, the CSRA will be raised to reserve additional assets sufficient to generate income meeting the shortfall, whether or not the CSMIA could also accomplish that task. In sum, the income-first method, because it takes account of the potential CSMIA, makes it less likely that the CSRA will be increased; it therefore tends to require couples to expend additional resources before the institutionalized spouse becomes Medicaid eligible. The Secretary of Health and Human Services has issued several statements supporting the income-first method. Initially, the Secretary interpreted the MCCA as requiring state hearing officers to use that method. See HCFA, Chicago Regional State Letter No. 51-93 (Dec. 1993), App. to Pet. for Cert. 78a-83a. More recently, the Secretary has concluded that the Act permits both income-first and “some other reasonable interpretation of the law.” HCFA, Chicago Regional State Letter No. 22-94, p. 2 (July 1994), App. to Pet. for Cert. 89a. The Secretary has circulated for comment a proposed rule “allowing] States the threshold choice of using either the income-first or resources-first method when determining whether the community spouse has sufficient income to meet minimum monthly maintenance needs.” 66 Fed. Reg. 46763, 46765 (2001). The proposed rule details the Secretary’s reasons for concluding that the Act does not “clearly requir[e] the use of either [method] to the exclusion of the other.” Id., at 46767. Accordingly, “in view of the cooperative federalism considerations embodied in the Medicaid program,” id., at 46765, the Secretary found it appropriate to “leave to States the decision as to which alternative to use,” id., at 46767. B The facts of this case illustrate the operation of the Act and the different consequences of the income-first and resources-first. approaches. Irene Blumer was admitted to a Wisconsin nursing home in 1994 and applied for Medicaid assistance in 1996 through her husband Burnett. In accord with § 1396r-5(c), the Green County Department of Human Services (County) determined that as of Irene’s institutionalization in 1994, the couple’s resources amounted to $145,644. Dividing this amount evenly between the Blumers, the County attributed $72,822 to each spouse. Burnett was allocated this $72,822 share as his CSRA, and Irene was entitled to reserve a personal allowance of $2,000, 20 CFR §416.1205 (2001). Combining these sums, the County determined that the Blumers could retain $74,822 in assets. The County next found that, as of the date of Irene’s application, the Blumers’ resources had been reduced from $145,644 to $89,335. That amount exceeded by $14,513 the couple’s resource eligibility threshold. The County accordingly concluded that Irene would not be eligible for Medicaid until the couple’s assets were spent down to the $74,822 limit. Seeking to obtain a higher CSRA, Irene requested a hearing. For purposes of the hearing, Burnett’s monthly income amounted to $1,639, consisting of $1,015 in Social Security benefits, $309 from an annuity, and $315 generated by the assets protected in his CSRA. Irene argued that because Burnett’s monthly income fell below the applicable MMMNA of $1,727, the examiner was obliged to increase his CSRA, thereby protecting additional assets capable of covering the income shortfall. Excluding Irene’s $2,000 personal allowance, the Blumers’ total remaining assets exceeded Burnett’s $72,822 standard CSRA, as just noted, by $14,513, an amount generating roughly $63 in monthly income. Attributing that income to Burnett would have raised his monthly income to $1,702, still $25 short of the MMMNA. Thus, had the hearing officer applied the resources-first method — addressing Burnett’s income shortfall by first reserving additional assets for his benefit — the examiner would have increased Burnett’s CSRA to encompass all of the Blumers’ remaining available resources, and Irene would have become immediately eligible for Medicaid. The remaining $25 deficit in Burnett’s income could then have been covered posteligi-bility by a monthly transfer of income (or CSMIA) from Irene, who at the time of the hearing received $927 per month in Social Security and $336 from a pension. Wisconsin, however, has adopted the income-first rule by statute: “If either spouse establishes at a fair hearing that the community spouse resource allowance determined under sub. (6)(b) without a fair hearing does not generate enough income to raise the community spouse’s income to the [MMMNA]..., the department shall establish an amount to be used under sub. (6)(b)3. that results in a community spouse resource allowance that generates enough income to raise the community spouse’s income to the [MMMNA].... Except in exceptional cases which would result in financial duress for the community spouse, the department may not establish an amount to be used under sub. (6)(b)3. unless the institutionalized spouse makes available to the community spouse the maximum monthly income allowance permitted under sub. a)(b).” Wis. Stat. §49.455(8)(d) (1999-2000) (emphasis added). Applying this rule, the hearing examiner concluded that he was without authority to increase Burnett’s CSRA: The difference between Burnett’s monthly income and the MMMNA could be erased if, after achieving eligibility, Irene made available to Burnett $88 per month from her own income. This, the examiner concluded, Irene would be able to do; accordingly, there was no need to reserve additional assets for Burnett, and no acceleration in Irene’s Medicaid eligibility. The following table illustrates the differences between the income-first and resources-first methods as applied to the Blumers: The hearing examiner’s determination was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Green County. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals, however, reversed. Concluding that the MCCA unambiguously mandates the resources-first method, the Wisconsin appellate court declared that the State’s income-first statute impermissibly conflicts with federal law. 2000 WI App. 150, 237 Wis. 2d 810, 615 N. W. 2d 647. The Wisconsin Supreme Court denied discretionary review. The decision of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, holding the income-first method impermissible and the resources-first method required, accords with the position adopted by Ohio intermediate appellate courts. See, e. g., Kimnach v. Ohio Dept. of Human Servs., 96 Ohio App. 3d 640, 647, 645 N. E. 2d 825, 829-830 (1994), appeal not allowed, 71 Ohio St. 3d 1447, 644 N. E. 2d 409 (1995). Most courts to consider the issue, however, including the highest courts of New York and Massachusetts, as well as two Federal Courts of Appeals, have upheld the Secretary’s view that the Act permits the income-first method. See Cleary ex rel. Cleary v. Waldman, 167 F. 3d 801, 805 (CA3), cert. denied, 528 U. S. 870 (1999); Chambers v. Ohio Dept. of Human Servs., 145 F. 3d 793, 801 (CA6), cert. denied, 525 U. S. 964 (1998); Golf v. New York State Div. of Soc. Servs., 91 N. Y. 2d 656, 662, 697 N. E. 2d 555, 558 (1998); Thomas v. Commissioner of Div. of Medical Assistance, 425 Mass. 738, 746, 682 N. E. 2d 874, 879 (1997). We granted certiorari to resolve this conflict, 533 U. S. 927 (2001), and now reverse the judgment of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. II The question presented is whether the income-first prescription of the Wisconsin statute, requiring that potential income transfers from the institutionalized spouse be considered part of the “community spouse’s income” for purposes of determining whether a higher CSRA is necessary, conflicts with the MCCA. The answer to that question, the parties agree, turns on whether the words “community spouse’s income” in § 1396r-5(e)(2)(C) may be interpreted to include potential, posteligibility transfers of income from the institutionalized spouse permitted by § 1396r-5(d)(l)(B). In line with the decision of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, 2000 WI App. 150, ¶ 20, but in conflict with the weight of lower court authority, see, e. g., Cleary, 167 F. 3d, at 807; Chambers, 145 F. 3d, at 802, Blumer first argues that the plain meaning of the term “community spouse’s income” unambiguously precludes the income-first method. She does not dispute that a monthly allowance regularly transferred from one spouse to the other could qualify as “income” under any relevant definition, but instead focuses on the modifier “community spouse’s,” contending that “[b]y choosing the possessive... Congress clearly expressed its intent that the income possessed by the community spouse” is the relevant measure. Brief for Respondent 16. We disagree. Congress’ use of the possessive case does not demand construction of “community spouse’s income” to mean only income actually possessed by, rather than available or attributable to, the community spouse; to the contrary, the. use of the possessive is often indeterminate. See J. Taylor, Possessives in English: An Exploration in Cognitive Grammar 2 (1996) (“[T]he entity denoted by a possessor nominal does not necessarily possess (in the everyday, legalistic sense of the term) the entity denoted by the possessee.”); see also Smiley v. Citibank (South Dakota), N. A., 517 U. S. 735, 739 (1996) (questioning characterization of a statutory term as unambiguous when its meaning has generated a division of opinion in the lower courts). Blumer maintains as well that the “design of the Act as a whole” precludes use of the income-first method. K mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U. S. 281, 291 (1988). She relies heavily, as did the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, 2000 WI App. 150, ¶¶ 21-23, on the Act’s distinction between rules governing the initial Medicaid eligibility determination and those that apply posteligibility to the extent-of-assistance calculation. See Brief for Respondent 17-18. Blumer notes that the (e)(2)(C) hearing to obtain an enhanced CSRA occurs only at the time an eligibility assessment is conducted, while no CSMIA income is transferred until after eligibility has been achieved, see supra, at 481-482. This sequence, she contends, shows that Congress intended the CSRA enhancement and the CSMIA to operate at discrete stages: The former remedies a shortfall in the income possessed by the community spouse prior to eligibility, while the latter provides further relief posteligibility if the previous CSRA enhancement proves inadequate. See Brief for Respondent 18. Because the Wisconsin statute requires imputation of the CSMIA to the community spouse before additional assets may be reserved, Blumer concludes, the statute reverses the priority established by the MCCA. In accord with the Secretary, we do not agree that Congress circumscribed the (e)(2)(C) hearing in the manner Blumer urges. Although that hearing is conducted pre-eligibility, its purpose is to anticipate the posteligibility financial situation of the couple. The procedure seeks to project what the community spouse’s income will be when the institutionalized spouse becomes eligible. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 14 (officer conducting (e)(2)(C) hearing makes a calculation that “concerns the post eligibility period”; question is will “the at-home spouse... have sufficient income in the post eligibility period, or does the resource allowance need to be jacked up in order to provide that additional income”). The hearing officer must measure that projected income against the MMMNA, a standard ■ that, like the CSMIA, is operative only posteligibility. §§ 1396r~5(b)(2), (d)(3). In short, if the (e)(2)(C) hearing is properly comprehended as a preeligibility projection of the couple’s posteligibility situation, as we think it is, we do not count it unreasonable for a State to include in its estimation of the “community spouse’s income” in that posteligibility period an income transfer that may then occur. Blumer’s skewed view of the (e)(2)(C) hearing also underlies the contention, advanced at oral argument, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 6-10, that the income-first method renders meaningless the Act’s key prohibition against deeming income of the community spouse available to the institutionalized one. § 1396r-5(b)(l). According to this argument, including the CSMIA as part of the “community spouse’s income” under subsection (e)(2)(C) effectively converts some income of the institutionalized spouse into income of the community spouse. And prior to eligibility, the argument continues, all of the institutionalized spouse’s income is considered available for medical expenses. § 1396a(a)(10)(A); 42 CFR §435.120 (2000). Thus, the theory concludes, under income-first the CSMIA would, as a logical matter, be considered both “community spouse’s income” and “available” for the institutionalized spouse’s medical expenses in clear contravention of subsection (b)(1). This argument confuses the inclusion of a projected CSMIA in the preeligibility calculation of the community spouse’s posteligibility income with the actual transfer of income contemplated by the CSMIA provision. The (e)(2)(C) hearing is, again, simply a projection of the state of affairs that will exist posteligibility. The theoretical incorporation of a CSMIA into the community spouse’s future income at that hearing has no effect on the preeligibility allocation of income between the spouses. A CSMIA becomes part of the community spouse’s income only when it is in fact transferred to that spouse, § 1396r-5(d)(l)(B), which may not occur until “[a]fter [the] institutionalized spouse is determined... to be eligible.” § 1396r-5(d)(l). At that point, the actual CSMIA is deducted from the institutionalized spouse’s income, ibid., and is no longer available for medical expenses. Thus, at all times the rule of subsection (b)(1) is honored, for at no time is any income of the community spouse simultaneously deemed available to the institutionalized spouse. Far from precluding Wisconsin’s chosen approach, the MCCA’s design offers affirmative support for the permissibility of the income-first method, Subsection (b)(1), prohibiting attribution of the community spouse’s income to the institutionalized spouse, has no counterpart running in the opposite direction. Indeed, the Act specifically provides for a transfer of income from the institutionalized spouse to the community spouse through the CSMIA. § 1396r-5(d)(l)(B). Mindful of the Medicaid program’s background principle that “it is proper to expect spouses to support each other,” Gray Panthers, 453 U. S., at 45 (quoting S. Rep. No. 404, pt. 1, at 78) (internal quotation marks omitted), we are satisfied that a State reasonably interprets the MCCA by anticipating the CSMIA in the (e)(2)(C) hearing. We further note that subsection (e), governing fair hearings in general, is not limited to a redetermination of the CSRA. It also permits a hearing if the couple is dissatisfied with: “(i) the [CSMIA]; “(ii) the amount of monthly income otherwise available to the community spouse...; “(iii) the computation of the spousal share of resources under subsection (c)(1) of this section; [and] “(iv) the attribution of resources under subsection (c)(2) of this section.” § 1396r-5(e)(2)(A). Given that the CSMIA itself may be adjusted in a fair hearing under subsection (e)(2)(A)(i), we cannot conclude that the States are forbidden to consider the projected CSMIA in the related hearing, authorized by subsection (e)(2)(A)(v), to increase the CSRA. Accord, Cleary, 167 F. 3d, at 810. H-1 HH We thus hold that the income-first method is a permissible means of implementing the Act. The parties here have not also disputed the permissibility of the resources-first approach. We therefore do not definitively resolve that matter, although we note that the leeway for state choices urged by both Wisconsin and the United States is characteristic of Medicaid. The Medicaid statute, in which the MCCA is implanted, is designed to advance cooperative federalism. See Harris v. McRae, 448 U. S. 297, 308 (1980). When interpreting other statutes so structured, we have not been reluctant to leave a range of permissible choices to the States, at least where the superintending federal agency has concluded that such latitude is consistent with the statute’s aims. In Batterton v. Francis, 432 U. S. 416, 429 (1977), for example, we upheld a regulation promulgated by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare affording the States discretion in the implementation of the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) unemployed parent program. The challenged regulation allowed States to cover or exclude from coverage persons whose unemployment resulted from participation in a labor dispute or whose conduct would disqualify them for benefits under the State’s compensation law. Noting that the AFDC program involved the “concept of cooperative federalism,” id., at 431, we concluded that the Secretary had the authority to “recognize some local options in determining... eligibility,” id., at 430. Similarly, in Lukhard v. Reed, 481 U. S. 368 (1987), a plurality of this Court concluded that Virginia’s policy of treating personal injury awards as income rather than resources under the AFDC program was reasonable and consistent with federal law, see id., at 377-381. The superintending federal agency, the plurality pointed out, had for many years permitted Virginia’s choice while allowing other States to treat such awards as resources. Id., at 378. The Secretary of Health and Human Services, who possesses the authority to prescribe standards relevant to the issue here, § 1396a(a)(17), has preliminarily determined that the MCCA permits both the income-first and resources-first methods. See 66 Fed. Reg. 46763, 46767 (2001); HCFA, Chicago Regional State Letter No. 22-94, at 2, App. to Pet. for Cert. 89a. In a recently proposed rule, the Secretary declared that “in the spirit of Federalism,” the Federal Government “should leave to States the decision as to which alternative [income-first or resources-first] to use.” 66 Fed. Reg. 46768, 46767 (2001). The Secretary’s position warrants respectful consideration. Cf. United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U. S. 218 (2001); Thomas Jefferson Univ. v. Shalala, 512 U. S. 504, 512 (1994) (reliance on Secretary’s “significant expertise” particularly appropriate in the ¡context of “a complex and highly technical regulatory program” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Gray Panthers, 453 U. S., at 43-44 (Secretary granted “exceptionally broad authority” under the Medicaid statute). As Blumer acknowledges, Brief for Respondent 31-32, the MCCA affords large discretion to the States on two related variables: the level of the MMMNA accorded the community spouse, § 1396r-5(d)(3), see supra, at 481, and the amount of assets the couple is permitted to retain, § 1396r-5(f)(2)(A), see supra, at 482-483. Nothing in the Act indicates to us that similar latitude is inappropriate with respect to the application of subsection (e)(2)(C). Eliminating the discretion to choose income-first would hinder a State’s efforts to “strik[e] its own balance” in the implementation of the Act. Lukhard, 481 U. S., at 383. States that currently allocate limited funds through the income-first approach would have little choice but to offset the greater expense of the resources-first method by reducing the MMMNA or the standard CSRA. Such an alteration would benefit couples seeking Medicaid who possess significant resources — “not... a lot of people” by Blumer’s own account, Tr. of Oral Arg. 38 — while offering nothing to, and perhaps disadvantaging, those who do not, couples for whom the other variables provide the primary protection against spousal impoverishment. Blumer would thus have us conclude that Congress pushed States toward altering standards that affect every person covered by the MCCA in order to install, without any increased spending, a resources-first rule that affects only those whose assets exceed the formula resources allowance. We perceive nothing in the Act contradicting the Secretary’s conclusion that such a result is unnecessary and unwarranted. * * * For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. The Secretary has delegated his rulemaking power to the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), see Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority for the Dept, of Health and Human Services, Pt. F, 46 Fed. Reg. 13262-13263 (1981), now called the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, see 66 Fed. Reg. 35437 (2001). We nevertheless refer throughout this opinion to the Secretary as the entity charged with interpretive authority. The State must also provide for an “excess shelter allowance” if necessary to cover, inter alia, unusually high rent or mortgage payments. §§ 1396r-5(d)(3)(A)(ii), (d)(4). Either spouse may request a hearing to seek a higher MMMNA for the community spouse; such an increase will be allowed if the couple establishes “exceptional circumstances resulting in significant financial duress.” § 1396r-5(e)(2)(B). The Act excludes from the definition of “resources” the couple’s home,. one automobile, personal belongings, and certain other forms of property. §§ 1382b(a) (1994 ed. and Supp. V), 1396r-5(c)(5) (1994 ed.). Once the institutionalized spouse is determined to be eligible, “no resources [gained by] the community spouse shall be deemed available to the institutionalized spouse.” § 1396r-5(c)(4). As the United States points out, Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 8, n. 4, the MCCA technically defines the CSRA as only a portion of the assets protected for the benefit of the community spouse. Under § 1396r-5(f)(2), the CSRA denotes the amount by which the community spouse’s “spousal share” of the couple’s resources falls below the resource allowance set by Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

J

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Per Curiam. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals of the State of New York is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion of this Court in Jackson v. Denno, ante, p. 368. Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Clark, Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Stewart dissent for the reasons stated in their dissenting opinions in Jackson v. Denno, supra. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

A

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr. Justice Douglas delivered the opinion of the Court. When the Court in 1793 held that a State could be sued in the federal courts by a citizen of another State (Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419), the Eleventh Amendment was passed precluding it. But this is an immunity which a State may waive at its pleasure (Missouri v. Fiske, 290 U. S. 18, 24) as by a general appearance in litigation in a federal court (Clark v. Barnard, 108 U. S. 436, 447-448) or by statute. Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury, 323 U. S. 459, 468-470. The conclusion that there has been a waiver of immunity will not be lightly inferred. Murray v. Wilson Distilling Co., 213 U. S. 151, 171. Nor will a waiver of. immunity from suit in state courts do service for a waiver of immunity where the litigation is brought in the federal court. Chandler v. Dix, 194 U. S. 590, 591-592. And where a public instrumentality is created with the.right “to sue and be sued” that waiver of immunity in the particular setting may be restricted to suits or proceedings of a special character in the state, not the federal, courts. Cf. Delaware River Comm’n v. Colburn, 310 U. S. 419. Suits against agencies of a State based on maritime torts are no exception to these rules. Ex parte New York, 256 U. S. 490. The question here is whether Tennessee and Missouri have waived their immunity under the facts of this case. Congress, under conditions specified in 33 U. S. C. § 525 et seg., gave its consent to the construction of bridges over the navigable waters in the United States. Respondent is a “body corporate and politic” created by Missouri (13 Vernon’s Ann. Stat., Tit. 14, § 234.360) and Tennessee (P. L. 1949, cc. 167, 168) acting pursuant to the Compact Clause of the Constitution. Art. I, § 10, cl. 3. The compact prepared by the two States and submitted to the Congress provided in Art. I, §§ 1 and 2, that respondent should have the power to build a bridge and operate ferries across the Mississippi at specified points and in Art. I, § 3, that it should have the power “to contract, to sue and be sued in its own name.” Congress granted its consent to the compact, 63 Stat. 930, stating in a proviso: “That nothing herein contained- shall be construed to affect, impair, or diminish any right, power, or jurisdiction of the United States or of any court, department, board, bureau, officer, or official of the United States, over or in regard to any navigable waters, or any commerce between the States or with foreign countries, or any .bridge, railroad, highway, pier, wharf, or' other facility or improvement, or any other person, matter, or thing, forming the subject matter of the .aforesaid compact or agreement or otherwise affected by the terms thereof.” (Italics added.) The facts are that petitioner’s husband was employed on a ferryboat operated by respondent as a common carrier ácross the Mississippi between a point in Missouri and one in Tennessee. He met his death when he was trapped in the pilothouse of the ferryboat as it sank, following a collision with another boat. Suit was brought under the Jones Act, 46 U. S. C. § 688, charging respondent with negligence. The District Court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that respondent is an agency of the States of Tennessee and Missouri and immune from suit in tort. 153 F. Supp. 512. The Court of Appeals, agreeing with that view, affirmed. 254 F. 2d 857. The case is here on certiorari: 358 U. S. 811. The construction of a compact sanctioned by Congress under Art. I, § 10, cl. 3, of the Constitution presents a federal question. Delaware River Comm’n v. Colburn, supra, at 427. Moreover, the meaning of a compact is a question on which this Court has the final say. Dyer v. Sims, 341 U. S. 22, 28: The rule is no different when the contention is that a State has, by compact, waived its immunity from suit. Of course, when the alleged basis of waiver of the Eleventh Amendment’s immunity is a state statute, the question to be answered is whether the State has intended to waive its immunity. Chandler v. Dix, supra. But where the waiver is, as here, claimed to arise from a compact between several States, the Court is called on to interpret not unilateral state action but the terms of a consensual agreement, the meaning of which, because made by different States acting under the Constitution and with congressional approval, is a question, of federal law. Delaware River Comm’n v. Colburn, supra: In making that interpretation we must, treat the compact as a living interstate agreement which performs high functions in our federalism, including the operation of vast interstate enterprises. The Court of Appeals laid emphasis on the law of Missouri, which, it said, construes a sue-and-be-sued provision as-not authorizing a suit for negligence against a public corporation. It likewise cited Tennessee decisions strictly construing statutes permitting suits against the State. We assume arguendo that this suit must be considered as one against the States since this bi-state corporation is a joint or common agency of Tennessee and Missouri. But we disagree with the construction given by the Court of Appeals to the sue-and-be-sued clause. For the resolution of that question we turn to federal not state law. Congress might of course adopt as federal law the law of either or both of the States. Delaware River Comm’n v. Colburn, supra. Cf. Commissioner v. Stern, 357 U. S. 39; Helvering v. Stuart, 317 U. S. 154; Myers v. Matley, 318 U. S. 622. But Congress took, no such step here. It approved a sue-and-be-sued clause in a compact under conditions that make it clear that the States accepting it waived any immunity from suit which they otherwise might have. This compact, approved by Congress in 1949, was made in an era when the immunity of corporations performing governmental functions was not in favor in the federal field. In Keifer & Keifer v. Reconstruction Finance Corp., 306 U. S. 381, decided nearly 10 years before the present compact was made, the authority to sue and be sued contained in a federal charter granted a government corporation was held to be broad enough to include suits in torts, at least where the duties relied upon “have their source in contract even though the guilty agents may be merely tort-feasors.” Id., at 395. There the underlying contract was a bailment; here it is employment. To draw a distinction in either, the Keifer case or in this case between- tort and contract would be to “make application-of a steadily growing policy of governmental liability contingent upon irrelevant procedural factors. These, in our law, are still deeply rooted in historical accidents to which the expanding conceptions of public morality regarding governmental responsibility should not be subordinated.” Id., at 396. This case, like the Keifer case, involves the launching of a governmental corporation into an industrial or business field. ‘In view of the federal climate of opinion which by that time had grown up around the sue-and-be-sued clause, we cannot believe that Congress intended to confine it more narrowly here than in the Keifer case. But we need not rest on that alone. Congress, when it approved this compact, attached a condition that “nothing herein contained shall be construed to affect, impair, or diminish any right, power, or jurisdiction of . . . any court . ; . of the United States over or in regard to any navigable waters or any commerce between the States . . . We need not stop to catalogue all the ends that may be served by this proviso. See S. Rep. No. 1198, 81st Cong., 1st Sess.; H. R. Rep. No. 1429, 81st Cong., 1st Sess. It is argued that the proviso was included to make plain that the bonds issued by the agency were taxable by the United States.' We must go further, however, to find a rational purpose since another proviso of the Act of Congress specifically stated: “That any obligations issued and outstanding, including the income derived therefrom, under the terms of the compact or agreement^ and any amendments thereto, shall be subject to the tax laws of the United States.” Whatever may be the several effects of the other proviso with which we are presently concerned, one result seems to us clear. This proviso, read in light of the sue-and-be-sued clause in the compact, reserves the jurisdiction of the federal courts to act in any matter arising under the compact over which they would have jurisdiction by virtue of the fact that the Mississippi is a navigable stream and that interstate commerce is involved. There is no more apt illustration of the involvement of the commerce power and the power over maritime matters than the Jones Act. O’Donnell v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 318 U. S. 36, 39-43. This is not enlarging the jurisdiction of. the federal courts but only recognizing as one of its appropriate applications the business activities of an agency active in commerce and maritime matters. The States who are parties to the compact by accepting it and acting under it assume the conditions that Congress under the Constitution attached. So if there be doubt as to the meaning of the sue-and-be-sued clause in the setting of the compact prior to approval by Congress, the doubt dissipates when the condition attached by Congress is accepted and acted upon by the two States. Finally we can find no more reason for excepting state or bi-state corporations from “employer” as Used in the Jones Act than we could for excepting them either from the Safety Appliance Act (United States v. California, 297 U. S. 175) or the Railway Labor Act (California v. Taylor, 353 U. S. 553). In the latter case we reviewed at length federal legislation governing employer-employee relationships and said, “When Congress wished to exclude state employees, it expressly so provided.” 353 U. S., at 564. The Jones Act (46 U. S. C. § 688) has no exceptions from tíie broad sweep of the words “Any seaman who shall suffer personal injury in the course of his employment may” etc. The rationale of United States v. California, supra, and California v. Taylor, supra, makes it impossible for us to mark a distinction here and hold that this bi-state agency is not an employer under the Jones Act. Reversed. Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Clark and Mr. Justice Stewart concur in the judgment and opinion of the Court with the understanding that we do not reach the constitutional question as to whether the Eleventh Amendment immunizes from suit agencies created by' two or more States under state compacts which the Constitution requires to. be approved by the Congress. “When Chisholm dared to sue the ‘sovereign state’ of Georgia, all the states were so indignant that Congress moved with vehement speed to prevent subsequent affronts to the dignity of states. More than the dignity of a sovereign state was probably at issue, however. When the Eleventh Amendment was proposed many states were in financial difficulties and had defaulted on their debts. The states could therefore use the new amendment not only in • defense of theoretical sovereignty but also in a more practical way to forestall suits by individual creditors!” Irish and Prothro, The Politics of American Democracy (1959), p. 123. “The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to apy suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” “No State shall, without the consent of Congress, . . . enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State That is true even though the matter in dispute concerns a question of state law on which the courts or other agencies of the State have spoken. Dyer v. Sims, 341 U. S. 22, 30-32. While we show deference to state law in construing a compact, state law as pronounced, in prior adjudications and rulings is not binding. Ibid. The Court in Hinderlider v. La Plata Co., 304 U. S. 92, 104, spoke of two methods under our Constitution of settling controversies between States. One is our original jurisdiction defined in Art. Ill, §2. The other is the compact: “The compact — the legislative means — adapts to our Union of sovereign States the age-old treaty-making power of independent sovereign nations. Adjustment by compact without a judicial or quasi-judicial determination of existing rights had been practiced in the Colonies, was practiced by the States before the adoption of the Constitution, and had been extensively practiced in the United States for nearly half a century before this Court first applied the judicial means in settling the boundary dispute in Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. 657, 723-25.” See Port of New York Authority, 42 Stat. 174; New York and New Jersey Tunnel Agreement, 41 Stat. 158; Kansas City Water Works Agreement, 42 Stat. 1058; New York-Vermont Bridge Agreement, 45 Stat. 120; Delaware River Toll Bridge Compact, 61 Stat. 752; Menominee River Bridge Compact, 45 Stat. 300. “Historically the consent of Congress, as a prerequisite to the validity of agreements by States, appears as the republican transformation of the needed approval by the Crown. . But the Constitution plainly had two very practical objectives in view in conditioning agreement by States upon consent of Congress. For only Congress is the appropriate organ for' determining what arrangements between States might fall within the prohibited class of ‘Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation’, and what arrangements come within the permissive class of ‘Agreement or Compact.’ But even the permissive agreements may affect the interests of States other than those parties to the agreement: the national, and not merely a regional, interest may be involved. Therefore, Congress must exercise national supervision through its power to grant or withhold consent, or to.grant it under appropriate conditions. The framers thus astutely created a mechanism of legal control over affairs that are projected beyond State lines and yet may not call for, nor be capable of, national treatment. They allowed interstate adjustments but duly safeguarded the national interest.” Frankfurter and Landis, The Compact Clause of the Constitution — A Study in Interstate Adjustments, 34 Yale L. J. 685, 694^695. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

H

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Per Curiam. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The •judgment is reversed. Chapman v. California, ante, p. 18. Mr. Justice Black and'Mr. Justice Clark are of the opinion that the judgment should be vacated and the case remanded for further consideration in light of Chapman v. California, supra. Mr. Justice Harlan would affirm the judgment below for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in Chapman v. California, supra, at 45. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy 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. We are called upon in this case to construe, for the first time, the Twenty-fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.” The precise issue is whether § 24-17.2 of the Virginia Code — which provides that in order to qualify to vote in federal elections one must either pay a poll tax or file a witnessed or notarized certificate of residence— contravenes this command. Prior to the adoption of the Twenty-fourth Amendment, the Virginia Constitution (Art. II, §§ 18-20) and statutes (Va. Code Ann. §§ 24^17, 24-67 (1950)) established uniform standards for qualification for voting in both federal and state elections. The requirements were: (1) United States citizenship; (2) a minimum age of twenty-one; (3) residence in the State for one year, in the city or county for six months, and in the voting precinct for thirty days; and (4) payment “at least six months prior to the election ... to the proper officer all State poll taxes [$1.50 annually] assessed or assessable against him for three years next preceding such election.” The statutes further provided for permanent registration. Once registered, the voters could qualify for elections in subsequent years merely by paying the poll taxes. In 1963, in anticipation of the promulgation of the Twenty-fourth Amendment, the Governor of Virginia convened a special session of the Virginia General Assembly. On November 21 of that year, the General Assembly enacted two Acts designed “(1) to enable persons to register and vote in Federal elections without the payment of poll tax or other tax as required by the 24th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, (2) to continue in effect in all other elections the present registration and voting requirements of the Constitution of Virginia, and (3) to provide methods by which all persons registered to vote in Federal or other elections may prove that they meet the residence requirements of Section 18 of the Constitution of Virginia.” No changes were made with regard to qualification for voting in state elections. With regard to federal elections, however, the payment of a poll tax as an absolute prerequisite to registration and voting was eliminated, and a provision was added requiring the federal voter to file a certificate of residence in each election year or, at his option, to pay the customary poll taxes. The statute provides that the certificate of residence must be filed no earlier than October 1 of the year immediately preceding that in which the voter desires to vote and not later than six months prior to the election. The voter must state in the certificate (which must be notarized or witnessed) his present address, that he is currently a resident of Virginia, that he has been a resident since the date of his registration, and that he does not presently intend to remove from the city or county of which he is a resident prior to the next general election. Va. Code Ann. §24-17.2 (1964 Supp.). Thus, as a result of the 1963 Acts, a citizen after registration may vote in both federal and state elections upon the payment of all assessable poll taxes. Va. Code Ann. § 24-17 (1964 Supp.). If he has not paid such taxes he cannot vote in state elections, and may vote in federal elections only upon filing a certificate of residence in each election year. Va. Code Ann. §§ 24-17.1, 24-17.2 (1964 Supp.). The present appeal originated as two separate class actions, brought by appellees in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, attacking the foregoing provisions of the 1963 Virginia legislation as violative of Art. I, § 2, of the Constitution of the United States, and the Fourteenth, Seventeenth, and Twenty-fourth Amendments thereto. The complaints, which prayed for declaratory and injunctive relief, named as defendants (appellants here) the three members of the Virginia State Board of Elections and, in one case, the County Treasurer of Roanoke County, Virginia, and, in the other, the Director of Finance of Fairfax County. The jurisdiction of the District Court was invoked pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §§ 1331, 1343, 2201 (1958 ed.), and a court of three judges was convened pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §§ 2281, 2284 (1958 ed.). The District Court denied the State’s motion to stay the proceedings in order to give the Virginia courts an opportunity to resolve the issues and interpret the statutes involved. The court further denied the State’s motions to dismiss for failure to join indispensable parties, for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted, and for want of a justiciable controversy.* On the merits, the District Court held that the certificate of residence requirement was “a distinct qualification” or at least an “increase [in] the quantum of necessary proof of residence” imposed solely on the federal voter, and that it therefore violated Art. I, § 2, and the Seventeenth Amendment, which provide that electors choosing a Representative or Senator in the Congress of the United States “shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature.” The court rejected the argument that the residency certificate was merely a method, like the poll tax, of proving the residence qualification which is imposed on both federal and state voters. Accordingly, the District Court entered an order declaring invalid the portions of the 1963 Virginia legislation which required the filing of a certificate of residence and enjoining appellants from requiring compliance by a voter with said portions of the 1963 Acts. We noted probable jurisdiction. 379 U. S. 810. We hold that § 24^17.2 is repugnant to the Twenty-fourth Amendment and affirm the decision of th.e District Court on that basis. We therefore find it unnecessary to determine whether that section violates Art. I, § 2, and the Seventeenth Amendment. I. At the outset, we are faced with the State’s contention that the District Court should have stayed the proceedings until the courts of Virginia had been afforded a reasonable opportunity to pass on underlying issues of state law and to construe the statutes involved. We hold that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to postpone the exercise of its jurisdiction. In applying the doctrine of abstention, a federal district court is vested with discretion to decline to exercise or to postpone the exercise of its jurisdiction in deference to state court resolution of underlying issues of state law. Railroad Comm’n v. Pullman Co., 312 U. S. 496. Where resolution of the federal constitutional question is dependent upon, or may be materially altered by, the determination of an uncertain issue of state law, abstention may be proper in order to avoid unnecessary friction in federal-state relations, interference with important state functions, tentative decisions on questions of state law, and premature constitutional adjudication. E. g., Railroad Comm’n v. Pullman Co.¡ supra. The doctrine, however, contemplates that deference to state court adjudication only be made where the issue of state law is uncertain. Davis v. Mann, 377 U. S. 678, 690; McNeese v. Board of Education, 373 U. S. 668, 673-674; Chicago v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 357 U. S. 77, 84. If the state statute in question, although never interpreted by a state tribunal, is not fairly subject to an interpretation which will render unnecessary or substantially modify the federal constitutional question, it is the duty of the federal court to exercise its properly invoked jurisdiction. Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U. S. 360, 375-379. Thus, “recognition of the role of state courts as the final expositors of state law implies no disregard for the primacy of the federal judiciary in deciding questions of federal law.” England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners, 375 U. S. 411, 415-416. The state statutes involved here are clear and unambiguous in all material respects. While the State suggests that the Virginia tribunals are “unquestionably far better equipped than the lower [federal] court to unravel the skeins of local law and administrative practices in which the Appellees’ claims are entangled,” the State does not point to any provision in the legislation which leaves “reasonable room for a construction by the Virginia courts which might avoid in whole or in part the necessity for federal constitutional adjudication, or at least materially change the nature of the problem.” Harrison v. NAACP, 360 U. S. 167, 177. In spite of the clarity of the 1963 legislation, the State argues that the District Court should have abstained on the ground that if the certificate of residence requirement were found to be a qualification distinct from those specified in the Virginia Constitution, it would be invalid as a matter of Virginia law and “a crucial federal constitutional issue would accordingly disappear from the case.” We find little force in this argument. The section of the Virginia Constitution (Art. II, § 18) on which the State relies expressly limits the franchise to citizens who have met certain residency requirements. The statute in issue, § 24-17.2, requires the voter to certify that he meets those residence requirements. It is thus difficult to envisage how § 24-17.2 could be construed as setting forth a qualification not found in the Virginia Constitution. In addition to the clarity of the Virginia statutes, support for the District Court’s refusal to stay the proceedings is found in the nature of the constitutional deprivation alleged and the probable consequences of abstaining. Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, 377 U. S. 218, 229; Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U. S. 360, 375-379. The District Court was faced with two class actions attacking a statutory scheme allegedly impairing the right to vote in violation of Art. I, § 2, and the Fourteenth, Seventeenth and Twenty-fourth Amendments. As this Court has stressed on numerous occasions, “[t]he right to vote freely for the candidate of one’s choice is of the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 Ui S. 533, 555. The right is fundamental “because preservative of all rights.” Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 370. In appraising the motion to stay proceedings, the District Court was thus faced with a claimed impairment of the fundamental civil rights of a broad class of citizens. The motion was heard about two months prior to the deadline for meeting the statutory requirements and just eight months before the 1964 general elections. Given the importance and immediacy of the problem, and the delay inherent in referring questions of state law to state tribunals, it is evident that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to abstain. Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, 377 U. S. 218, 229; Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U. S. 360, 375-379. II. Reaching the merits, it is important to emphasize that the question presented is not whether it would be within a State’s power to abolish entirely the poll tax and require all voters — state and federal — to file annually a certificate of residence. Rather, the issue here is whether the State of Virginia may constitutionally confront the federal voter with a requirement that he either pay the customary poll taxes as required for state elections or file a certificate of residence. We conclude that this requirement constitutes an abridgment of the right to vote "in federal elections in contravention of the Twenty-fourth Amendment. Prior to the proposal of the Twenty-fourth Amendment in 1962, federal legislation to eliminate poll taxes, either by constitutional amendment or statute, had been introduced in every Congress since 1939. The House of Representatives passed anti-poll tax bills on five occasions and the Senate twice proposed constitutional amendments. Even though in 1962 only five States retained the poll tax as a voting requirement, Congress reflected widespread national concern with the characteristics of the tax. Disenchantment with the poll tax was many-faceted. One of the basic objections to the poll tax was that it exacted a price for the privilege of exercising the franchise. Congressional hearings and debates indicate a general repugnance to the disenfranchisement of the poor occasioned by failure to pay the tax. “While it is true that the amount of poll tax now required to be paid in the several States is small and imposes only a slight economical obstacle for any citizen who desires to qualify in order to vote, nevertheless, it is significant that the voting in poll tax States is relatively low as compared to the overall population which would be eligible. . . . [T]he historical analysis . . . indicates that where the poll tax has been abandoned . . . voter participation increased.” H. R. Rep. No. 1821, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 3. Another objection to the poll tax raised in the congressional hearings was that the tax usually had to be paid long before the election — at a time when political campaigns were still quiescent — which tended to eliminate from the franchise a substantial number of voters who did not plan so far ahead. The poll tax was also attacked as a vehicle for fraud which could be manipulated by-political machines by financing block payments of the tax. In addition, and of primary concern to many, the poll tax was viewed as a requirement adopted with an eye to the disenfranchisement of Negroes and applied in.a discriminatory manner. It is against this background that Congress proposed, and three-fourths of the States ratified, the Twenty-fourth Amendment abolishing the poll tax as a requirement for voting in federal elections. Upon adoption of the Amendment, of course, no State could condition the federal franchise upon payment of a poll tax. The State of Virginia accordingly removed the poll tax as an absolute prerequisite to qualification for voting in federal elections, but in its stead substituted a provision whereby the federal voter could qualify either by paying the customary poll tax or by filing a certificate of residence six months before the election. It has long been established that a State may not impose a penalty upon those who exercise a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Frost & Frost Trucking Co. v. Railroad Comm’n of California, 271 U. S. 583. “Constitutional rights would be of little value if they could be . . . indirectly denied,” Smith v. Allwright, 321 U. S. 649, 664, or “manipulated out of existence.” Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U. S. 339, 345. Significantly, the Twenty-fourth Amendment does not merely insure that the franchise shall not be “denied” by reason of failure to pay the poll tax; it expressly guarantees that the right to vote shall not be “denied or abridged” for that reason. Thus, like the Fifteenth Amendment, the Twenty-fourth “nullifies sophisticated as well as simple-minded modes” of impairing the right guaranteed. Lane v. Wilson, 307 U. S. 268, 275. “It hits onerous procedural requirements which effectively handicap exercise of the franchise” by those claiming the constitutional immunity. Ibid.; cf. Gray v. Johnson, 234 F. Supp. 743 (D. C. S. D. Miss.). Thus, in order to demonstrate the invalidity of § 24-17.2 of the Virginia Code, it need only be shown that it imposes a material requirement solely upon those who refuse to surrender their constitutional right to vote in federal elections without paying a poll tax. Section 24-17.2 unquestionably erects a real obstacle to voting in federal elections for those who assert their constitutional exemption from the poll tax. As previously indicated, the requirement for those who wish to participate in federal elections without paying the poll tax is that they file in each election year, within a stated interval ending six months before the election, a notarized or witnessed certificate attesting that they have been continuous residents of the State since the date of registration (which might have been many years before under Virginia’s system of permanent registration) and that they do not presently intend to leave the city or county in which they reside prior to the forthcoming election. Unlike the poll tax bill which is sent to the voter’s residence, it is not entirely clear how one obtains the necessary certificate. The statutes merely provide for the distribution of the forms to city and county court clerks, and for further distribution to local registrars and election officials. Va. Code Ann. § 24-28.1 (1964 Supp.). Construing the statutes in the manner least burdensome to the voter, it would seem that the voter could either obtain the certificate of residence from local election officials or prepare personally “a certificate in form substantially” as set forth in the statute. The certificate must then be filed “in person, or otherwise” with the city or county treasurer. This is plainly a cumbersome procedure. In effect, it amounts to annual re-registration which Virginia officials have sharply contrasted with the “simple” poll tax system. For many, it would probably seem far preferable to mail in the poll tax payment upon receipt of the bill; In addition, the certificate must be filed six months before the election, thus perpetuating one of the disenfranchising characteristics of the poll tax which the Twenty-fourth Amendment was designed to eliminate. We are thus constrained to hold that the requirement imposed upon the voter who refuses to pay the poll tax constitutes an abridgment of his right to vote by reason of failure to pay the poll tax. The requirement imposed upon those who reject the poll tax method of qualifying would not be saved even if it could be said that it is no more onerous, or even somewhat less onerous, than the poll tax. For federal elections, the poll tax is abolished absolutely as a prerequisite to voting, and no equivalent or milder substitute may be imposed. Any material requirement imposed upon the federal voter solely because of his refusal to waive the constitutional immunity subverts the effectiveness of the Twenty-fourth Amendment and must fall under its ban. Nor may the statutory scheme be saved, as the State asserts, on the ground that the certificate is a necessary substitute method of proving residence, serving the same function as the poll tax. As this Court has held in analogous situations, constitutional deprivations may not be justified by some remote administrative benefit to the State. Carrington v. Rash, ante, pp. 89, 96; Oyama v. California, 332 U. S. 633, 646-647. Moreover, in this case the State has not demonstrated that the alternative requirement is in any sense necessary to the proper administration of its election laws. The forty-six States which do not require the payment of poll taxes have apparently found no great administrative burden in insuring that the electorate is limited to bona fide residents. The availability of numerous devices to enforce valid residence requirements — such as registration, use of the criminal sanction, purging of registration lists, challenges and oaths, public scrutiny by candidates and other interested parties — demonstrates quite clearly the lack of necessity for imposing a requirement whereby persons desiring to vote in federal elections must either pay a poll tax or file a certificate of residence six months prior to the election. The Virginia poll tax was born of a desire to disenfranchise the Negro. At the Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1902, the sponsor of the suffrage plan of which the poll tax was an integral part frankly expressed the purpose of the suffrage proposal: “Discrimination! Why, that is precisely what we propose; that, exactly, is what this Convention was elected for — to discriminate to the very extremity of permissible action under the limitations of the Federal Constitution, with a view to the elimination of every negro voter who can be gotten rid of, legally, without materially impairing the numerical strength of the white electorate.” The poll tax was later characterized by the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals as a device limiting “the right of suffrage to those who took sufficient interest in the affairs of the State to qualify themselves to vote.” Campbell v. Goode, 172 Va. 463, 466, 2 S. E. 2d 456, 457. Whether, as the State contends, the payment of the poll tax is also a reliable indicium of continuing residence need not be decided, for even if the poll tax has served such an evidentiary function, the confrontation of the federal voter with a requirement that he either continue to pay the customary poll tax or file a certificate of residence could not be sustained. For federal elections the poll tax, regardless of the services it performs, was abolished by the Twenty-fourth Amendment. That Amendment was also designed to absolve all requirements impairing the right to vote in federal elections by reason of failure to pay the poll tax. Section 24-17.2 of the Virginia Code falls within this proscription. The judgment of the District Court is Affirmed. Mr. Justice Harlan agrees with this opinion insofar as it rests on the proposition that the Twenty-fourth Amendment forbids the use of a state poll tax for any purpose whatever in determining voter qualifications in all elections for federal office. He also agrees that this is not a case for application of the abstention doctrine. Va. Code Ann. §24-17.2 (1964 Supp.) provides: “Proof of residence required; how furnished.— “(a) No person shall be deemed to have the qualifications of residence required by § 18 of the Constitution of Virginia and §§ 24-17 and 21 — 17.1 in any calendar year subsequent to that in which he registered under either § 24-67 or § 24^67.1, and shall not be entitled to vote in any election held in this State during any such subsequent calendar year, unless he has offered proof of continuing residence by filing in person, or otherwise, a certificate of residence at the time and in the manner prescribed in paragraph (b) of this section, or, at his option, by personally paying to the proper officer, at least six months prior to any such election in which he offers to vote, all State poll taxes assessed or assessable against him for the three years next preceding that in which he offers to vote. Proof of continuing residence may only be established by either of such two methods. “(b) Any person who shall offer proof of continuing residence by filing a certificate of residence as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, shall file with the treasurer of his county or city not earlier than the first of October of the year next preceding that in which he offers to vote and not later than six months prior to the election, a certificate in form substantially as follows: “I do certify that I am now and have been a resident of Virginia since the date of my registration to vote under the laws of Virginia, that I am now a resident of. (city or county), residing at . (street and number, or place of residence therein), and that it is my present intention not to remove from the city or county stated herein prior to the next general election. “Witnessed: or “Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of . 19 “Notary Public" Members of the Armed Services are exempt from the poll tax requirement. Va. Code Ann. § 24-23.1 (1950). Va. Code Ann. §§24-52 — 24-119 (1950). Registration, effected by filing an application showing that the statutory requirements had been met (§ 2-4-68), was permanent. Thereafter, in order to qualify for subsequent elections, the voter merely had to pay the assessed poll taxes (unless, of course, his name had been removed from the registration lists for, inter alia, failure to meet the statutory and constitutional requirements (§§24-94 — 24r-96)). Va. Acts, 1963 Extra Sess., cc. 1 and 2. Chapter 2 is now codified in Title 24 of the Virginia Code. Chapter 1 — applicable to 1964 elections only — has not been codified. Va. Acts, 1963 Extra Sess., c. 2, § 1 (a). The motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted and for failure to set forth a justiciable controversy was directed solely at the complaint of appellee Henderson, who was registered and had already paid his poll tax. The District Court was patently correct in rejecting the State’s argument that appellee Henderson lacked standing to maintain this action. Gray v. Sanders, 372 U. S. 368, 374-376; Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 204-208. See Hostetter v. Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp, 377 U. S. 324, 328-329; Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U. S. 360, 375; England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners, 375 U. S. 411, 415-416. To the same effect, see England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners, 375 U. S. 411, 415-416; United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Ideal Cement Co., 369'U. S. 134, 135-136; Spector Motor Service, Inc. v. McLaughlin, 323 U. S. 101, 105. The only ambiguity discussed in the briefs of the parties or developed during argument concerned the question whether §24^17.2 required the voter to secure a prepared certificate of residence from local election officials or whether he could personally prepare one “in form substantially” as set forth in the statute. We do not regard this as a material ambiguity having any effect on the constitutional question and accept, for the purposes of this decision, the State’s assertion that the voter may secure such a form from local election officials or prepare one according to the statutory description. Infra, p. 541. The State also argues that since the States are empowered by Art. I, § 2, Art. II, § 1, and the Seventeenth Amendment to create voter qualifications for federal elections, the question whether a state statutory enactment creates a voter qualification must initially be referred to the state tribunals. True, “[t]he States have long been held to have broad powers to determine the conditions under which the right of suffrage may be exercised.” Lassiter v. Northampton County Board of Elections, 360 U. S. 45, 50; Pope v. Williams, 193 U. S. 621, 633; Mason v. Missouri, 179 U. S. 328, 335. The right to vote, however, is constitutionally protected, Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U. S. 651, 663-665; Smith v. Allwright, 321 U. S. 649, 664; and the conditions imposed by the States upon that right must not contravene any constitutional provision or congressional restriction enacted pursuant to constitutional power. Carrington v. Rash, ante, p. 89, 91; Lassiter v. Northampton County Board of Elections, 360 U. S. 45, 50-51; United States v. Classic, 313 U. S. 299, 315. The question presented in this case — whether the Virginia statute imposes- a condition upon the franchise which violates the United States Constitution — is thus quite clearly a federal question. The precise nature of the condition imposed is, of course, a question of Virginia law. However, the statutory requirement is clear and unambiguous, and the sole question remaining is whether the state requirement is valid under the Federal Constitution. Va. Const., Art. II, § 18, sets forth as a qualification for voting: residency in the State for one year, in the city or county six months, and in the voting precinct thirty days. Moreover, the State cites no Virginia decisions in support of its contention that the requirement might constitute an impermissible “qualification” according to Virginia law. See Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U. S. 360, 378-379; England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners, 375 U. S. 411, 425-426 (Douglas, J., concurring). The State also asserts that the District Court erred in denying its motion to dismiss for failure to join indispensable parties. The argument is that the relief requested in the complaints was an injunction against the enforcement of all provisions of the 1963 legislation, which included a system for separate registration of state and federal voters. Va. Code Ann. §§24-67, 24^67.1 (1964 Supp.). Since registration in Virginia is entrusted to local registrars, the State argues, their joinder was essential in order to effect the relief requested. Williams v. Fanning, 332 U. S. 490, 493-494. While the State is correct in asserting that the complaints were phrased broadly enough to encompass all portions of the 1963 Acts, the District Court was certainly warranted in concluding that the basic aim of the complaints was to secure relief from the certificate of residence requirement. The named defendants were clearly capable of effecting this relief and hence the District Court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss. Ceballos v. Shaughnessy, 352 U. S. 599, 603-604. Moreover, even accepting the State’s broad construction of the complaints, it is apparent that, given the State Board of Elections’ power to supervise and to insure “legality” in the election process (Va. Code Ann. §§24-25, 24-26, 24-27 (1950)), the local registrars were not indispensable parties. See Louisiana v. United States, ante, pp. 145, 151, n. 10. H. R. Rep. No. 1821, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 2. See generally Ogden, The Poll Tax in the South (1958). See, e. g., Hearings before Subcommittee No. 5 of the House Committee on the Judiciary on Amendments to Abolish Tax and Property Qualifications for Electors in Federal Elections, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., 14-22, 48-58 (hereinafter cited as House Hearings); Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on S. J. Res. 29, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., 33 (hereinafter cited as Senate Hearings). See, e. g., House Hearings 14-15. See generally Ogden, supra, note 16, at 44r-52. See Ogden, supra, note 16, at 59-110. See House Hearings 14-22, 26-27, 48-58; Senate Hearings 33. See, e. g., the testimony of Judge William Old before the House Judiciary Committee, defending the poll tax as enabling Virginia “to avoid the burdensome necessity for annual registration.” House Hearings 81. See also id., at 98-99 (Attorney General Button); 108 Cong. Rec. 4532 (Senator Byrd); 108 Cong. Rec. 4641 (Senator Robertson); R. 73, 76 (Governor Harrison). See 2 Virginia Constitutional Convention (Proceedings and Debates, 1901-1902) 2937-3080. Statement of the Honorable Carter Glass, id., at 3076-3077. This statement was characteristic of the entire debate on the suffrage issue; the only real controversy was whether the provisions eventually adopted were sufficient to accomplish the disenfranchisement of the Negro. See id., at 2937-3080. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

B

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr. Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the Court. This case involves construction of the provisions of § 249 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 66 Stat. 163, 219, 8 U. S. C. § 1259, which in certain circumstances permits an alien illegally in this country to apply for a record of lawful admission into the United States for permanent residence. The petitioner is a native and citizen of Yugoslavia, who entered this country under a temporary landing permit in January 1940, as a nonimmigrant crewman attached to a merchant ship. He remained beyond the period allowed by the permit without permission until September 4, 1942, when a warrant for his deportation was issued. Soon thereafter, he signed as a member of the crew of a Yugoslav ship about to depart from the United States. The ship sailed with the petitioner on board on October 6, 1942, and, after calling at several ports in Chile, returned to the United States on December 19, 1942. The petitioner was detained on board ship for several days, but was then allowed to go ashore for medical treatment. He has not left the country since. In 1951, new deportation proceedings were instituted against the petitioner, whose presence in this country apparently had meanwhile gone unnoticed by the immigration authorities. He was again found subject to deportation but was granted the privilege of voluntary departure. This decision of the hearing officer was affirmed by the Assistant Commissioner, whose order became final on March 22,1954, when the Board of Immigration Appeals entered an order dismissing the petitioner’s appeal. Other proceedings followed, which ultimately resulted in 1959 in an order that the petitioner be deported to Yugoslavia. The petitioner’s application for the status of a permanent resident under § 249 of the Immigration and Nationality Act was denied on the ground, explained more fully below, that his departure in 1942 made him ineligible for such discretionary relief because it deprived him of the prerequisite continuous residence in the United States since 1940. In 1960 the petitioner brought this action in the United States District Court for review of the administrative ruling and a declaratory judgment that he was eligible for relief under § 249. The District Court granted summary judgment for the respondent, 202 F. Supp. 214, which the Court of Appeals affirmed, 317 F. 2d 220. We granted certiorari, 375 U. S. 894, and now affirm the rulings below. Section 249 of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides: “A record of lawful admission for permanent residence may, in the discretion of the Attorney General and under such regulations as he may prescribe, be made in the case of any alien, as of the date of the approval of his application or, if entry occurred prior to July 1, 1924, as of the date of such entry, if no such record is otherwise available and such alien shall satisfy the Attorney General that he is not inadmissible under section 212 (a) insofar as it relates to criminals, procurers and other immoral persons, subversives, violators of the narcotic laws or smugglers of aliens, and he establishes that he— “(a) entered the United States prior to June 28, 1940; “(b) has had his residence in the United States continuously since such entry; “(c) is a person of good moral character; and It is agreed by both sides that the petitioner satisfies all the specified criteria except the requirement of continuous residence since an entry prior to June 28, 1940. The question for decision is whether his departure from the United States in 1942 and his absence from this country for several months thereafter defeat his claim to a continuous residence here since 1940. The petitioner, whose case has been earnestly and ably pressed before us, concedes that he was ordered deported in 1942 and that his departure “executed” the order of deportation. There can be no doubt that this latter point is correct. Legislation then applicable provided that “. . . any alien ordered deported . . . who has left the United States shall be considered to have been deported in pursuance of law, irrespective of the source from which the expenses of his transportation were defrayed or of the place to which he departed.” Act of March 4, 1929, § 1 (b), 45 Stat. 1551, 8 U. S. C. (1940 ed.) § 180 (b). Any possible doubt of the import of this provision is removed by H. R. Rep. No. 2418, 70th Cong., 2d Sess., 6, which explained the provision as follows: “Owing to the inadequacy of the appropriations now made for enforcement of deportation provisions under existing law, the Department of Labor has, in many cases, after a warrant of deportation has been issued, refrained from executing the warrant and deporting the alien, at the expense of the appropriation, to the country to which he might be deported, upon the condition that the alien voluntarily, at his own expense, leave the United States. Some doubt exists whether an alien so departing has been 'deported.’ Subsection (b) of section 3 of the bill [the provision quoted above] therefore removes any possible doubt on this question by providing that in such cases the alien shall be considered to have been deported in pursuance of law.” The petitioner’s departure was thus properly treated as a deportation by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, officials of which marked the warrant for deportation as “executed” and prepared papers, including a “Description of Person Deported,” recording his deportation and the manner in which it was accomplished. The latter document also noted that the petitioner had a Yugoslavian passport. The petitioner challenges none of the above. He pitches his argument on the statutory definition of “residence” as “the place of general abode; the place of general abode of a person means his principal, actual dwelling place in fact, without regard to intent.” Immigration and Nationality Act, §101 (a) (33), 66 Stat. 170, 8 U. S. C. § 1101 (a)(33). The petitioner argues that the statute makes “residence” a question of observable fact, and that, on this basis, his residence throughout the 1942 voyage must be taken as having remained in the United States. He points to various circumstances surrounding his departure which, he argues, establish that his “residence,” as defined above, was not interrupted in 1942, although he was physically absent from the United States for the period of the voyage. The facts on which the petitioner relies are of two kinds. He points first to such typical indicia of residence as the maintenance of a bank account in this country and continued membership in a domestic union. More weight, however, is placed on the inclusion in the warrant for the petitioner’s deportation in 1942 of a “Ninth Proviso clause,” which provided: “If the alien returns to the United States from time to time and upon inspection is found to be a bona fide seaman and entitled to shore leave, except for prior deportation, admission under the 9th Proviso of Section 3 of the Act of February 5, 1917, in reference to this ground of inadmissibility is hereby authorized for such time as the alien may be admitted as a seaman.” This clause, included in the warrant pursuant to statutory authority, relieved the petitioner of the combined effect of provisions making arrest and deportation a basis for exclusion and depriving an alien seaman subject to exclusion of landing privileges. The petitioner suggests that due to wartime conditions deportation to Yugoslavia was impossible in 1942 and that the order of deportation was therefore in reality but a formality or fiction, everyone involved understanding, as the “Ninth Proviso clause” is said to attest, that he would be readmitted when his ship returned. This argument contradicts what is plainly shown by the record. There is nothing in the order of deportation, in the endorsement of its “execution,” or in any of the subsequent proceedings to indicate that the deportation order was not what it purported to be. No reason is suggested why the immigration authorities should have gone through a meaningless ritual of deportation for the purpose of not deporting the petitioner. The ameliorative clause on which the petitioner relies indicates, if anything, that the petitioner was not intended to be readmitted as a resident; his admission was conditioned on a finding that he was “a bona fide seaman and entitled to shore leave” and was authorized only “for such time as the alien may be admitted as a seaman.” Once these arguments are laid to rest, the proper disposition of this case is clear and unavoidable. By express legislative directive, the petitioner’s departure in 1942 is for present purposes to be regarded as a deportation. We think it beyond dispute that one who has been deported does not continue to have his residence here, whatever may be the significance of other factors in the absence of a valid deportation. In an early case, this Court stated: “The order of deportation ... is but a method of enforcing the return to his own country of an alien who has not complied with the conditions upon the performance of which the government of the nation, acting within its constitutional authority and through the proper departments, has determined that his continuing to reside here shall depend.” Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S. 698, 730. It would be quite impossible to consider that a deported alien, whose re-entry into this country within a year of deportation would be a felony, nevertheless continues to reside in this country. The obvious purpose of deportation is to terminate residence. It would defy common understanding and disregard clear legislative intent were we to hold that that purpose had not been achieved in this instance. The judgment is Affirmed. The exact date of the petitioner’s entry is uncertain. Both parties state in their briefs that he entered on January 21, 1940, which is the date given by the petitioner at a deportation hearing in 1952. In the warrant for the petitioner’s deportation which issued in 1942, the date of entry is given as January 25, 1940, which is the date of entry established at a deportation hearing in 1942. In his brief, the petitioner states that he came ashore “by reason of the permission granted him prior to sailing,” Brief p. 4, presumably a reference to the “Ninth Proviso clause” contained in the 1942 order of deportation, which is discussed hereafter. In the hearing which preceded the later deportation order of 1952, the petitioner testified that he came ashore pursuant to special permission granted him because he was ill, which was the finding of the hearing officer. Which of these grounds was the actual basis for admission is, for reasons appearing later, immaterial to the disposition of this case. The 1958 amendment of § 249, inter alia, removed the requirement that an alien applying for relief under that section not be “subject to deportation.” Compare 66 Stat. 219 with 72 Stat. 546. The petitioner argues that this change indicates a legislative judgment favorable to his situation. But the humanitarian motives which may have prompted the 1958 amendment do not reach the present case, which is concerned with the requirement of continuous residence, left untouched by the amendment. This enactment was for purposes of excluding a deported alien from subsequent admission and making it a felony for such alien to enter or attempt to enter the United States. Act of March 4, 1929, §1 (a), 45 Stat. 1551, 8 U. S. C. (1940 ed.) § 180 (a). It has been carried forward in the current provisions and made applicable to the Immigration and Nationality Act generally. § 101 (g), 66 Stat. 173, 8 U. S. C. §1101 (g). There is no foundation for the suggestion that in 1942 there was a special kind of departure called “reshipment” which did not have the effect of executing the outstanding deportation order. The petitioner’s “reshipment” was nothing more or less than his signing on board ship and departing on it. The notation “Reshipped” on the deportation warrant was scrawled in pencil on the back of the warrant. It was made by an unidentified person for an unknown purpose, and appears underneath the endorsement of the warrant’s execution by the Immigration Inspector. (More relevant in this connection is the fact that the name of the ship on which the petitioner departed and the date of his departure appear in the blank for the “steamer and date on which deported” — italics added — on the official “Description of Person Deported.”) The petitioner had recently been through a deportation hearing. Just one month before his departure he had been ordered deported. In those circumstances, it can scarcely be maintained that he did not understand his departure to be pursuant to the warrant for his deportation. (Any doubts on this score must assuredly have been cleared up by his detention on board ship on his return.) Indeed, discussion of the manner of the petitioner’s departure seems beside the point in view of his concession that his departure executed the warrant for his deportation. (If by his departure he managed to execute the warrant for his deportation but nevertheless remain undeported, he was able to improve his status by leaving the country. The suggestion is untenable.) “. . . [T]he Commissioner General of Immigration with the approval of the Secretary of Labor shall issue rules and prescribe conditions, including exaction of such bonds as may be necessary, to control and regulate the admission and return of otherwise inadmissible aliens applying for temporary admission.” Act of February 5, 1917, §3, 39 Stat. 875, 878, 8 U. S. C. (1940 ed.) § 136(q). Similar provisions are included in the current statute. Immigration and Nationality Act, § 212 (d)(3), 66 Stat. 187, 8 U. S. C. §1182 (d)(3). Act of March 4, 1929, § 1 (a), 45 Stat. 1551, 8 U. S. C. (1940 ed.) § 180 (a), carried forward in the Immigration and Nationality Act, §§ 212 (a) (17), 276, 66 Stat. 183, 229, 8 U. S. C. §§ 1182 (a) (17), 1326. Act of March 4, 1929, § 1 (c), 45 Stat. 1551, 8 U. S. C. (1940 ed.) § 180 (c). Compare the related provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, § 252 (a), 66 Stat. 220, 8 U. S. C. § 1282 (a). Immigration and Nationality Act, § 276, 66 Stat. 229, 8 U. S. C. § 1326. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy 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 O’Connor delivered the opinion of the Court. This case requires us to decide whether allegedly obscene magazines purchased by undercover officers shortly before the warrantless arrest of a salesclerk must be excluded from evidence at the clerk’s subsequent trial for distribution of obscene materials. Following a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Prince George’s County, Maryland, respondent was convicted of distribution of obscene materials in violation of Md. Ann. Code, Art. 27, § 418 (1982). The Maryland Court of Special Appeals reversed the conviction and ordered the charges dismissed on the ground that the magazines were improperly admitted in evidence. 57 Md. App. 705, 471 A. 2d 1090 (1984). The Maryland Court of Appeals denied cer-tiorari. 300 Md. 795, 481 A. 2d 240 (1984). We granted cer-tiorari, 469 U. S. 1156 (1985), to resolve a conflict among the state courts on the question whether a purchase of allegedly obscene matter by an undercover police officer constitutes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Finding that it does not, we reverse. I On May 6, 1981, three Prince George’s County police detectives went to the Silver News, Inc., an adult bookstore in Hyattsville, Maryland, as part of a police investigation of adult bookstores in the area. One of the detectives, who was not in uniform, entered the store, browsed for several minutes, and purchased two magazines from a clerk, Baxter Macon, with a marked $50 bill. The detective left the store and showed the two magazines to his fellow officers who were waiting nearby. Together they concluded that the magazines were obscene under the criteria previously used by them in warrant applications. The detectives returned to the store, arrested respondent Macon, who was the only attendant in the store, and retrieved from the cash register the $50 bill that had been used to make the purchase. The officers neglected to return the change received at the time of the purchase. Respondent escorted the remaining customers out and closed the bookstore before leaving with the detectives. Prior to trial, Macon moved to suppress the magazines purchased by the officers and the $50 bill used to make the purchase. App. 21. The trial judge denied the motion on the grounds that the purchase was not a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and that the warrantless arrest was lawful. Id., at 52. The magazines, but not the $50 bill, were subsequently introduced in evidence at trial. The jury found respondent guilty of distributing obscene materials. Respondent appealed, contending that a prior judicial determination of probable cause to believe the matter distributed was obscene was required to sustain a seizure and an arrest on charges related to obscenity. Absent such a determination, respondent argued, the allegedly obscene materials must be suppressed and the charges must be dismissed. Respondent did not challenge the jury’s finding that the magazines were obscene. The Maryland Court of Special Appeals agreed that a warrant is required both to seize allegedly obscene materials and to arrest the distributor in order to provide a procedural safeguard for the First Amendment freedom of expression. 57 Md. App., at 710, 471 A. 2d, at 1092. In cases involving First Amendment rights, the court reasoned, Fourth Amendment safeguards, including suppression of material acquired in connection with a warrantless arrest, must be applied more stringently. Ibid. The court determined that the purchase of the magazines was a “constructive” seizure and that the proper remedy was to exclude the magazines from evidence at the subsequent trial. Id., at 716, 471 A. 2d, at 1096. Alternatively, the court held that the warrant-less arrest of respondent on obscenity charges required the exclusion of the publications from evidence. Id., at 719, 471 A. 2d, at 1097. The court accordingly reversed the conviction and ordered that the charges be dismissed because without the magazines the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction. Ibid. By holding that the purchase constituted a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals rejected the position taken by the majority of state courts that have considered the issue. In evaluating the undercover purchase of allegedly obscene materials, most state courts have treated as self-evident the proposition that a purchase by an undercover officer is not a seizure, regardless of whether the funds used to make the purchase are later retrieved as evidence. See, e. g., Baird v. State, 12 Ark. App. 71, 671 S. W. 2d 191 (1984) (en banc); Wood v. State, 144 Ga. App. 236, 240 S. E. 2d 743 (1977), cert. denied, 439 U. S. 899 (1978); People v. Ridens, 51 Ill. 2d 410, 282 N. E. 2d 691 (1972), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 413 U. S. 912 (1973); State v. Welke, 298 Minn. 402, 216 N. W. 2d 641 (1974); State v. Perry, 567 S. W. 2d 380 (Mo. App. 1978); State v. Dornblaser, 26 Ohio Misc. 29, 267 N. E. 2d 434 (1971); Cherokee News & Arcade, Inc. v. State, 533 P. 2d 624 (Okla. Crim. App. 1974). But see State v. Furuyama, 64 Haw. 109, 637 P. 2d 1095 (1981) (reaching the contrary conclusion). For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the officer’s entry into the bookstore and later examination of materials offered for sale there did not constitute a search and that the purchase of two magazines did not effect a seizure. We do not decide whether a warrant is required to arrest a suspect on obscenity-related charges, because the magazines at issue were not the product of the warrantless arrest. Because we hold that the magazines were properly admitted in evidence at trial, we also do not address respondent’s contention that the Double Jeopardy Clause bars retrial. II The central issue presented is whether the magazines purchased by the undercover detectives before respondent’s arrest must be suppressed. If the publications were obtained by means of an unreasonable search or seizure, or were the fruits of an unlawful arrest, the Fourth Amendment requires their exclusion from evidence. If, however, the evidence is not traceable to any Fourth Amendment violation, exclusion is unwarranted. See United States v. Crews, 445 U. S. 463, 472 (1980). A The First Amendment imposes special constraints on searches for and seizures of presumptively protected material, Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York, 442 U. S. 319, 326, n. 5 (1979), and requires that the Fourth Amendment be applied with “scrupulous exactitude” in such circumstances. Stanford v. Texas, 379 U. S. 476, 485 (1965). Consequently, the Court has imposed particularized rules applicable to searches for and seizures of allegedly obscene films, books, arid papers. See, e. g., Roaden v. Kentucky, 413 U. S. 496, 497 (1973) (“seizure of allegedly obscene material, contemporaneous with and as an incident to an arrest for the public exhibition of such material . . . may [not] be accomplished without a warrant”); Marcus v. Search Warrant, 367 U. S. 717 (1961) (warrant to seize allegedly obscene magazines must be particularized and may not issue merely on officer’s conclusory assertion). Although we have not previously had an occasion to analyze the question whether a purchase of obscene material is properly classified as a seizure, some prior cases have involved seizures that followed bona fide undercover purchases. See, e. g., Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York, supra; Marcus v. Search Warrant, supra. In those cases, the Court did not address the exclusion of the purchased materials, but only of the materials obtained through mass seizures conducted pursuant to unconstitutional open-ended warrants. Absent some action taken by government agents that can properly be classified as a “search” or a “seizure,” the Fourth Amendment rules designed to safeguard First Amendment freedoms do not apply. Cf. Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York, supra, at 326, n. 5; Roaden v. Kentucky, supra, at 505 (sheriff seized a film from a commercial theater currently screening it). A search occurs when “an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to consider reasonable is infringed.” United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U. S. 109, 113 (1984). Here, respondent did not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in areas of the store where the public was invited to enter and to transact business. Cf. United States v. Knotts, 460 U. S. 276, 281-282 (1983). The mere expectation that the possibly illegal nature of a product will not come to the attention of the authorities, whether because a customer will not complain or because undercover officers will not transact business with the store, is not one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. Cf. United States v. Jacobsen, supra, at 122-123, n. 22. The officer’s action in entering the bookstore and examining the wares that were intentionally exposed to all who frequent the place of business did not infringe a legitimate, expectation of privacy and hence did not constitute a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. See Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 351 (1967) (“What a person knowingly exposes to the public ... is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection”). Nor was the subsequent purchase a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. A seizure occurs when “there is some meaningful interference with an individual’s possessory interests” in the property seized. United States v. Jacobsen, supra, at 113. Here, respondent voluntarily transferred any possessory interest he may have had in the magazines to the purchaser upon the receipt of the funds. Cf. Lewis v. United States, 385 U. S. 206, 210 (1966). Thereafter, whatever possessory interest the seller had was in the funds, not the magazines. At the time of the sale the officer did not “interfere” with any interest of the seller; he took only that which was intended as a necessary part of the exchange. See id., at 211. The use of undercover officers is essential to the enforcement of vice laws. Id,., at 210, n. 6. An undercover officer does not violate the Fourth Amendment merely by accepting an offer to do business that is freely made to the public. “A government agent, in the same manner as a private person, may accept an invitation to do business and may enter upon the premises for the very purposes contemplated by the occupant.” Id., at 211; cf. Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York, supra, at 329. Nor does the First Amendment suggest a different conclusion in this case. Although a police officer may not engage in a “wholesale searc[h] and seizur[e]” in these circumstances, Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York, supra, at 329, nothing in our cases renders invalid under the Fourth Amendment or the First Amendment the purchase as here by the police of a few of a large number of magazines and other materials offered for sale. The risk of prior restraint, which is the underlying basis for the special Fourth Amendment protections accorded searches for and seizures of First Amendment materials, does not come into play in such cases, and the purchase is analogous to purchases of other unlawful substances previously found not to violate the Fourth Amendment. See Lewis v. United States, supra, at 210 (purchase of narcotics). Notwithstanding that the magazines were obtained by a purchase, respondent argues that the bona fide nature of the purchase evaporated when the officers later seized the marked $50 bill and failed to return the change. Brief for Respondent 10. When the officer subjectively intends to retrieve the money while retaining the magazines, respondent maintains, the purchase is tantamount to a warrantless seizure. Id., at 11. This argument cannot withstand scrutiny. Whether a Fourth Amendment violation has occurred “turns on an objective assessment of the officer’s actions in light of the facts and circumstances confronting him at the time,” Scott v. United States, 436 U. S. 128, 136 (1978), and not on the officer’s actual state of mind at the time the chai-lenged action was taken. Id., at 138 and 139, n. 13. Objectively viewed, the transaction was a sale in the ordinary course of business. The sale is not retrospectively transformed into a warrantless seizure by virtue of the officer’s subjective intent to retrieve the purchase money to use as evidence. Assuming, arguendo, that the retrieval of the money incident to the arrest was wrongful,'the proper remedy is restitution or suppression of the $50 bill as evidence of the purchase, not exclusion from evidence of the previously purchased magazines. B The question remains whether respondent’s warrantless arrest after the purchase of the magazines requires their exclusion at trial. Again, assuming, arguendo, that the war-rantless arrest was an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment — a question we do not decide — it yielded nothing of evidentiary value that was not already in the lawful possession of the police. “The exclusionary rule enjoins the Government from benefiting from evidence it has unlawfully obtained; it does not reach backward to taint information that was in official hands prior to any illegality. ” United States v. Crews, 445 U. S., at 475 (opinion of Brennan, J., joined by Stewart, and Stevens, JJ.). Here, the magazines were in police possession before the arrest, and the $50 bill, the only fruit of the arrest, was not introduced in evidence. We leave to another day the question whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits a warrantless arrest for the state law misdemeanor of distribution of obscene materials. Because the undercover agents did not obtain possession of the allegedly obscene magazines by means of an unreasonable search or seizure and the magazines were not the fruit of an arrest, lawful or otherwise, the magazines were properly admitted in evidence at respondent’s trial for distribution of obscene materials. The judgment of the Maryland Court of Special Appeals is reversed. It is so ordered. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

A

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Justice Blackmun delivered the opinion of the Court. A Massachusetts statute requires that specified minimum mental-health-care benefits be provided a Massachusetts resident who is insured under a general insurance policy, an accident or sickness insurance policy, or an employee healthcare plan that covers hospital and surgical expenses. The first question before us in these cases is whether the state statute, as applied to insurance policies purchased by employee health-care plans regulated by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, is pre-empted by that Act. The second question is whether the state statute, as applied to insurance policies purchased pursuant to negotiated collective-bargaining agreements regulated by the National Labor Relations Act, is pre-empted by the labor Act. I l> General health insurance typically is sold as group insurance to an employer or other group. Group insurance presently is subject to extensive state regulation, including regulation of the carrier, regulation of the sale and advertising of the insurance, and regulation of the content of the contracts. Mandated-benefit laws, that require an insurer to provide a certain kind of benefit to cover a specified illness or procedure whenever someone purchases a certain kind of insurance, are a subclass of such content regulation. While mandated-benefit statutes are a relatively recent phenomenon, statutes regulating the substantive terms of insurance contracts have become commonplace in all 50 States over the last 30 years. Perhaps the most familiar are those regulating the content of automobile insurance policies. The substantive terms of group-health insurance contracts, in particular, also have been extensively regulated by the States. For example, the majority of States currently require that coverage for dependents continue beyond any contractually imposed age limitation when the dependent is incapable of self-sustaining employment because of mental or physical handicap; such statutes date back to the early 1960’s. And over the last 15 years all 50 States have required that coverage of infants begin at birth, rather than at some time shortly after birth, as had been the prior practice in the unregulated market. Many state statutes require that insurers offer on an optional basis particular kinds of coverage to purchasers. Others require insurers either to offer or mandate that insurance policies include coverage for services rendered by a particular type of health-care provider. Mandated-benefit statutes, then, are only one variety of a matrix of state laws that regulate the substantive content of health-insurance policies to further state health policy. Massachusetts Gen. Laws Ann., ch. 175, §47B (West Supp. 1985), is typical of mandated-benefit laws currently in place in the majority of States. With respect to a Massachusetts resident, it requires any general health-insurance policy that provides hospital and surgical coverage, or any benefit plan that has such coverage, to provide as well a certain minimum of mental-health protection. In particular, §47B requires that a health-insurance policy provide 60 days of coverage for confinement in a mental hospital, coverage for confinement in a general hospital equal to that provided by the policy for nonmental illness, and certain minimum outpatient benefits. Section 47B was designed to address problems encountered in treating mental illness in Massachusetts. The Commonwealth determined that its working people needed to be protected against the high cost of treatment for such illness. It also believed that, without insurance, mentally ill workers were often institutionalized in large state mental hospitals, and that mandatory insurance would lead to a higher incidence of more effective treatment in private community mental-health centers. See Massachusetts General Court, Joint Committee on Insurance, Advances in Health Insurance in Massachusetts (1974), reprinted in App. 426, 430-432. In addition, the Commonwealth concluded that the voluntary insurance market was not adequately providing mental-health coverage, because of “adverse selection” in mental-health insurance: good insurance risks were not purchasing coverage, and this drove up the price of coverage for those who otherwise might purchase mental-health insurance. The legislature believed that the public interest required that it correct the insurance market in the Commonwealth by mandating minimum-coverage levels, effectively forcing the good-risk individuals to become part of the risk pool, and enabling insurers to price the insurance at an average market rather than a market retracted due to adverse selection. See Findings of Fact of the Superior Court, App. to Juris. Statement in No. 84-325, pp. 50a-53a. Section 47B, then, was intended to help safeguard the public against the high costs of comprehensive inpatient and outpatient mental-health care, reduce nonpsychiatric medical-care expenditures for mentally related illness, shift the delivery of treatment from inpatient to outpatient services, and relieve the Commonwealth of some of the financial burden it otherwise would encounter with respect to mental-health problems. Ibid. It is our task in these cases to decide whether such insurance regulation violates or is inconsistent with federal law. B The federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 88 Stat. 829, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 1001 et seq. (ERISA), comprehensively regulates employee pension and welfare plans. An employee welfare-benefit plan or welfare plan is defined as one which provides to employees “medical, surgical, or hospital care or benefits, or benefits in the event of sickness, accident, disability [or] death,” whether these benefits are provided “through the purchase of insurance or otherwise.” §3(1), 29 U. S. C. §1002(1). Plans may self-insure or they may purchase insurance for their participants. Plans that purchase insurance — so-called “insured plans”— are directly affected by state laws that regulate the insurance industry. ERISA imposes upon pension plans a variety of substantive requirements relating to participation, funding, and vesting. §§201-306, 29 U. S. C. §§1051-1086. It also establishes various uniform procedural standards concerning reporting, disclosure, and fiduciary responsibility for both pension and welfare plans. §§ 101-111, 401-414, 29 U. S. C. §§ 1021-1031, 1101-1114. It does not regulate the substantive content of welfare-benefit plans. See Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U. S. 85, 91 (1983). ERISA thus contains almost no federal regulation of the terms of benefit plans. It does, however, contain a broad pre-emption provision declaring that the statute shall “supersede any and all State laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan.” § 514(a), 29 U. S. C. § 1144(a). Appellant Metropolitan in No. 84-325 argues that ERISA pre-empts Massachusetts’ mandated-benefit law insofar as § 47B restricts the kinds of insurance policies that benefit plans may purchase. While § 514(a) of ERISA broadly pre-empts state laws that relate to an employee-benefit plan, that pre-emption is substantially qualified by an “insurance saving clause,” § 514(b)(2)(A), 29 U. S. C. § 1144(b)(2)(A), which broadly states that, with one exception, nothing in ERISA “shall be construed to exempt or relieve any person from any law of any State which regulates insurance, banking, or securities.” The specified exception to the saving clause is found in § 514(b)(2)(B), 29 U. S. C. § 1144(b)(2)(B), the so-called “deemer clause,” which states that no employee-benefit plan, with certain exceptions not relevant here, “shall be deemed to be an insurance company or other insurer, bank, trust company, or investment company or to be engaged in the business of insurance or banking for purposes of any law of any State purporting to regulate insurance companies, insurance contracts, banks, trust companies, or investment companies.” Massachusetts argues that its mandated-benefit law, as applied to insurance companies that sell insurance to benefit plans, is a “law which regulates insurance,” and therefore is saved from the effect of the general pre-emption clause of ERISA. Wholly apart from the question whether Massachusetts’ mandated-benefit law is pre-empted by ERISA, appellant Travelers in No. 84-356 argues that as applied to benefit plans negotiated pursuant to collective-bargaining agreements, § 47B is pre-empted by the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 151 et seq. (NLRA), because it effectively imposes a contract term on the parties that otherwise would be a mandatory subject of collective bargaining. Unlike ERISA, the NLRA contains no statutory provision indicating the extent to which it was intended to pre-empt state law. Resolution of the NLRA pre-emption question, therefore, requires us to discern legislative intent from the general purpose of the NLRA, and not from any particular statutory language. II Appellants are Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and Travelers Insurance Company (insurers) who are located in New York and Connecticut respectively and who issue group-health policies providing hospital and surgical coverage to plans, or to employers or unions that employ or represent employees residing in Massachusetts. Under the terms of §47B, both appellants are required to provide minimal mental-health benefits in policies issued to cover Commonwealth residents. In 1979, the Attorney General of Massachusetts brought suit in Massachusetts Superior Court for declaratory and injunctive relief to enforce § 47B. The Commonwealth asserted that since January 1, 1976, the effective date of § 47B, the insurers had issued policies to group policyholders situated outside Massachusetts that provided for hospital and surgical coverage for certain residents of the Commonwealth. App. 8-9. It further asserted that those policies failed to provide Massachusetts-resident beneficiaries the mental-health coverage mandated by § 47B, and that the insurers intended to issue more such policies, believing themselves not bound by § 47B for policies issued outside the Commonwealth. In their answer, the insurers admitted these allegations. The complaint further asserted that the insurers had amended a number of policies in effect prior to January 1, 1976, but had failed to include the benefits mandated by § 47B in the amended policies, in violation of the law. App. 9-10. Finally, the Commonwealth asserted that the insurers refused to provide the mandated benefits in part on the ground that they believed ERISA and the NLRA pre-empted § 47B. App. 10. Though the insurers had not actually refused to provide the mandated benefits in any policy issued after January 1, 1976, within the Commonwealth, the insurers preserved their right to challenge the applicability of § 47B to any policy issued to an ERISA plan within the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth accordingly requested broad preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, asking the court to require the insurers to provide the mandated benefits to all covered residents of the Commonwealth subject to the terms of §47B, regardless of when their policies were issued or whether they were presently receiving such benefits. App. 11-12. The Superior Court issued a preliminary injunction requiring the insurers to provide the coverage mandated by §47B. App. 57-59. After trial, a different judge issued a permanent injunction to the same effect, see App. to Juris. Statement in No. 84-325, pp. 67a-70a, making extensive findings of fact concerning the cost, nature, purpose, and effect of the mandated-benefit law. See id., at 36a-62a. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts granted the insurers’ application for direct appellate review and affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court. Attorney General v. Travelers Ins. Co., 385 Mass. 598, 433 N. E. 2d 1223 (1982). Addressing first the ERISA pre-emption question, the court recognized that § 47B is a law that “ ‘relatefs] to’ benefit plans,” and so would be pre-empted unless it fell within one of the exceptions to the pre-emption clause of ERISA. 385 Mass., at 605, 433 N. E. 2d, at 1227. The court went on to hold, however, that §47B is a law “which regulates insurance,” as understood by the ERISA saving clause, § 514(b)(2)(A), 29 U. S. C. § 1144(b)(2)(A), and therefore is not pre-empted by ERISA. 385 Mass., at 606-609, 433 N. E. 2d, at 1228-1230. It rejected appellants’ claim that the saving clause was designed to save only “traditional” insurance laws rather than those that are designed to promote public health, finding no such limitation in the statutory language of ERISA. The court nonetheless was wary of a literal reading of the statute, lest the saving clause give the States unintended authority to regulate in areas otherwise governed by ERISA. It therefore understood the saving clause to save only state laws that were unrelated to the substantive provisions of ERISA. Since nothing in ERISA regulates the content of welfare plans, state regulation of insurance that indirectly affects the content of welfare plans is not pre-empted by ERISA. 385 Mass., at 606-607, 609, 433 N. E. 2d, at 1228-1229. The court then went on to conclude that the NLRA does not pre-empt § 47B. Although § 47B regulates health benefits, a subject of mandatory collective bargaining, the NLRA does not pre-empt all local regulation affecting employment relations. A public health statute, § 47B does not regulate labor-management relations as such or affect the free play of economic forces between labor and management. “It is unlikely that Congress intended, by enacting the NLRA, to bind the hands of State Legislatures with respect to problems such as mental health.” 385 Mass., at 613, 433 N. E. 2d, at 1232. Moreover, the court pointed out, Congress has indicated in the McCarran-Ferguson Act, 59 Stat. 33, as amended, 15 U. S. C. §1011 et seq., that federal laws should not be construed to supersede state laws “regulating the business of insurance.” § 1012(b). Section 47B operates upon insurance and insurance policies. The McCarran-Ferguson Act contains no limiting definition of the term “business of insurance” that would suggest a narrow reading excluding § 47B from its protection. 385 Mass., at 613-614, 433 N. E. 2d, at 1232. The court therefore found no pre-emption under either ERISA or the NLRA. On appeal, this Court, 463 U. S. 1221 (1983), vacated the judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court and remanded the cases for further consideration in light of the intervening decision in Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U. S. 85 (1983). Appropriately refocusing on the ERISA pre-emption provisions that were the subject of that decision, the Supreme Judicial Court, with one justice dissenting, reinstated its former judgment. Attorney General v. Travelers Ins. Co., 391 Mass. 730, 463 N. E. 2d 548 (1984). The court reasoned that this Court had not addressed the insurance exception in Shaw, and as that decision construed none of the exceptions listed in § 514(b), our statement that the exceptions were “narrow” was merely dictum that did not compel the Massachusetts court to change its result. 391 Mass., at 733, 463 N. E. 2d, at 550. Unlike the exemption from ERISA coverage at issue in Shaw, the exception in § 514(b) is phrased very broadly. Nor was there reason to alter the limiting construction given the saving clause. The Court in Shaw held that ERISA’s broad pre-emption provision was intended to pre-empt any state law that “relate [d] to” an employee-benefit plan, not merely those state laws that directly conflicted with a substantive provision in the federal statute. Though the Court thus had rejected a conflict-based analysis of the broadly phrased pre-emption clause as being too narrow an interpretation of that provision, it did not follow that the conflict-based limitation on the saving clause imposed by the Supreme Judicial Court similarly should be rejected. The dissenting justice felt that the Shaw Court had made clear that the exemptions and exceptions to ERISA’s preemption clause should be read narrowly in order to preserve nationwide uniformity in the administration of welfare plans. Reading the insurance saving clause narrowly, § 47B should not be understood as a statute that regulates insurance. As applied, §47B concerns health benefits that an employer must provide, and only incidentally regulates insurance. Shaw established that it is “irrelevant whether State law dictating plan benefits conflicts with the substantive policies of ERISA.” 391 Mass., at 736, 463 N. E. 2d, at 552. The insurers once again appealed pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1257(2), and we noted probable jurisdiction. 469 U. S. 929 (1984). III “In deciding whether a federal law pre-empts a state statute, our task is to ascertain Congress’ intent in enacting the federal statute at issue. ‘Pre-emption may be either express or implied, and “is compelled whether Congress’ command is explicitly stated in the statute’s language or implicitly contained in its structure and purpose.” Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U. S. 519, 525 (1977).’ Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan Assn. v. De la Cuesta, 458 U. S. 141, 152-153 (1982).” Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U. S., at 95. The narrow statutory ERISA question presented is whether Mass. Gen. Laws Ann., ch. 175, § 47B (West Supp. 1985), is a law “which regulates insurance” within the meaning of § 514(b)(2)(A), 29 U. S. C. § 1144(b)(2)(A), and so would not be pre-empted by § 514(a). A Section 47B clearly “relate[s] to” welfare plans governed by ERISA so as to fall within the reach of ERISA’s preemption provision, § 514(a). The broad scope of the preemption clause was noted recently in Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., supra, where we held that the New York Human Rights Law and that State’s Disability Benefits Law “relate^] to” welfare plans governed by ERISA. The phrase “relate to” was given its broad common-sense meaning, such that a state law “relate[s] to” a benefit plan “in the normal sense of the phrase, if it has a connection with or reference to such a plan.” 463 U. S., at 97. The pre-emption provision was intended to displace all state laws that fall within its sphere, even including state laws that are consistent with ERISA’s substantive requirements. Id., at 98-99. “[E]ven indirect state action bearing on private pensions may encroach upon the area of exclusive federal concern.” Alessi v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 451 U. S. 504, 525 (1981). Though § 47B is not denominated a benefit-plan law, it bears indirectly but substantially on all insured benefit plans, for it requires them to purchase the mental-health benefits specified in the statute when they purchase a certain kind of common insurance policy. The Commonwealth does not argue that § 47B as applied to policies purchased by benefit plans does not relate to those plans, and we agree with the Supreme Judicial Court that the mandated-benefit law as applied relates to ERISA plans and thus is covered by ERISA’s broad pre-emption provision set forth in § 514(a). B Nonetheless, the sphere in which § 514(a) operates was explicitly limited by § 514(b)(2). The insurance saving clause preserves any state law “which regulates insurance, banking, or securities.” The two pre-emption sections, while clear enough on their faces, perhaps are not a model of legislative drafting, for while the general pre-emption clause broadly pre-empts state law, the saving clause appears broadly to preserve the States’ lawmaking power over much of the same regulation. While Congress occasionally decides to return to the States what it has previously taken away, it does not normally do both at the same time. Fully aware of this statutory complexity, we still have no choice but to “begin with the language employed by Congress and the assumption that the ordinary meaning of that language accurately expresses the legislative purpose.” Park ’N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park and Fly, Inc., 469 U. S. 189, 194 (1985). We also must presume that Congress did not intend to pre-empt areas of traditional state regulation. See Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U. S. 519, 525 (1977). To state the obvious, § 47B regulates the terms of certain insurance contracts, and so seems to be saved from preemption by the saving clause as a law “which regulates insurance.” This common-sense view of the matter, moreover, is reinforced by the language of the subsequent subsection of ERISA, the “deemer clause,” which states that an employee-benefit plan shall not be deemed to be an insurance company “for purposes of any law of any State purporting to regulate insurance companies, insurance contracts, banks, trust companies, or investment companies.” § 514(b)(2)(B), 29 U. S. C. § 1144(b)(2)(B) (emphasis added). By exempting from the saving clause laws regulating insurance contracts that apply directly to benefit plans, the deemer clause makes explicit Congress’ intention to include laws that regulate insurance contracts within the scope of the insurance laws preserved by the saving clause. Unless Congress intended to include laws regulating insurance contracts within the scope of the insurance saving clause, it would have been unnecessary for the deemer clause explicitly to exempt such laws from the saving clause when they are applied directly to benefit plans. The insurers nonetheless argue that § 47B is in reality a health law that merely operates on insurance contracts to accomplish its end, and that it is not the kind of traditional insurance law intended to be saved by § 514(b)(2)(A). We find this argument unpersuasive. Initially, nothing in § 514(b)(2)(A), or in the “deemer clause” which modifies it, purports to distinguish between traditional and innovative insurance laws. The presumption is against pre-emption, and we are not inclined to read limitations into federal statutes in order to enlarge their preemptive scope. Further, there is no indication in the legislative history that Congress had such a distinction in mind. Appellants assert that state laws that directly regulate the insurer, and laws that regulate such matters as the way in which insurance may be sold, are traditional laws subject to the clause, while laws that regulate the substantive terms of insurance contracts are recent innovations more properly seen as health laws rather than as insurance laws, which § 514(b)(2)(A) does not save. This distinction reads the saving clause out of ERISA entirely, because laws that regulate only the insurer, or the way in which it may sell insurance, do not “relate to” benefit plans in the first instance. Because they would not be pre-empted by § 514(a), they do not need to be “saved” by § 514(b)(2)(A). There is no indication that Congress could have intended the saving clause to operate only to guard against too expansive readings of the general pre-emption clause that might have included laws wholly unrelated to plans. Appellants’ construction, in our view, violates the plain meaning of the statutory language and renders redundant both the saving clause it is construing, as well as the deemer clause which it precedes, and accordingly has little to recommend it. Moreover, it is both historically and conceptually inaccurate to assert that mandated-benefit laws are not traditional insurance laws. As we have indicated, state laws regulating the substantive terms of insurance contracts were commonplace well before the mid-70’s, when Congress considered ERISA. The case law concerning the meaning of the phrase “business of insurance” in the McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 U. S. C. §1011 et seq., also strongly supports the conclusion that regulation regarding the substantive terms of insurance contracts falls squarely within the saving clause as laws “which regulate insurance.” Cases interpreting the scope of the McCarran-Ferguson Act have identified three criteria relevant to determining whether a particular practice falls within that Act’s reference to the “business of insurance”: “first, whether the practice has the effect of transferring or spreading a policyholder’s risk; second, whether the practice is an integral part of the policy relationship between the insurer and the insured; and third, whether the practice is limited to entities within the insurance industry.” Union Labor Life Ins. Co. v. Pireno, 458 U. S. 119, 129 (1982) (emphasis in original). See also Group Life & Health Ins. Co. v. Royal Drug Co., 440 U. S. 205 (1979). Application of these principles suggests that mandated-benefit laws are state regulation of the “business of insurance.” Section 47B obviously regulates the spreading of risk: as we have indicated, it was intended to effectuate the legislative judgment that the risk of mental-health care should be shared. See Findings of Fact of the Superior Court, App. to Juris. Statement in No. 84-325, pp. 50a-51a. It is also evident that mandated-benefit laws directly regulate an integral part of the relationship between the insurer and the policyholder, by limiting the type of insurance that an insurer may sell to the policyholder. Finally, the third criterion is present here, for mandated-benefit statutes impose requirements only on insurers, with the intent of affecting the relationship between the insurer and the policyholder. Section 47B, then, is the very kind of regulation that this Court has identified as a law that relates to the regulation of the business of insurance as defined in the McCarran-Ferguson Act: “Congress was concerned [in the McCarran-Ferguson Act] with the type of state regulation that centers around the contract of insurance.... The relationship between insurer and insured, the type of policy which could be issued, its reliability, its interpretation, and enforcement — these were the core of the ‘business of insurance.’ [T]he focus [of the statutory term] was on the relationship between the insurance company and the policyholder. Statutes aimed at protecting or regulating this relationship, directly or indirectly, are laws regulating the ‘business of insurance.’” SEC v. National Securities, Inc., 393 U. S. 453, 460 (1969) (emphasis added). Nor is there any contrary case authority suggesting that laws regulating the terms of insurance contracts should not be understood as laws that regulate insurance. In short, the plain language of the saving clause, its relationship to the other ERISA pre-emption provisions, and the traditional understanding of insurance regulation, all lead us to the conclusion that mandated-benefit laws such as §47B are saved from pre-emption by the operation of the saving clause. Nothing in the legislative history of ERISA suggests a different result. There is no discussion in that history of the relationship between the general pre-emption clause and the saving clause, and indeed very little discussion of the saving clause at all. In the early versions of ERISA, the general pre-emption clause pre-empted only those state laws dealing with subjects regulated by ERISA. The clause wafe significantly broadened at the last minute, well after the saving clause was in its present form, to include all state laws that relate to benefit plans. The change was made with little explanation by the Conference Committee, and there is no indication in the legislative history that Congress was aware of the new prominence given the saving clause in light of the rewritten pre-emption clause, or was aware that the saving clause was in conflict with the general pre-emption provision. There is a complete absence of evidence that Congress intended the narrow reading of the saving clause suggested by appellants here. Appellants do call to our attention a few passing references in the record of the floor debate to the “narrow” exceptions to the pre-emption clause, but these are far too frail a support on which to rest appellants’ rather unnatural reading of the clause. We therefore decline to impose any limitation on the saving clause beyond those Congress imposed in the clause itself and in the “deemer clause” which modifies it. If a state law “regulates insurance,” as mandated-benefit laws do, it is not preempted. Nothing in the language, structure, or legislative history of the Act supports a more narrow reading of the clause, whether it be the Supreme Judicial Court’s attempt to save only state regulations unrelated to the substantive provisions of ERISA, or the insurers’ more speculative attempt to read the saving clause out of the statute. We are aware that our decision results in a distinction between insured and uninsured plans, leaving the former open to indirect regulation while the latter are not. By so doing we merely give life to a distinction created by Congress in the “deemer clause,” a distinction Congress is aware of and one it has chosen not to alter. We also are aware that appellants’ construction of the statute would eliminate some of the disuniformities currently facing national plans that enter into local markets to purchase insurance. Such disuniformities, however, are the inevitable result of the congressional decision to “save” local insurance regulation. Arguments as to the wisdom of these policy choices must be directed at Congress. IV A Unlike ERISA, the NLRA contains no statutory preemption provision. Still, as in any pre-emption analysis, “‘[t]he purpose of Congress is the ultimate touchstone.’” Malone v. White Motor Corp., 435 U. S. 497, 504 (1978), quoting Retail Clerks v. Schermerhorn, 375 U. S. 96, 103 (1963). Where the pre-emptive effect of federal enactments is not explicit, “courts sustain a local regulation ‘unless it conflicts with federal law or would frustrate the federal scheme, or unless the courts discern from the totality of the circumstances that Congress sought to occupy the field to the exclusion of the States.’” Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, ante, at 209, quoting Malone v. White Motor Corp., 435 U. S., at 504. Appellants contend first that because mandated-benefit laws require benefit plans whose terms are arrived at through collective bargaining to purchase certain benefits the parties may not have wished to purchase, such laws in effect mandate terms of collective-bargaining agreements. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts correctly found that “[bjecause a plan that purchases insurance has no choice but to provide mental health care benefits, the insurance provisions of § 47B effectively control the content of insured welfare benefit plans.” 385 Mass., at 605, 433 N. E. 2d, at 1227. More precisely, faced with § 47B, parties to a collective-bargaining agreement providing for health insurance are forced to make a choice: either they must purchase the mandated benefit, decide not to provide health coverage at all, or decide to become self-insured, assuming they are in a financial position to make that choice. The question then becomes whether this kind of interference with collective bargaining is forbidden by federal law. Appellants argue that because Congress intended to leave the choice of terms in collective-bargaining agreements to the free play of economic forces, not subject either to state law or to the control of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), mandated-benefit laws should be pre-empted by the NLRA. The Court has articulated two distinct NLRA pre-emption principles. The so-called Garmon rule, see San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U. S. 236 (1959), protects the primary jurisdiction of the NLRB to determine in the first instance what kind of conduct is either prohibited or protected by the NLRA. There is no claim here that Massachusetts has sought to regulate or prohibit any conduct subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the NLRB, since the Act is silent as to the substantive provisions of welfare-benefit plans. A second pre-emption doctrine protects against state interference with policies implicated by the structure of the Act itself, by pre-empting state law and state causes of action concerning conduct that Congress intended to be unregulated. The doctrine was designed, at least initially, to govern pre-emption questions that arose concerning activity that was neither arguably protected against employer interference by §§7 and 8(a)(1) of the NLRA, nor arguably prohibited as an unfair labor practice by §8(b) of that Act. 29 U. S. C. §§157, 158(a)(1) and (b). Such action falls outside the reach of Garmon pre-emption. See New York Telephone Co. v. New York Labor Dept., 440 U. S. 519, 529-531 (1979) (plurality opinion). In Teamsters v. Morton, 377 U. S. 252 (1964), the Court struck down an Ohio labor law that prohibited a type of secondary boycott neither prohibited nor protected under the NLRA. The Court ruled that if state law were allowed to deprive the union of a self-help weapon permitted under federal law, “the inevitable result would be to frustrate the congressional determination to leave this weapon of self-help available, and to upset the balance of power between labor and management expressed in our national labor policy.” Id., at 260. Similarly, in Machinists v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Comm’n, 427 U. S. 132 (1976), the Court ruled that a State may not penalize a concerted refusal to work overtime that was neither prohibited nor protected under the NLRA, for “Congress intended that the conduct involved be unregulated because left ‘to be controlled by the free play of economic forces.’ ” Id., at 140, quoting NLRB v. Nash-Finch Co., 404 U. S. 138, 144 (1971). More recently, a divided Court struggled with a feature of New York’s unemployment-insurance law that provided certain unemployment-insurance payments to striking workers. New York Telephone Co. v. New York Labor Dept., supra. As in Machinists and Morton, the state law “altered the economic balance between labor and management.” 440 U. S., at 532 (plurality opinion). A majority of the Justices nonetheless found the state law not pre-empted, on the ground that the legislative history of the Social Security Act of 1935, along with other federal legislation, suggested that Congress had decided to permit a State to pay unemployment benefits to strikers. These cases rely on the understanding that in providing in the NLRA a framework for self-organization and collective bargaining, Congress determined both how much the conduct of unions and employers should be regulated, and how much it should be left unregulated: “The States have no more authority than the Board to upset the balance that Congress has struck between labor and management in the collective-bargaining relationship. Tor a state to impinge on the area of labor combat designed to be free is quite as much an obstruction of federal policy as if the state were to declare picketing free for purposes or by methods which the federal Act prohibits.’” New York Telephone Co. v. New York Labor Dept., 440 U. S., at 554 (dissenting opinion), quoting Garner v. Teamsters, 346 U. S. 485, 500 (1953). All parties correctly understand this case to involve Machinists pre-emption. B Here, however, appellants do not suggest that § 47B alters the balance of power between the parties to the labor contract. Instead, appellants argue that, not only did Congress establish a balance of bargaining power between labor and management Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

J

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr. Chief Justice Burger delivered the opinion of the Court. The issue in this case is whether a state statute granting a political candidate a right to equal space to reply to criticism and attacks on his record by a newspaper violates the guarantees of a free press. I In the fall of 1972, appellee, Executive Director of the Classroom Teachers Association, apparently a teachers’ collective-bargaining agent, was a candidate for the Florida House of Representatives. On September 20, 1972, and again on September 29, 1972, appellant printed editorials critical of appellee’s candidacy. In response to these editorials appellee demanded that appellant print verbatim his replies, defending the role of the Classroom Teachers Association and the organization’s accomplishments for the citizens of Dade County. Appellant declined to print the appellee’s replies, and appellee brought suit in Circuit Court, Dade County, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and actual and punitive damages in excess of $5,000. The action was premised on Florida Statute § 104.38 (1973), a “right of reply” statute which provides that if a candidate for nomination or election is assailed regarding his personal character or official record by any newspaper, the candidate has the right to demand that the newspaper print, free of cost to the candidate, any reply the candidate may make to the newspaper’s charges. The reply must appear in as conspicuous a place and in the same kind of type as the charges which prompted the reply, provided it does not take up more space than the charges. Failure to comply with the statute constitutes a first-degree misdemeanor. Appellant sought a declaration that § 104.38 was unconstitutional. After an emergency hearing requested by appellee, the Circuit Court denied injunctive relief because, absent special circumstances, no injunction could properly issue against the commission of a crime, and held that § 104.38 was unconstitutional as an infringement on the freedom of the press under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. 38 Fla. Supp. 80 (1972). The Circuit Court concluded that dictating what a newspaper must print was no different from dictating what it must not print. The Circuit Judge viewed the statute’s vagueness as serving “to restrict and stifle protected expression.” Id., at 83. Appellee’s cause was dismissed with prejudice. On direct appeal, the Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that § 104.38 did not violate constitutional guarantees. 287 So. 2d 78 (1973). It held that free speech was enhanced and not abridged by the Florida right-of-reply statute, which in that court’s view, furthered the “broad societal interest in the free flow of information to the public.” Id., at 82. It also held that the statute is not impermissibly vague; the statute informs “those who are subject to it as to what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties.” Id., at 85. Civil remedies, including damages, were held to be available under this statute; the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent with the Florida Supreme Court’s opinion. We postponed consideration of the question of jurisdiction to the hearing of the case on the merits. 414 U. S. 1142 (1974). II Although both parties contend that this Court has jurisdiction to review the judgment of the Florida Supreme Court, a suggestion was initially made that the judgment of the Florida Supreme Court might not be “final” under 28 U. S. C. § 1257. In North Dakota State Pharmacy Bd. v. Snyder’s Stores, 414 U. S. 156 (1973), we reviewed a judgment of the North Dakota Supreme Court, under which the case had been remanded so that further state proceedings could be conducted respecting Snyder’s application for a permit to operate a drug store. We held that to be a final judgment for purposes of our jurisdiction. Under the principles of finality enunciated in Snyder’s Stores, the judgment of the Florida Supreme Court in this case is ripe for review by this Court. Ill A The challenged statute creates a right to reply to press criticism of a candidate for nomination or election. The statute was enacted in 1913, and this is only the second recorded case decided under its provisions. Appellant contends the statute is void on its face because it purports to regulate the content of a newspaper in violation of the First Amendment. Alternatively it is urged that the statute is void for vagueness since no editor could know exactly what words would call the statute into operation. It is also contended that the statute fails to distinguish between critical comment which is and which is not defamatory. B The appellee and supporting advocates of an enforceable right of access to the press vigorously argue that government has an obligation to ensure that a wide variety of views reach the public. The contentions of access proponents will be set out in some detail. It is urged that at the time the First Amendment to the Constitution was ratified in 1791 as part of our Bill of Rights the press was broadly representative of the people it was serving. While many of the newspapers were intensely partisan and narrow in their views, the press collectively presented a broad range of opinions to readers. Entry into publishing was inexpensive; pamphlets and books provided meaningful alternatives to the organized press for the expression of unpopular ideas and often treated events and expressed views not covered by conventional newspapers. A true marketplace of ideas existed in which there was relatively easy access to the channels of communication. Access advocates submit that although newspapers of the present are superficially similar to those of 1791 the press of today is in reality very different from that known in the early years of our national existence. In the past half century a communications revolution has seen the introduction of radio and television, into our lives, the promise of a global community through the use of communications satellites, and the specter of a “wired” nation.by means of an expanding cable television network with two-way capabilities. The printed press, it is said, has not escaped the effects of this revolution. Newspapers have become big business and there are far fewer of them to serve a larger literate population. Chains of newspapers, national newspapers, national wire and news services, and one-newspaper towns, are the dominant features of a press that has become noncompetitive and enormously powerful and influential in its capacity to manipulate popular opinion and change the course of events. Major metropolitan newspapers have collaborated to establish news services national in scope. Such national news organizations provide syndicated “interpretive reporting” as well as syndicated features and commentary, all of which can serve as part of the new school of “advocacy journalism.” The elimination of competing newspapers in most of our large cities, and the concentration of control of media that results from the only newspaper’s being owned by the same interests which own a television station and a radio station, are important components of this trend toward concentration of control of outlets to inform the public. The result of these vast changes has been to place in a few hands the power to inform the American people and shape public opinion. Much of the editorial opinion and commentary that is printed is that of syndicated columnists distributed nationwide and, as a result, we are told, on national and world issues there tends to be a homogeneity of editorial opinion, commentary, and interpretive analysis. The abuses of bias and manipulative reportage are, likewise, said to be the result of the vast accumulations of unreviewable power in the modern media empires. In effect, it is claimed, the public has lost any ability to respond or to contribute in a meaningful way to the debate on issues. The monopoly of the means of communication allows for little or no critical analysis of the media except in professional journals of very limited readership. “This concentration of nationwide news organizations — like other large institutions — has grown increasingly remote from and unresponsive to the popular constituencies on which they depend and which depend on them.” Report of the Task Force in Twentieth Century Fund Task Force Report for a National News Council, A Free and Responsive Press 4 (1973). Appellee cites the report of the Commission on Freedom of the Press, chaired by Robert M. Hutchins, in which it was stated, as long ago as 1947, that “[t]he' right of free public expression has . . . lost its earlier reality.” Commission on Freedom of the Press, A Free and Responsible Press 15 (1947). The obvious solution, which was available to dissidents at an earlier time when entry into publishing was relatively inexpensive, today would be to have additional newspapers. But the same economic factors which have caused the disappearance of vast numbers of metropolitan newspapers, have made entry into the marketplace of ideas served by the print media almost impossible. It is urged that the claim of newspapers to be “surrogates for the public” carries with it a concomitant fiduciary obligation to account for that stewardship. From this premise it is reasoned that the only effective way to insure fairness and accuracy and to provide for some accountability is for government to take affirmative action. The First Amendment interest of the public in being informed is said to be in peril because the “marketplace of ideas” is today a monopoly controlled by the owners of the market. Proponents of enforced access to the press take comfort from language in several of this Court’s decisions which suggests that the First Amendment acts as a sword as well as a shield, that it imposes obligations on the owners of the press in addition to protecting the press from government regulation. In Associated Press v. United States, 326 U. S. 1, 20 (1945), the Court, in rejecting the argument that the press is immune from the antitrust laws by virtue of the First Amendment, stated: “The First Amendment, far from providing an argument against application of the Sherman Act, here provides powerful reasons to the contrary. That Amendment rests on the assumption that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public, that a free press is a condition of a free society. Surely a command that the government itself shall not impede the free flow of ideas does not afford non-governmental combinations a refuge if they impose restraints upon that constitutionally guaranteed freedom. Freedom to publish means freedom for all and not for some. Freedom to publish is guaranteed by the Constitution, but freedom to combine to keep others from publishing is not. Freedom of the press from governmental interference under the First Amendment does not sanction repression of that freedom by private interests.” (Footnote omitted.) In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 270 (1964), the Court spoke of “a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” It is argued that the “uninhibited, robust” debate is not “wide-open” but open only to a monopoly in control of the press. Appellee cites the plurality opinion in Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc., 403 U. S. 29, 47, and n. 15 (1971), which he suggests seemed to invite experimentation by the States in right-to-access regulation of the press. Access advocates note that Mr. Justice Douglas a decade ago expressed his deep concern regarding the effects of newspaper monopolies: “Where one paper has a monopoly in an area, it seldom presents two sides of an issue. It too often hammers away on one ideological or political line using its monopoly position not to educate people, not to promote debate, but to inculcate in its readers one philosophy, one attitude — and to make money.” “The newspapers that give a variety of views and news that is not slanted or contrived are few indeed. And the problem promises to get worse . . . .” The Great Rights 12A-125, 127 (E. Cahn ed. 1963). They also claim the qualified support of Professor Thomas I. Emerson, who has written that “[a] limited right of access to the press can be safely enforced,” although he believes that “[government measures to encourage a multiplicity of outlets, rather than compelling a few outlets to represent' everybody, seems a preferable course of action.” T. Emerson, The System of Freedom of .Expression 671 (1970). “c*]Some states have adopted retraction statutes or right-of-reply statutes .... “One writer, in arguing that the First Amendment itself should be read to guarantee a right of access to the media not limited to a right to respond to defamatory falsehoods, has suggested several ways the law might encourage public discussion. Barron, Access to the Press — A New First Amendment Right, 80 Harv. L. Rev. 1641, 1666-1678 (1967). It is important to recognize that the private individual often desires press exposure either for himself, his ideas, or his causes. Constitutional adjudication must take into account the individual’s interest in access to the press as well as the individual’s interest in preserving his reputation, even though libel actions by their nature encourage a narrow view of the individual’s interest since they focus only on situations where the individual has been harmed by undesired press attention. A constitutional rule that deters the press from covering the ideas or activities of the private individual thus conceives the individual’s interest too narrowly.” IV However much validity may be found in these arguments, at each point the implementation of a remedy such as an enforceable right of access necessarily calls for some mechanism, either governmental or consensual. If it is governmental coercion, this at once brings about a confrontation with the express provisions of the First Amendment and the judicial gloss on that Amendment developed over the years. The Court foresaw the problems relating to government-enforced access as early as its decision in Associated Press v. United States, supra. There it carefully contrasted the private “compulsion to print” called for by the Association’s bylaws with the provisions of the District Court decree against appellants which “does not compel AP or its members to permit publication of anything which their 'reason’ tells them should not be published.” 326 U. S., at 20 n. 18. In Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U. S. 665, 681 (1972), we emphasized that the cases then before us “involve no intrusions upon speech or assembly, no prior restraint or restriction on what the press may publish, and no express or implied command that the press publish what it prefers to withhold.” In Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U. S. 94, 117 (1973), the plurality opinion as to Part III noted: “The power of a privately owned newspaper to advance its own political, social, and economic views is bounded by only two factors: first, the acceptance of a sufficient number of readers — and hence advertisers — to assure financial success; and, second, the journalistic integrity of its editors and publishers.” An attitude strongly adverse to any attempt to extend a right of access to newspapers was echoed by other Members of this Court in their separate opinions in that case. Id., at 145 (Stewart, J., concurring); id., at 182 n. 12 (Brennan, J., joined by Marshall, J., dissenting). Recently, while approving a bar against employment advertising specifying “male” or “female” preference, the Court’s opinion in Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Human Relations Comm’n, 413 U. S. 376, 391 (1973), took pains to limit its holding within narrow bounds: “Nor, a fortiori, does our decision authorize any restriction whatever, whether of content or layout, on stories or commentary originated by Pittsburgh Press, its columnists, or its contributors. On the contrary, we reaffirm unequivocally the protection afforded to editorial judgment and to the free expression of views on these and other issues, however controversial.” Dissenting in Pittsburgh Press, Mr. Justice Stewart, joined by Mr. Justice Douglas, expressed the view that no “government agency — local, state, or federal — can tell a newspaper in advance what it can print and what it cannot.” Id., at 400. See Associates & Aldrich Co. v. Times Mirror Co., 440 F. 2d 133, 135 (CA9 1971). We see that beginning with Associated Press, supra, the Court has expressed sensitivity as to whether a restriction or requirement constituted the compulsion exerted by government on a newspaper to print that which it would not otherwise print. The clear implication has been that any such a compulsion to publish that which “ ‘reason’ tells them should not be published” is unconstitutional. A responsible press is an undoubtedly desirable goal, but press responsibility is not mandated by the Constitution and like many other virtues it cannot be legislated. Appellee’s argument that the Florida statute does not amount to a restriction of appellant’s right to speak because “the statute in question here has not prevented the Miami Herald from saying anything it wished” begs the core question. Compelling editors or publishers to publish that which “ ‘reason’ tells them should not be published” is what is at issue in this case. The Florida statute operates as a command in the same sense as a statute or regulation forbidding appellant to publish specified matter. Governmental restraint on publishing need not fall into familiar or traditional patterns to be subject to constitutional limitations on governmental powers. Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U. S. 233, 244-245 (1936). The Florida statute exacts a penalty on the basis of the content of a newspaper. The first phase of the penalty resulting from the compelled printing of a reply is exacted in terms of the cost in printing and composing time and materials and in taking up space that could be devoted to other material the newspaper may have preferred to print. It is correct, as ap-pellee contends, that a newspaper is not subject to the finite technological limitations of time that confront a broadcaster but it is not correct to say that, as an economic reality, a newspaper can proceed to infinite expansion of its column space to accommodate the replies that a government agency determines or a statute commands the readers should have available. Faced with the penalties that would accrue to any newspaper that published news or commentary arguably within the reach of the right-of-access statute, editors might well conclude that the safe course is to avoid controversy. Therefore, under the operation of the Florida statute, political and electoral coverage would be blunted or reduced. Government-enforced right of access inescapably “dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate,” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S., at 279. The Court, in Mills v. Alabama, 384 U. S. 214, 218 (1966), stated: “[T]here is practically universal agreement that a major purpose of [the First] Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs. This of course includes discussions of candidates . . . Even if a newspaper would face no additional costs to comply with a compulsory access law and would not be forced to forgo publication of news or opinion by the inclusion of a reply, the Florida statute fails to clear the barriers of the First Amendment because of its intrusion into the function of editors. A newspaper is more than a passive receptacle or conduit for news, comment, and advertising. The choice of material to go into a newspaper, and the decisions made as to limitations on the size and content of the paper, and treatment of public issues and public officials — whether fair or unfair — constitute the exercise of editorial control and judgment. It has yet to be demonstrated how governmental regulation of this crucial process can be exercised consistent with First Amendment guarantees of a free press as they have evolved to this time. Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is reversed. It is so ordered. The text of the September 20, 1972, editorial is as follows: “The State’s Laws And Pat Tornillo “LOOK who’s upholding the law! “Pat Tomillo, boss of the Classroom Teachers Association and candidate for the State Legislature in the Oct. 3 runoff election, has denounced his opponent as lacking ‘the knowledge to be a legislator, as evidenced by his failure to file a list of contributions to and expenditures of his campaign as required by law.’ “Czar Tornillo calls ‘violation of this law inexcusable.’ “This is the same Pat Tornillo who led the CTA strike from February 19 to March 11, 1968, against the school children and taxpayers of Dade County. Call it whatever you will, it was an illegal act against the public interest and clearly prohibited by the statutes. “We cannot say it would be illegal but certainly it would be inexcusable of the voters if they sent Pat Tomillo to Tallahassee to occupy the seat for District 103 in the House of Representatives.” The text of the September 29, 1972, editorial is as follows: “FROM the people who brought you this — the teacher strike of ’68 — come now instructions on how to vote for responsible government, i.e., against Crutcher Harrison and Ethel Beckham, for Pat Tornillo. The tracts and blurbs and bumper stickers pile up daily in teachers’ school mailboxes amidst continuing pouts that the School Board should be delivering all this at your expense. The screeds say the strike is not an issue. We say maybe it wouldn’t be were it not a part of a continuation of disregard of any and all laws the CTA might find aggravating. Whether in defiance of zoning laws at CTA Towers, contracts and laws during the strike, or more re-cently state prohibitions against soliciting campaign funds amongst teachers, CTA says fie and try and sue us — what’s good for CTA is good for CTA and that is natural law. Tornillo’s law, maybe. For years now he has been kicking the public shin to call attention to his shakedown statesmanship. He and whichever acerbic prexy is in alleged office have always felt their private ventures so chock-full of public weal that we should leap at the chance to nab the tab, be it half the Glorious Leader’s salary or the dues checkoff or anything else except perhaps mileage on the staff hydrofoil. Give him public office, says Pat, and he will no doubt live by the Golden Rule. Our translation reads that as more gold and more rule.” “104.38 Newspaper assailing candidate in an election; space for reply — If any newspaper in its columns assails the personal character of any candidate for nomination or for election in any election, or charges said candidate with malfeasance or misfeasance in office, or otherwise attacks his official record, or gives to another free space for such purpose, such newspaper shall upon request of such candidate immediately publish free of cost any reply he may make thereto in as conspicuous a place and in the same kind of type as the matter that calls for such reply, provided such reply does not take up more space than the matter replied to. Any person or firm failing to comply with the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in § 775.082 or § 775.083.” The Supreme Court did not disturb the Circuit Court’s holding that injunctive relief was not proper in this case even if the statute were constitutional. According to the Supreme Court neither side took issue with that part of the Circuit Court’s decision. 287 So. 2d, at 85. The Supreme Court placed the following limiting construction on the statute: “[W]e hold that the mandate of the statute refers to ‘any reply’ which is wholly responsive to the charge made in the editorial or other article in a newspaper being replied to and further that such reply will be neither libelous nor slanderous of the publication nor anyone else, nor vulgar nor profane.” Id., at 86. Appellee’s Response to Appellant’s Jurisdictional Statement and Motion to Affirm the Judgment Below or, in the Alternative, to Dismiss the Appeal 4-7. Both appellant and appellee claim that the uncertainty of the constitutional validity of § 104.38 restricts the present exercise of First Amendment rights. Brief for Appellant 41; Brief for Ap-pellee 79. Appellant finds urgency for the present consideration of the constitutionality of the statute in the upcoming 1974 elections. Whichever way we were to decide on the merits, it would be intolerable to leave unanswered, under these circumstances, an important question of freedom of the press under the First Amendment; an uneasy and unsettled constitutional posture of § 104.38 could only further harm the operation of a free press. Mills v. Alabama, 384 U. S. 214, 221-222 (1966) (Douglas, J., concurring). See also Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U. S. 415, 418 n. (1971). In its first court test the statute was declared unconstitutional. State v. News-Journal Corp., 36 Fla. Supp. 164 (Volusia County Judge’s Court, 1972). In neither of the two suits, the instant action and the News-Journal action, has the Florida Attorney General defended the statute’s constitutionality. See generally Barron, Access to the Press — A New First Amendment Right, 80 Harv. L. Rev. 1641 (1967). For a good overview of the position of access advocates see Lange, The Role of the Access Doctrine in the Regulation of the Mass Media: A Critical Review and Assessment, 52 N. C. L. Rev. 1, 8-9 (1973) (hereinafter Lange). “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” See Commission on Freedom of the Press, A Free and Responsible Press 14 (1947) (hereinafter sometimes Commission). Commission 15. Even in the last 20 years there has been a significant increase in the number of people likely to tead newspapers. Bagdikian, Fat Newspapers and Slim Coverage, Columbia Journalism Review 15, 16 (Sept./Oct. 1973). “Nearly half of U. S. daily newspapers, representing some three-fifths of daily and Sunday circulation, are owned by newspaper groups and chains, including diversified business conglomerates. One-newspaper towns have become the rule, with effective competition operating in only 4 percent of our large cities.” Background Paper by Alfred Balk in Twentieth Century Fund Task Force Report for a National News Council, A Free and Responsive Press 18 (1973). Report of the Task Force in Twentieth Century Fund Task Force Report for a National News Council, A Free and Responsive Press 4 (1973). “Local monopoly in printed news raises serious questions of diversity of information and opinion. What a local newspaper does not print about local affairs does not see general print at all. And, having the power to take initiative in reporting and enunciation of opinions, it has extraordinary power to set the atmosphere and determine the terms of local consideration of public issues.” B. Bagdikian, The Information Machines 127 (1971). The newspapers have persuaded Congress to grant them immunity from the antitrust laws in the case of “failing” newspapers for joint operations. 84 Stat. 466, 15 U. S. C. § 1801 et seq. “Freedom of the press is a right belonging, like all rights in a democracy, to all the people. As a practical matter, however, it can be exercised only by those who have effective access to the press. Where financial, economic, and technological conditions limit such access to a small minority, the exercise of that right by that minority takes on fiduciary or quasi-fiduciary characteristics.” A. MacLeish in W. Hocking, Freedom of the Press 99 n. 4 (1947) (italics omitted). “If the States fear that private citizens will not be able to respond adequately to publicity involving them, the solution lies in the direction of ensuring their ability to respond, rather than in stifling public discussion of matters of public concern.1[*] The National News Council, an independent and voluntary body concerned with press fairness, was created in 1973 to provide a means for neutral examination of claims of press inaccuracy. The Council was created following the publication of the Twentieth Century Fund Task Force Report for a National News Council, A Free and Responsive Press. The background paper attached to the Report dealt in some detail with the British Press Council, seen by the author of the paper as having the most interest to the United States of the European press councils. Because we hold that § 104.38 violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of a free press we have no occasion to consider appellant’s further argument that the statute is unconstitutionally vague. Brief for Appellee 5. “However, since the amount of space a newspaper can devote to ‘live news’ is finite, c*] if a newspaper is forced to publish a particular item, it must as a practical matter, omit something else. “[«JTke number of column inches available for news is predetermined by a number of financial and physical factors, including circulation, the amount of advertising, and, increasingly, the availability of newsprint. . . .” Note, 48 Tulane L. Rev. 433, 438 (1974) (one footnote omitted). Another factor operating against the “solution” of adding more pages to accommodate the access matter is that “increasingly subscribers complain of bulky, unwieldy papers.” Bagdikian, Fat Newspapers and Slim Coverage, Columbia Journalism Review 19 (Sept./ Oct. 1973). See the description of the likely effect of the Florida statute on publishers, in Lange 70-71. “[L]iberty of the press is in peril as soon as the government tries to compel what is to go into a newspaper. ■ A journal does not merely print observed facts the way a cow is photographed through a plate-glass window. As soon as the facts are set in their context, you have interpretation and you have selection, and editorial selection opens the way to editorial suppression. Then how can the state force abstention from discrimination in the news without dictating selection?” 2 Z. Chafee, Government and Mass Communications 633 (1947). Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy 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 Stewart announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Mr. Justice Blackmun, Mr. Justice Powell, and Mr. Justice Stevens joined. Under Georgia law, a person convicted of murder may be sentenced to death if it is found beyond a reasonable doubt that the offense “was outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman in that it involved torture, depravity of mind, or an aggravated battery to the victim." Ga. Code § 27-2534.1 (b) (7) (1978). In Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, the Court held that this statutory aggravating circumstance (§ (b)(7)) is not unconstitutional on its face. Responding to the argument that the language of the provision is “so broad that capital punishment could be imposed in any murder case/' the joint opinion said: “It is, of course, arguable that any murder involves depravity of mind or an aggravated battery. But this language need not be construed in this way, and there is no reason to assume that the Supreme Court of Georgia will adopt such an open-ended construction.” 428 U. S., at 201 (opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.). Nearly four years have passed since the Gregg decision, and during that time many death sentences based in whole or in part on § (b)(7) have been affirmed by the Supreme Court of Georgia. The issue now before us is whether, in affirming the imposition of the sentences of death in the present case, the Georgia Supreme Court has adopted such a broad and vague construction of the § (b)(7) aggravating circumstance as to violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. I On a day in early September in 1977, the petitioner and his wife of 28 years had a heated argument in their home. During the course of this altercation, the petitioner, who had consumed several cans of beer, threatened his wife with a knife and damaged some of her clothing. At this point, the petitioner’s wife declared that she was going to leave him, and departed to stay with relatives. That afternoon she went to a Justice of the Peace and secured a warrant charging the petitioner with aggravated assault. A few days later, while still living away from home, she filed suit for divorce. Summons was served on the petitioner, and a court hearing was set on a date some two weeks later. Before the date of the hearing, the petitioner on several occasions asked his wife to return to their home. Each time his efforts were rebuffed. At some point during this period, his wife moved in with her mother. The petitioner believed that his mother-in-law was actively instigating his wife’s determination not to consider a possible reconciliation. In the early evening of September 20, according to the petitioner, his wife telephoned him at home. Once again they argued. She asserted that reconciliation was impossible and allegedly demanded all the proceeds from the planned sale of their house. The conversation was terminated after she said that she would call back later. This she did in an hour or so. The ensuing conversation was, according to the petitioner’s account, even more heated than the first. His wife reiterated her stand that reconciliation was out of the question, said that she still wanted all the proceeds from the sale of their house, and mentioned that her mother was supporting her position. Stating that she saw no further use in talking or arguing, she hung up. At this juncture, the petitioner got out his shotgun and walked with it down the hill from his home to the trailer where his mother-in-law lived. Peering through a window, he observed his wife, his mother-in-law, and his 11-year-old-daughter playing a card game. He pointed the shotgun at his wife through the window and pulled the trigger. The charge from the gun struck his wife in the forehead and killed her instantly. He proceeded into the trailer, striking and injuring his fleeing daughter with the barrel of the gun. He then fired the gun at his mother-in-law, striking her in the head and killing her instantly. The petitioner then called the local sheriff’s office, identified himself, said where he was, explained that he had just killed his wife and mother-in-law, and asked that the sheriff come and pick him up. Upon arriving at the trailer, the law enforcement officers found the petitioner seated on a chair in open view near the driveway. He told one of the officers that “they’re dead, I killed them” and directed the officer to the place where he had put the murder weapon. Later the petitioner told a police officer: “I’ve done a hideous crime, . . . but I have been thinking about it for eight years ... I'd do it again.” The petitioner was subsequently indicted on two counts of murder and one count of aggravated assault. He pleaded not guilty and relied primarily on a defense of temporary insanity at his trial. The jury returned verdicts of guilty on all three counts. The sentencing phase of the trial was held before the same jury. No further evidence was’tendered, but counsel for each side made arguments to the jury. Three times during the course of his argument, the prosecutor stated that the case involved no allegation of “torture” or of an “aggravated battery.” When counsel had completed their arguments, the trial judge instructed the jury orally and in writing on the standards that must guide them in imposing sentence. Both orally and in writing, the judge quoted to the jury the statutory language of the § (b) (7) aggravating circumstance in its entirety. The jury imposed sentences of death on both of the murder convictions. As to each, the jury specified that the aggravating circumstance they had found beyond a reasonable doubt was “that the offense of murder was outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible and inhuman.” In accord with Georgia law in capital cases, the trial judge prepared a report in the form of answers to a questionnaire for use on appellate review. One question on the form asked whether or not the victim had been “physically harmed or tortured.” The trial judge's response was “No, as to both victims, excluding the actual murdering of the two victims.” The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of the trial court in all respects. 243 Ga. 302, 253 S. E. 2d 710 (1979). With regard to the imposition of the death sentence for each of the two murder convictions, the court rejected the petitioner’s contention that § (b)(7) is unconstitutionally vague. The court noted that Georgia’s death penalty legislation had been upheld in Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, and cited its prior decisions upholding § (b) (7) in the face of similar vagueness challenges. 243 Ga., at 308-309, 253 S. E. 2d, at 717. As to the petitioner’s argument that the jury’s phraseology was, as a matter of law, an inadequate statement of § (b) (7), the court responded by simply observing that the language “was not objectionable.” 243 Ga., at 310, 253 S. E. 2d, at 718. The court found no evidence that the sentence had been “imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor,” held that the sentence was neither excessive nor disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, and stated that the evidence suported the jury’s finding of the § (b) (7) statutory aggravating circumstance. 243 Ga., at 309-311, 253 S. E. 2d, at 717-718. Two justices dissented. II In Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S. 238, the Court held that the penalty of death may not be imposed under sentencing procedures that create a substantial risk that the punishment will be inflicted in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Gregg v. Georgia, supra, reaffirmed this holding: “[Wjhere discretion is afforded a sentencing body on a matter so grave as the determination of whether a human life should be taken or spared, that discretion must be suitably directed and limited so as to, minimize the risk of wholly arbitrary and capricious action.” 428 U. S., at 189 (opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.). A capital sentencing scheme must, in short, provide a “ 'meaningful basis for distinguishing the few cases in which [the penalty] is imposed from the many cases in which it is not.’ ” Id., at 188, quoting Furman v. Georgia, supra, at 313 (White, J., concurring). This means that if a State wishes to authorize capital punishment it has a constitutional responsibility to tailor and apply its law in a manner that avoids the arbitrary and capricious infliction of the death penalty. Part of a State’s responsibility in this regard is to define the crimes for which death may be the sentence in a way that obviates “standard-less [sentencing] discretion.” Gregg v. Georgia, supra, at 196, n. 47. See also Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U. S. 242; Jurek v. Texas, 428 U. S. 262. It must channel the sentencer’s discretion by “clear and objective standards” that provide “specific and detailed guidance,” and that “make rationally reviewable the process for imposing a sentence of death.” As was made clear in Gregg, a death penalty “system could have standards so vague that they would fail adequately to channel the sentencing decision patterns of juries with the result that a pattern of arbitrary and capricious sentencing like that found unconstitutional in Furman could occur.” 428 U. S., at 195, n. 46. In the case before us, the Georgia Supreme Court has affirmed a sentence of death based upon no more than a finding that the offense was “outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible and inhuman.” There is nothing in these few words, standing alone, that implies any inherent restraint on the arbitrary and capricious infliction of the death sentence. A person of ordinary sensibility could fairly characterize almost every murder as “outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible and inhuman.” Such a view may, in fact, have been one to which the members of the jury in this case subscribed. If so, their preconceptions were not dispelled by the trial judge’s sentencing instructions. These gave the jury no guidance concerning the meaning of any of § (b)(7)’s terms. In fact, the jury’s interpretation of § (b) (7) can only be the subject of sheer speculation. The standardless and unchanneled imposition of death sentences in the uncontrolled discretion of a basically uninstructed jury in this case was in no way cured by the affirmance of those sentences by the Georgia Supreme Court. Under state law that court may not affirm a judgment of death until it has independently assessed the evidence of record and determined that such evidence supports the trial judge’s or jury’s finding of an aggravating circumstance. Ga. Code § 27-2537 (c) (2) (1978). In past cases the State Supreme Court has apparently understood this obligation as carrying with it the responsibility to keep § (b)(7) within constitutional bounds. Recognizing that “there is a.possibility of abuse of [the § (b) (7)] statutory aggravating circumstance,” the court has emphasized that it will not permit the language of that subsection simply to become a “catchall” for cases which do not fit within any other statutory aggravating circumstance. Harris v. State, 237 Ga. 718, 732, 230 S. E. 2d 1, 10 (1976). Thus, in exercising its function of death sentence review, the court has said that it will restrict its “approval of the death penalty under this statutory aggravating circumstance to those cases that lie at the core.” Id., at 733, 230 S. E. 2d, at 11. When Gregg was decided by this Court in 1976, the Georgia Supreme Court had affirmed two death sentences based wholly on § (b)(7). See McCorquodale v. State, 233 Ga. 369, 211 S. E. 2d 577 (1974); House v. State, 232 Ga. 140, 205 S. E. 2d 217 (1974). The homicide in McCorquodale was “a horrifying torture-murder.” There, the victim had been beaten, burned, raped, and otherwise severely abused before her death by strangulation. The homicide in House was of a similar ilk. In that case, the convicted murderer had choked two 7-year-old boys to death after having forced each of them to submit to anal sodomy. Following our decision in Gregg, the Georgia Supreme Court for the first time articulated some of the conclusions it had reached with respect to § (b) (7): "This aggravating circumstance involves both the effect on the victim, viz., torture, or an aggravated battery; and the offender, viz., depravity of mind. As to both parties the test is that the acts (the offense) were outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman. “We believe that each of [the cases decided to date that has relied exclusively on § (b) (7) ] establishes beyond any reasonable doubt a depravity of mind and either involved torture or an aggravated battery to the victim as illustrating the crimes were outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman. Each of the cases is at the core and not the periphery.. . .” Harris v. State, supra, at 732-733, 230 S. E. 2d, at 10-11. Subsequently, in Blake v. State, 239 Ga. 292, 236 S. E. 2d 637 (1977), the court elaborated on its understanding of § (b)(7). There, the contention was that a jury’s finding of the aggravating circumstance could never be deemed unanimous without a polling of each member of the panel. The court said: “We find no significant dissimilarity between outrageously vile, wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman. Considering torture and.aggravated battery on the one hand as substantially similar treatment of the victim and depravity of mind on the other hand as relating to the defendant, we find no room for nonunanimous verdicts for the reason that there is no prohibition upon measuring cause on the one hand by effect on the other hand. That is to say, the depravity of mind contemplated by the statute is that which results in torture or aggravated battery to the victim. . . 239 Ga., at 299, 236 S. E. 2d, at 643. The Harris and Blake opinions suggest that the Georgia Supreme Court had by 1977 reached three separate but consistent conclusions respecting the § (b)(7) aggravating circumstance. The first was that the evidence that the offense was “outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman” had to demonstrate “torture, depravity of mind, or an aggravated battery to the victim.” The second was that the phrase, “depravity of mind,” comprehended only the kind of mental state that led the murderer to torture or to commit an aggravated battery before killing his victim. The third, derived from Blake alone, was that the word, “torture,” must be construed in pari materia with “aggravated battery” so as to require evidence -of serious physical abuse of the victim before death. Indeed, the circumstances proved in a number of the § (b)(7) death sentence cases affirmed by the Georgia Supreme Court have met all three of these criteria. The Georgia courts did not, however, so limit § (b) (7) in the present case. No claim was made, and nothing in the record before us suggests, that the petitioner committed an aggravated battery upon his wife or mother-in-law or, in fact, caused either of them to suffer any physical injury preceding their deaths. Moreover, in the trial court, the prosecutor repeatedly told the jury- — and the trial judge wrote in his sentencing report — that the murders did not involve “torture.” Nothing said on appeal by the Georgia Supreme Court indicates that it took a different view of the evidence. The circumstances of this case, therefore, do not satisfy the criteria laid out by the Georgia Supreme Court itself in the Harris and Blake cases. In holding that the evidence supported the jury’s § (b)(7) finding, the State Supreme Court simply asserted that the verdict was “factually substantiated.” Thus, the validity of the petitioner’s death sentences turns on whether, in light of the facts and circumstances of the murders that he was convicted of committing, the Georgia Supreme Court can be said to have applied a constitutional construction of the phrase “outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman in that [they] involved . . . depravity of mind. . . .” We conclude that the answer must be no. The petitioner’s crimes cannot be said to have reflected a consciousness materially more “depraved” than that of any person guilty of murder. His victims were killed instantaneously. They were members of his family who were causing him extreme emotional trauma. Shortly after the killings, he acknowledged his responsibility and the heinous nature of his crimes. These factors certainly did not remove the criminality from the petitioner’s acts. .But, as was said in Gardner v. Florida, 430 U. S. 349, 358, it “is of vital importance to the defendant and to the community that any decision to impose the death sentence be, and appear to be, based on reason rather than caprice or emotion.” That cannot be said here. There is no principled way to distinguish this case, in which the death penalty was imposed, from the many eases in which it was not. Accordingly, the judgment of the Georgia Supreme Court insofar as it leaves standing the petitioner’s death sentences is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings. It is so ordered. Georgia Code §26-1101 (1978) defines “murder” as follows: “(a) A person commits murder when he unlawfully and with malice aforethought, either express or implied, causes the death of another human being. Express malice is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a fellow creature, which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof. Malice shall be implied where no considerable provocation appears, and where all the circumstances of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart. “(b) A person also commits the crime of murder when in the commission of a felony he causes the death of another human being, irrespective of malice.” The other statutory aggravating circumstances upon which a death sentence may be based after conviction of murder in Georgia are considerably more specific or objectively measurable than § (b) (7): “(1) The offense of murder . . . was committed by a person with a prior record of conviction for a capital felony, or the offense of murder was committed by a person who has a substantial history of serious assaultive criminal convictions. “ (2) The offense of murder . . . was committed while the offender was engaged in the commission of another capital felony, or aggravated battery, or the offense of murder was committed while the offender was engaged in the commission of burglary or arson in the first degree. “(3) The offender by his act of murder . . . knowingly created a great risk of death to more than one person in a public place by means of a weapon or device which would normally be hazardous to the lives of more than one person. “(4) The offender committed the offense of murder for himself or another, for the purpose of receiving money or any other thing of monetary value. “(5) The murder of a judicial officer, former judicial officer, district attorney or solicitor or former district attorney or solicitor during or because of the exercise of his official duty. “(6) The offender caused or directed another to commit murder or committed murder as an agent or employee of another person. “(8) The offense of murder was committed against any peace officer, corrections employee or fireman while engaged in the performance of his official duties. “(9) The offense of murder was committed by a person in, or who has escaped from, the lawful custody of a peace officer or place of lawful confinement. “(10) The murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding, interfering with, or preventing a lawful arrest or custody in a place of lawful confinement, of himself or another.” Ga. Code §27-2534.1 (b) (1978). In Arnold v. State, 236 Ga. 534, 540, 224 S. E. 2d 386, 391 (1976), the Supreme Court of Georgia held unconstitutional the portion of the first statutory aggravating circumstances encompassing persons who have a “substantial history of serious assaultive criminal convictions” because it did not set “sufficiently ‘clear and objective standards.’ ” According to the petitioner, this was not the first time that he and his wife had been separated as a result of his violent behavior. On two or more previous occasions the petitioner had been hospitalized because of his drinking problem. Another question on the form asked the trial judge to list the mitigating circumstances that were in evidence. The judge noted that the petitioner had no significant history of prior criminal activity. Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S., at 198, quoting Coley v. State, 231 Ga. 829, 834, 204 S. E. 2d 612, 615 (1974). Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U. S., at 253 (opinion of Stewart, Powell, and STEVENS, JJ.). Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U. S. 280, 303 (opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.). See also Ruffin v. State, 243 Ga. 95, 106-107, 252 S. E. 2d 472, 480 (1979); Hill v. State, 237 Ga. 794, 802, 229 S. E. 2d 737, 742-743 (1976). Cf. Holton v. State, 243 Ga. 312, 318, 253 S. E. 2d 736, 740 (1979). Gregg v. Georgia, supra, at 201. Banks v. State, 237 Ga. 325, 227 S. E. 2d 380 (1976); McCorquodale v. State, 233 Ga. 369, 211 S. E. 2d 577 (1974); House v. State, 232 Ga. 140, 205 S. E. 2d 217 (1974). Since Harris and Blake, the court has summarily rejected all constitutional challenges to its construction of § (b)(7). See, e. g., Baker v. State, 243 Ga. 710, 711-712, 257 S. E. 2d 192, 193-194 (1979); Collins v. State, 243 Ga. 291, 294, 253 S. E. 2d 729, 732 (1979); Johnson v. State, 242 Ga. 649, 651, 250 S. E. 2d 394, 397-398 (1978); Lamb v. State, 241 Ga. 10, 15, 243 S. E. 2d 59, 63 (1978). This construction of § (b) (7) finds strong support in the language and structure of the statutory provision. “Aggravated battery” is a term that is defined in Georgia's criminal statutes. Georgia Code §26-1305 (1978) states: “A person commits aggravated battery when he maliciously causes bodily harm to another by depriving him of a member of his body, or by rendering a member of his body useless, or by seriously disfiguring his body or a member thereof.” It appears that this definition has on at least one occasion been treated by the state trial courts as controlling the meaning of the same words in § (b) (7). See, e. g., Holton v. State, 243 Ga., at 317, n. 1, 253 S. E. 2d, at 740, n. 1. We note, however, that the Hams case apparently did not involve “torture” in this sense. See, e. g., Thomas v. State, 240 Ga. 393, 242 S. E. 2d 1 (1977) ; Stanley v. State, 240 Ga. 341; 241 S. E. 2d 173 (1977); Dix v. State, 238 Ga. 209, 232 S. E. 2d 47 (1977); Birt v. State, 236 Ga. 815, 225 S. E. 2d 248 (1976); McCorquodale v. State, supra. The sentences of death in this case rested exclusively on § (b)(7). Accordingly, we intimate no view as to whether or not the petitioner might constitutionally have received the same sentences on some other basis. Georgia does not, as do some States, make multiple murders an aggravating circumstance, as such. In light of this fact, it is constitutionally irrelevant that the petitioner used a shotgun instead of a rifle as the murder weapon, resulting in a gruesome spectacle in his mother-in-law’s trailer. An interpretation of § (b) (7) so as to include all murders resulting in gruesome scenes would be totally irrational. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

A

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr. Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of 1he Court. Petitioner in this case presents a claim that evidence offered against him at his trial should have been suppressed because it was seized at nighttime in violation of governing statutory provisions. The search which led to the seizure was conducted by officers of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department at approximately 9:30 p. m. within the District of Columbia. Armed.with a search warrant, the officers entered petitioner’s apartmertt for the purpose of discovering violations of a federal narcotics statute, and seized a substantial amount of contraband narcotics. The parties urge upon us differing theories concerning which federal or District of Columbia statute bears on the legality of this search, and we must therefore interpret and reconcile several recent congressional enactments dealing with nighttime searches which seem to embody somewhat inconsistent views. The Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court’s description of this congeries of statutes as a “ ‘bramble-bush of uncertainties and contradictions,’ ” and a mere summary of the statutes attests to the accuracy of that observation: District of Columbia Statutes: The older of the two, conceivably relevant District of Columbia statutes, D-. C. Code § 33-414 (1973), was enacted in 1956 and authorizes search warrants for violations of the District of Columbia narcotics laws. This section does not limit the time during which searches may be made,- stating plainly that “[t]he judge or commissioner shall insert a direction in the- warrant that it may be served, at any time in the day or- night.” This liberal time provision is in direct contrast to the more restrictive provisions of the second District of Columbia statute to be considered, D. C. Code § 23-521 (f)(5), which specifically requires that search-warrants be served in the daytime unless certain conditions set forth in § 23-522 (c)(1) are met. These conditions essentially require a showing of special need to search at night, and concededly have not been satisfied in this case. Federal Statutes and Rules: The general provision governing federal search warrants is found in Fed. Rule Grim. Proc. 41. At the time the search in this case took place, Rule 41 (c) provided that warrants must be served in the daytime except where “the affidavits are positive that the property is on the person or in the place to be searched.” In such event the warrant could direct “that it be served at any time.” This provision was incorporated in the Rules in 1948 as a replacement for language previously contained in the Espionage Act of 1917. A second federal statute relating only to searches for “controlled substances” is found in 21 U. S. C. §879 (a), which was enacted in 1970. That section 'provides that a' warrant may-.be served “at any time of the day or night” so long as the issuing authority “is satisfied that there is probable cause to believe that grounds exist for the warrant and for its service at such time.”'This provision in turn is the successor to a provision in 18 U. S. C. § 1405 (1964 ed.), enacted in 1956 to relax the “positivity” test of Rule 41 in cases involving certain narcotic drugs. ■ Congress had passed this statute in response to the complaints of law' enforcement officers that the positivity requirement gave commercial narcotics dealers a definite’ ¿d vantage over federal agents. Rule 41 is therefore not applicable to searches governed by the more specific narcotic search statutes. Tbie facts of this case must be understood in the context of thes'e statutes. On February 11, 1971, an Assistant United States Attorney applied to a United States Magistrate sitting in the District of Columbia for a warrant authorizing a search of petitioner’s apartment for evidence of illegal narcotics. The application included the brief notation: “Violation: U. S. Cr; Title 26. Sections: 4704a.” In connection with the application., an officer of the Metropolitan Police Department vice squad appeared before the Magistrate and swore that he had reason to believe petitioner was concealing property held in violation of 'that same cocte provision. The officer supplemented his personal testimony with a written affidavit, outlining the basis for the application in more detail and alleging specifically that “illegal drugs are sold and possessed in violation of the United States Code, Title 26,. Section 4704a.” The affidavit concluded with the language: “I am positive that Lonnie Gooding is secreting narcotics inside his apartment at 1419 Chapin Street NW in violation of the US Code.” The Magistrate then issued a warrant directing the Chief of Police or “any member of MPDC” to search petitioner’s apartment. The warrant specifically noted that facts had been set forth in ah affidavit alleging a violation of 26 U. S. C. § 4704 (a) (1964 ed.) and that those facts established probable cause to make the search. The warrant also stated that the search could be made “at any time in the day or night.” • This phrase was accompanied by a footnote reference to Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 41 (c), presumably because-the police officer had asserted he was “positive” the drugs were in petitioner’s apartment. One of the briefs filed in this case suggests that the warrant form was preprinted and contemplated application of Rule 41 standards. The search warrant was executed on February 12, 1971, at 9:30 p. m. The officers engaged in the search were all members- of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, and the search uncovered a substantial quantity of contraband narcotic materials. They were seized and formed the basis for charging petitioner with violations of 26 U. S. C. § 4704 (a) (1964 ed.) and 21 U. S. C. § 174 (1964 ed.). Following his indictment in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on April 6, 1971, petitioner filed a.motion to suppress the evidence discovered in the February 12 search. . Several grounds were asserted in support of the motion, particularly that “[t]he search warrant was executed at night but the application for the warrant did not comply with the D. C. Code provisions for nighttime search warrants... Although no provisions of the D. C. Code were' explicitly referred to, petitioner’s argument apparently was that Title 23 of the D. C. Code, requiring that a special showing of need be made to justify a search at night, governed this search, and that its requirements had not been met. The District Court found this reasoning persuasive and granted the motion to suppress. Rejecting the Government’s argument that the warrant was not issued under Title 23 but rather under 21 U. S. C. § 879 (a), the court stated: “Whatever be the standards generally for issuance of a nighttime search warrant in federal narcotics cases in other parts of the country, however, the Court finds that the existence of 21 U. S. C. § 879 (a) does not remove such cases from the explicit requirements for' search warrants in the District of Columbia under the newly enacted Title 23, D. C. Code.” Having decided that District of Columbia law applied, the District Court admitted to some uncertainty about the status of D. C. Code § 33-414, the provision dealing specifically with violations of local drug laws. The court noted with some puzzlement that no mention of this provision was found in the legislative history of Title 23, and that some language in the legislative history suggested that the provisión had simply been overlooked. Nevertheless, the court determined that “[p] ending prompt review of this determination or congressional action, and-pending interpretation of 33 D. C. Code § 414 (h) in light of the new Title 23 provisions, search warrants which are to be-executed in the nighttime should comply in all respects with 23 D. C. Code § 523 (b).” Concededly the warrant issued in this case did not comply with the requirements of Title 23. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the District Court, although none of the three judges who composed the panel completely agreed with any other ón the proper rationale. All three agreed,'however, that 21 U. S. C. § 879 (a), rather than any provision of the District of Columbia Code, was the provision which determined the legality of this search. All three likewise agreed that the affidavit submitted by the District of Columbia police officer satisfied the requirements of that section. Judge Wilkey and Judge Fahy found that no greater showing for a nighttime search was required by § 879 (a) than was required by its predecessor statute governing federal narcotics searches, 18 U. S. C. 1:1405 (1964 ed.), and that the affidavit need establish only probable cause to believe that the-property would be on the premises at the time of the search Judge Robinson believed that § 879 (a) did require an additional showing for a nighttime search, but concluded that such a showing had been made in this case: • Petitioner urges that we reverse the Court of Appeals on either or both of two alternative grounds. First, petitioner repeats his assertion, sustained by the District Court, that Title 23 of the D. C. Code is the statute applicable, to the search in this case and that, as the Government has conceded, the requirements of that title have not been satisfied. Second, petitioner argues that, if 21 U. S. C. § 879 (a) is considered to be the applicable provision, a special showing for nighttime searches must be made. We agree with the Court of Appeals that 21 U. S. C. § 879 (a) is the statute applicable to this case, and that its provisions have been satisfied-here. I The unique situation of the District of Columbia, for.which Congress legislates both specially. and as a part of the Nation, gives rise to the principal difficulties in this case. For we deal here not with statutory schemes enacted by independent legislative bodies, but with possibly overlapping schemes enacted by a single body. Despite the potential overlap, however, we think that the operative facts surrounding this search. strongly indicate that the standards for.issuance of a warrant should be governed by the nationwide federal legislation enacted by Congress — that is, 21 U. S. C. § 879 (a) — rather than by the local D. C. laws. To begin with, an Assistant United States Attorney, who had discretion to proceed either under federal or under local law, filed the application for the search warrant alleging a violation of the United States Code. Application was made to a United States Magistrate, located in the United States District Court building, and neither the application nor the supporting affidavits contained any mention of the local narcotics laws. After the materials were seized, petitioner was indicted for violations of federal law. Petitioner contends, however, that Title 23 of the D. C. Code should apply to this case because the executing officers, as well as the officer swearing to the affidavit presented to the Magistrate, were not federal officers but officers of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department. He argues that the provisions of 21 U. S. C. § 8.79 (a) were intended to apply solely to agents of the Bureau of Narcotics and'Dangerous Drugs, none of whom were involved here, whereas Title 23 of the D. C. Code was intended to provide comprehensive regulation of District of Columbia police officers investigating both local and' federal offenses. Petitioner reinforces his argument by noting that the former federal statute regulating drug searches specifically provided that “a search warrant may be directed to any officer of the Metropolitan Police of the District of Columbia authorized to enforce or assist in enforcing a violation of any of such provisions,” while no such section appears in' 21 U. S. ’ C. § 879. Therefore, says petitioner, the District of Columbia police’ were no longer to be considered federal agents for the purpose of enforcing federal drug laws. Although petitioner’s arguments cannot be dismissed lightly, we find them ultimately unpersuasive.’. Coricededly there are hints in the statutory framework and legislative history of the Controlled Substances Act, 84 Stat. 1242, that indicate the policing function under those provisions would-be the primary responsibility of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs. But this focus on the Bureau’s role seems entirely natural in view of one of the Act’s stated purposes to “collect the diverse drug control and enforcement laws under one piece of legislation to facilitate law enforcement; drug research, educational and related control facilities.” In providing a comprehensive federal scheme for the control of drug abuse, Congress could be expected to pay special attention to the federé! agency set up to enforce the laws. But this attention does not mean that Congress at the same time wished to dispense with the aid of other enforcement personnel who had previously given assistance. . The failure of Congress to include a special provision authorizing District of Columbia police officers to obtain search warrants for investigating federal offenses cannot be taken as a deliberate exclusion in view of.the overall statutory framework. The provision included in the previous federal statute may well have seemed unnecessary, both in light of the history of cooperation between the District of Columbia police.and federal officers and in view of the provisions of D. C. Code § 4r-138 providing that “[a]ny warrant for search or arrest, issued by any magistrate of- the District, may be executed in any part of the District by any member of the police force....” Thus, both custom and statute already assured the availability of District of Columbia police. Furthermore, the legislative history relating to § 879 (a) stresses the need for stronger enforcement of the federal narcotics laws, a. goal hardly advanced by reducing the forces available to.execute those laws. In fact, the provision which is now § 879 (b), permitting “no-knock” searches under certain conditions, was one of the most controversial sections of the entire bill, and was defended primarily by the pressing need for added enforcement weapons to combat the increased drug traffic. Finally, the interpretation urged by petitioner would leave District of Columbia officers able to execute general federal search warrants under amended Fed. 'Rule Crim. Proc. 41, but would deny them that authority under the federal drug search statute.'Rule 41 now pro: vides that “a federal law enforcement officer” — defined in the Rule to include “any category of officers authorized by the Attorney General to request the issuance of a search warrant” — may make applications under the Rule. The Attorney General has since listed the Metropolitan Police Department ahiong those agencies which are so authorized. If petitioner’s contention were accepted, it would seemingly mean that the general search warrant statute applicable to the District of Columbia would govern District of Columbia police officers investigating federal drug cases, but would not govern them when investigating other federal crimes.. This result would obtain despite the fact that District of Columbia police officers historically played a prominent role in the enforcement of federal drug laws under 18 U. S. C. § 1405 (1964 ed.). There is little indication that Title 23 of the D. C. Code was intended to serve the sweeping purpose which petitioner attributes to it. The search warrant provisions upon which petitioner relies were part of the Court Reform and Criminal Procedure Act, which substantially reorganized the District of Columbia court system, providing for a new local court of general jurisdiction and relieving the United States District Court for the District of Columbia of much of its local burden. Prior to that time all local felonies had been tried in the United States District Court, and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by their terms had applied. The creation of the new Superior Court created the need for a new set of procedural rules, and, though some important changes were made, the new rules quite closely tracked the Federal Rules. It does not seem unreasonable, therefore, to suggest that the general provision relating to search warrants, found in D. C.^Code § 23-521 et seq. and then incorporated in similar form into the rules promulgated Feb. 1, 1971, for the new Superior Court, was intended to be a counterpart to Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 41. The Federal Rule; as discussed infra, did - not apply to narcotics cases in the federal courts since more specific provisions, first those of 18 U. S. C. § 1405 (1964 ed.) and then, those of 21 U. S. C. § 879 (a), controlled. This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that Federal Rule 41 has been subsequently modified to more closely resemble the District of Columbia statute and rule. The new Federal Rule, though less specific than the local rule, provides that a search warrant must be served in the daytime, “unless the issuing authority, by appropriate provision in the warrant, and for reasonable cause shown, authorizes its execution at times other than daytime,’.’ and abandons the old, cumbersome positivity standard. The concern for individual privacy revealed in the provisions of the District of Columbia search statute may thus be found in the new Federal Jtule as well, but Congress’ as it had in the earlier version of the Rule, nevertheless showed its clear intention to leave intact other special search warrant provisions, including, of course, the provisions relating to searches for controlled substances. In those limited cases Congress has considered the need for privacy to be counterbalanced by the public need for more effective law enforcement. We do not believe that Congress, by enacting a general search warrant provision for the District of Columbia, has struck a different balance in federal drug cases simply because District of Columbia police officers are involved. . We therefore conclude, as did all the judges of the Court of Appeals, that the statute applicable to this case is 21 U. S. C. § 879 (a). Our remaining task is to determine whether the requirements of that section have been met. IX .“A search warrant relating to offenses involving controlled substances may be served at any time of the day. or night if the judge or United States magistrate issuing, the warrant is satisfied that there is probable cause' to believe that grounds exist for the warrant and for its service at such time.” 21 U. S. C. § 879 (a). Only the last seven words of the statute are really in controversy. here.. Petitioner contends that this language, not found in the predecessor statute, 18 U. S. C. § 1405 (1964 ed.), was intended to require some special showing of need for searches conducted at night rather than during the day. His contention was adopted, at least in part, by Judge Robinson in the Court of Appeals. The Government, on the other hand, contends that it must show only probable 'cause to believe that the sought-after property will be on the premises at the.time of the search, and that if there is probable cause to believe the property will' be on the premises at night, such a showing sufficiently meets the requirement imposed by the last seven words of § 879 (a). The language of the statute by itself is not crystal clear on this issue. Petitioner insists- that the last phrase requires with unmistakable clarity a separate finding of probable cause to justify a nighttime search. Thus, according to petitioner, the issuing magistrate would have to satisfy himself that there was not only probable cause for the search, but also probable cause for believing that the search should be conducted at nighttime rather than during the daytime. While this is a possible meaning, it is by no means the only possible meaning attributable to the words. Petitioner’s interpretation really assumes that the statute reads: “There is probable cause to believe that grounds exist for the warrant and, if served at night, for its service at such time.” But the statute does not include the italicizéd four words; it makes no distinction whatever between day and night, and literally read would apparently require that a special showing be made for a daytime search as well. The idea that a particularized showing must be made for searches in the daytime is completely novel and lacks even a single counterpart in other search statutes enacted by Congress. Petitioner suggests that since Congress was concerned about the greater intrusion resulting from nighttime searches, it would be logical to apply the language, “probable’ cause... for its service at such time,” only to nighttime searches. But even this interpretation, which is by no means a literal reading of the language, is not wholly convincing. -The'traditional limitation placed on nighttime searches, as evident from the earlier language of Rule 41, is to require, not that there be probable' caüse for searching at night, but that the affiant be positive that the property is in fact located on the property to be searched- Thus Congress’ very choice of the words “probable cause” would indicate that the earlier limitation of “positivity” was not to apply, while offering no other immediately ascertainable standard fon what should constitute “probable cause” for executing a search warrant during the night. This roundabout way of limiting nighttime searches, if that were in fact the statute’s intent, would sharply contrast with the manner in which Congress has required special showings for nighttime searches in other statutes. For example, Title 23 of the D. C. Code, discussed supra, specifies that the warrant “be executed during the hours of daylight” (emphasis added) unless certain itemized conditions are met. Federal Rule Crim. Proc. 41, as amended in 1972, states: “The warrant shall be served in the daytime unless the issuing authority, • by appropriate provision in the warrant, and for reasonable cause ■ shown, authorizes its execution at times other than daytime.” (Emphasis added.) The fact that Congress, when it has intended to require such special showings for nighttime searches, has done so in language largely free from ambiguity militates against petitioner’s assertion that the language, of § 879 (a) on its face supports his position. ■ The legislative history lends no support to petitioner’s interpretation, but in fact cuts the other way.- ■ Both the House and the Senate Committee Reports on the bill incorporated a summary prepared by the Department. of Justice, where much of the -bill’s drafting had taken places which stated: “Section 702 (a) [now § 879 (a)] incorporates.18 U. S. C. [§] 1405 and authorizes service of a. search warrant at any time of the day or night if probable cause has been established to the satisfaction of the judge or U. S. magistrate issuing the warrant.” As previously noted, § 1405 provided that a search warrant could be served at any time of the day or night so long as the issuing officer was “satisfied that there is probable cause to believe that the grounds for the-application exist....” Case law had uniformly interpreted the language to mean that probable cause for the warrant itself was all that was necessary for a nighttime search. The officers or agents simply had to establish probable cause for believing that the sought-after property would be found in the place to be searched. There is no ■ suggestion in any of the hearings or debates before Congress that a change from the prior law in this área was intended. The provision itself went unmentioned in the debates and hearings on the bill, a surprising omission if the bill effected "the cutback petitioner says it did. Of like import is the fact that in the long and heated discussions over § 702 (b), the so-called, “no-knock” provision of the bill, no defender of the bill saw fit to argue that any greater intrusion caused by the no-knock provision would be partially offset by the greater difficulty in obtaining warrants executable at night. While congressional silence as to a particular provision of a bill during debates which give extensive consideration to neighboring provisions is not easy to interpret, it would be unusual for such a significant change as that proposed by petitioner to have entirely escaped notice. Finally, it is important to note that.the Department of Justice itself submitted this bill to Congress for enactment, including § 879 (a) in its present form. Since the hearings and debates stress that a major purpose of the bill was to supply more effective enforcement tools to combat the increasing use of narcotic drugs, it seems totally illogical to suggest that the Department of Justice would submit a bill making it substantially more difficult to control the traffic in hard drugs. Petitioner suggests that this surrender was necessary to convince Congress to bring additional drugs within the Controlled Substances Act, but that theory rests entirely on speculation. There is absolutely no indication in the legislative history that any price had to be paid, for what was thought to be a much-desired reorganization and expansion of the drug laws, much less the substantial price that petitioner argues had to be paid here. We therefore conclude that 21 U. S. C. § 879 (a) requires no special showing for a nighttime search, other than a showing that the contraband is likely to be on the property or person to be searched at that time. We believe that the showing was met in this case. The affidavit submitted by the District of Columbia police officer suggested that there was a continuing traffic of drugs from petitioner’s apartment, and a prior purchase through an informer had confirmed that drugs were available. This was sufficient to satisfy 21 U. S. C. § 879 (a). The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is Affirmed. The Government -contends that even though we, were to determine that the applicable statutory provision was violated in this case, the evidence should nonetheless not be suppressed. Since we conclude that the seizure was consistent with the governing statute, we have no occasion to reach this alternative argument. See 155 U. S. App. D. C. 259, 261, 477 F. 2d 428, 430 (1973), quoting from 328 F. Supp. 1005, 1008 (DC 1971). “§ 33-414. Search warrants' — Requirements—Form—Contents— Return — Penalty for interfering with service. “(a) A search warrant may be issued by any judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia or by a United States commissioner for the District of Columbia when any narcotic drugs are manufactured, possessed, controlled, sold, prescribed, administered, dispensed, or compounded, in violation of the provisions of this chapter, and any such narcotic drugs and any other property designed for use in connection with such unlawful manufacturing, possession,- controlling, selling, prescribing, administering, dispensing, or compounding, may be seized thereunder, and shall be subject to such disposition as the court may make thereof and such narcotic drugs may be taken on the warrant from any house or other place in which they are concealed. “(b) A search warrant cannot be issued but upon probable cause supported by affidavit particularly describing the property and the place to be searched. “(e) The judge or commissioner must, before issuing the warrant, examine on oath the complainant and any witnesses he may produce, and require their affidavits or take their depositions in writing and cause them to be subscribed by the parties making them. “(d) The affidavits or depositions must set forth the facts tending to establish the grounds of the application or probable cause for believing that they exist. “(e) If the judge or commissioner is thereupon satisfied of the existence of the grounds of the application or that there is probable cause to believe their existence, he must issue a search warrant, signed by him, to the major and superintendent of police of the District of Columbia or any member of the Metropolitan police department, stating the particular grounds or probable cause for its issue and the' names of the persons whose affidavits have been taken in support thereof, and commanding him forthwith to search the' place named for the property specified and to bring it before the judge or commissioner. ■ “(f) A search warrant may in all cases be served by any of the officers mentioned in its direction, but by no other person, except in aid of the officer on his1, requiring it, he being present and acting in its execution. . “(g) The officer may break open any outer or inner door or window of a house, or any part of a house, or anything therein, to execute the warrant, if, after notice of his authority and purpose, he is refused admittance. “(h) The judge or commissioner shall insert a direction in the warrant' that it may be served a\ any time in the day or night.” "§23-521. Nature and issuance of search warrants “(a) Under circumstances described in this subchapter, a judicial officer may issue a search warrant upon application of a law enforcement officer or prosecutor. A warrant may authorize a search to be conducted anywhere in the District of Columbia and may be executed pursuant to its terms. “(b) A search warrant may direr a search of any or all of the following: “(1) one or more designated or described places or premises; "(2) one or more designated ór described vehicles; “(3) one or more designated or described physical objects; or “(4) designated persons. "(c) A search warrant may direct the seizure of designated property or kinds of property, and the seizure may include, to such extent as is reasonable under all the circumstances, taking physical or other impressions, or performing chemical, scientific, or other tests or experiments of, from, or upon designated premises, vehicles, or objects. “(d) Property is subject to seizure pursuant to a search warrant if there is probable cause to believe that it— “(1) is stolen or embezzled; "(2) is contraband or otherwise illegally possessed; "(3) has been used or is possessed for the purpose of being used, or is designed or intended tn be used, to commit or conceal the commission of a criminal offense; or "(4) constitutes evidence of or tends to demonstrate the commission of an offense or the identity of a person participating in the commission of an offense. “(e) A search warrant may be addressed to a specific law enforcement officer or to any classification of officers of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia or other agency authorized to make arrests or execute process in the District of Columbia. “ (f) A search warrant shall contain— “(1) the name of the issuing court, the name and signature of the issuing judicial officer, and the date of issuance; “(2) if the warrant is addressed to a specific officer, the name off. that officer, otherwise, the classifications of officers to whom the warrant is addressed; "(3) a designation of the premises, vehicles, objects, or persons to be searched, sufficient for certainty of identification; “(4) a description of the property whose seizure is the object of the warrant; “(5) a direction that the warrant be executed during the hours of daylight or, where the judicial officer has found cause therefor, including one of the grounds set forth in section 23-522 (c)(1), an authorization for execution at any time of day or night; • “(6) where the judicial officer has found cause therefor, including one of the grounds set forth in subparagraph (A), (B), or (D) of section 23-591 (c) (2), an authorization that the executing officer may break and enter the dwelling house 05 other building or vehicles to be searched without giving notice of his identity and purpose; and “(7) a direction that the warrant and an inventory of any property seized pursuant thereto be returned to the court on the next court day after its execution. “§23-522. Applications for search warrants “(a) Each application for a search warrant shall be made in writing upon oath or affirmation to a judicial officer. “(b) Each application shall include— “(1) the name and title of the applicant; “(2) a statement that there is probable cause to believe that property of a kind or character described in section 23-521 (d) is likely to be found in a designated premise, in a designated vehicle or subject, or upon designated persons; “(3) allegations of fact supporting such statement; and “(4). a request that the judicial officer issue a search warrant directing a search for and seizure of the property in question. “The applicant may also submit depositions or affidavits of other persons containing allegations of fact supporting or tending to support those contained in the application. “(c) The application may also contain— “(1) a request that the search warrant be made executable at any hour of the day or night, upon the ground that there is probable cause to believe that (A) it cannot be executed during the hours of daylight,. (B) the property sought is likely to be removed or destroyed if not seized forthwith, or (C) the property sought is not likely to be found except at certain times or in certain circumstances; and “(2) a request that the search warrant authorize the executing officer to break and enter dwelling houses or other buildings or vehicles to be searched without giving notice of his identity and purpose, upon probable cause to believe that one of the conditions set forth in subparagraph (A), (B), or (D) of section 23-591 (c) (2) is likely to exist at the time and place at which such warrant is to be executed. “Any request made pursuant to this subsection must be accompanied and supported by allegations of fact supporting such request.” At the time of the search in this case Rule 41 read, in part, as follows: “Search and Seizure “(a) Authority to Issue Warrant. A.search warrant authorized by this rule may be issued by a judge of the United States or of a state, commonwealth or territorial court of record or by a United States commissioner within the district wherein the property sought is located. “(b) Grounds fcr Issuance. A warrant may be issued under this rule to search for and seize any property “(1) Stolen or embezzled in violation' of the laws of the United States; or “(2) Designed or intended for use or which is or has been used as the means of committing a criminal offense; or “(3) Possessed, controlled, or designed or intended for use or which is or has been used in violation of Title 18, U. S. C., § 957. “(c) Issuance and contents. A warrant shall issue only on affidavit sworn to before the judge or commissioner and establishing the grounds for issuing the warrant. If the judge or commissioner is satisfied that grounds for the application exist or that there is probable cause to believe that they exist, he shall issue a warrant. identifying the property and naming or describing the person or place to be searched. The warrant shall be directed to a civil officer of the United States authorized to enforce or assist in enforcing any law thereof or to a person so authorized by the President of the United States. It shall state the grounds or probable cause for its issuance and the names of the persons whose affidavits have been taken in support thereof. It shall command the officer to search forthwith the person or place "named for the propérty specified. The warrant shall direct that it be served in the daytime', but if the affidavits are positive that the property is On the person or in the place to be searched, the warrant may direct that it be served at any time. It shall designate the district judge or the commissioner to whom it shall be returned. ■ “(g) Scope and Definition. This rule does not modify any act, inconsistent witlj it, regulating search, seizure and the issuance and execution of search warrants in circumstances for which special provision is made. The term ‘property’ is used in this rule to include documents, books, papers and any other tangible objects.” Rule 41 has since been amended to read, in part: “(a) Authority to issue warrant. A search warrant authorized by this rule may be issued by a federal magistrate or a judge of a state within the district wherein the property sought is located, upon request of a federal law enforcement officer or an attorney for the government. “(b) Property which may be seized with a warrant. A warrant may be issued under this rule to search for and seize any (1) property that constitutes evidence of the commission of a criminal offense; or (2) contraband, the fruits of crime, or things otherwise criminally possessed; or (3) property designed or. intended for use or which is or has been used as the means of committing a criminal offense. “(e) Issuance and contents. A warrant shall issue only on an affidavit or affidavits sworn to before the federal Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

A

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr. Justice Douglas delivered the opinion of the Court. Petitioner, while on active duty with the Army in Germany, was convicted by a general court-martial of rape on a German girl. The sentence of death, originally imposed, was reduced to a term of years. This case arises on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed in the District Court, challenging the legality of petitioner’s detention under that sentence. That court denied the petition and the Court of Appeals affirmed. 178 F. 2d 760. The main point presented by the petition for certiorari is whether the military tribunal that tried petitioner was deprived of jurisdiction by reason of the treatment of the insanity issue tendered by petitioner. We hold that it was not. The charges against petitioner were referred to an investigating officer in accordance with Article 70 of the Articles of War, 10 U. S. C. (1946 ed.) § 1542. The investigating officer reported that he had no reasonable ground for believing petitioner was deranged. A neuro-psychiatrist attached to petitioner’s division reported, after examining petitioner, that he was legally sane. The Division Staff Judge Advocate recommended a general court-martial trial, stating there was no reason to believe petitioner to be temporarily or permanently deranged. The defense of insanity was not raised, however, either at the pretrial investigation or the trial itself. After the trial petitioner’s trial counsel wrote the Division Commanding General requesting that the case be reopened and petitioner be given a neuropsychiatric examination on the ground that counsel had received information that petitioner might have been in an epileptic fit at the time of the offense. This request received the concurrence of five of the six members of the court-martial and was accompanied by similar letters from two officers and a sergeant of petitioner’s division. The record was in this condition when it was reviewed by General Eisenhower of the European Theatre of Operations, by the Board of Review of that Theatre, and by the Assistant Judge Advocate General. There was evidence in the hearing before the District Court that petitioner may have been either insane or drunk at the time of the crime. We put to one side the due process issue which respondent presses, for we think it plain from the law governing court-martial procedure that there must be afforded a defendant at some point of time an opportunity to tender the issue of insanity. It is only a denial of that opportunity which goes to the question of jurisdiction. That opportunity was afforded here. Any error that may be committed in evaluating the evidence tendered is beyond the reach of review by the civil courts. The Manual prescribes the ordinary test of criminal responsibility, viz., whether the accused was able to tell right from wrong. Insanity is a defense. The pretrial procedure prescribed in Article 70 offers the accused an opportunity to present the defense of insanity. Petitioner had that opportunity. The Manual provides that the reviewing authority (here the Commanding General of the Division) “will take appropriate action where it appears from the record or otherwise that the accused may have been insane” at the time of the crime, whether or not such question was raised at the trial. That is also a provision which is applicable to the confirming authority (here the General in charge of the European Theatre of Operations). The confirming authority had before it the request of the defense counsel and the other letters and recommendations submitted to it. The Manual does not require either the reviewing authority or the confirming authority to halt the proceedings, make a further investigation, or start over again. It entrusts the matter to the discretion of those authorities. Petitioner had a further consideration by the military authorities of the insanity issue which he tenders. By Article 53 of the revised Articles of War, Act of June 24, 1948, 62 Stat. 639, 642, 10 U. S. C. (Supp. III) § 1525, which was effective February 1, 1949, the Judge Advocate General is authorized “upon application of an accused person, and upon good cause shown, in his discretion to grant a new trial” in any court-martial case on application within the prescribed time limits. That Article became effective after the petition for habeas corpus was filed. But while the case was pending on appeal the Court of Appeals delayed final action while petitioner made application under Article 53. The Judge Advocate General reviewed all the evidence on the insanity issue which petitioner had tendered both to the military authorities and to the District Court in the habeas corpus proceeding and concluded “I entertain no doubt that Whelchel was so far free from mental defect, disease, and derangement as to be able concerning the particular acts charged both to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right . . . .” Any error by the military in evaluating the evidence on the question of insanity would not go to jurisdiction, the only issue before the court in habeas corpus proceedings. The law member of the court-martial was not named from the Judge Advocate General’s Department. But since no showing was made of the availability of such a member, a case of gross abuse of discretion has not been established. See Hiatt v. Brown, 339 U. S. 103, 109-110. Under Article 4 of the revised Articles of War an accused may now request that enlisted men be included on the court-martial that tries him. There was no such provision of the law when petitioner was tried. But the fact that he was tried by a court-martial composed wholly of officers does not raise a question which goes to jurisdiction. Petitioner can gain no support from the analogy of trial by jury in the civil courts. The right to trial by jury guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment is not applicable to trials by courts-martial or military commissions. See Kahn v. Anderson, 255 U. S. 1, 8; Ex parte Quirin, 317 U. S. 1, 40-41. Courts-martial have been composed of officers both before and after the adoption of the Constitution. The constitution of courts-martial, like other matters relating to their organization and administration (see Kahn v. Anderson, supra, 6-7; Swaim v. United States, 165 U. S. 553, 556-559; Mullan v. United States, 140 U. S. 240, 244-245; Martin v. Mott, 12 Wheat. 19, 34-35), is a matter appropriate for congressional action. Affirmed. Paragraph 78a Manual for Courts-Martial (1928 ed.) provides: “A person is not mentally responsible for an offense unless he was at the time so far free from mental defect, disease, or derangement as to be able concerning the particular acts charged both to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right.” Paragraph 63 of the Manual provides: “The court will inquire into the existing mental condition of the accused whenever at any time while the case is before the court it appears to the court for any reason that such inquiry ought to be made in the interest of justice. Reasons for such action may include anything that would cause a reasonable man to question the accused’s mental capacity either to understand the nature of the proceedings or intelligently to conduct or to cooperate in his defense.” Paragraph 75a provides: “If the court determines that the accused was not mentally responsible, it will forthwith enter a finding of not guilty as to the proper specification.” Paragraph 78a provides: “Where a reasonable doubt exists as to the mental responsibility of an accused for an offense charged, the accused can not legally be convicted of that offense.” Id. ¶ 876. 7d. ¶ 88. 10 U.S. C. (Supp.III) § 1475. At the time of petitioner’s trial Article 4, 10 U. S. C. (1946 ed.) § 1475, provided in pertinent part as follows: “AH officers in the military service of the United States, and officers of the Marine Corps when detached for service with the Army by order of the President, shall be competent to serve on courts-martial for the trial of any persons who may lawfully be brought before such courts for trial.” See collection of precedents in Winthrop’s Military Law and Precedents (2d ed., Reprint 1920): British Articles of War of 1765, p. 942; American Articles of War of 1776, p. 967; American Articles of War of 1806, pp. 981-982. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

D

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr. Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the Court. Petitioners are two of eleven defendants who were convicted in the Southern District of New York in 1949 of conspiring to teach and advocate the violent overthrow of the Government in violation of the Smith Act, 54 Stat. 670, 671, 18 U. S. C. §§ 371, 2385. Their convictions, each carrying a $10,000 fine and five years’ imprisonment, were affirmed by this Court on June 4, 1951, in Dennis v. United States, 341 U. S. 494. After their convictions, petitioners had been enlarged on bail, and following the affirmance, the United States Attorney served counsel for the petitioners on June 28, 1951, with copies of a proposed order on mandate requiring petitioners to surrender to the United States Marshal on July 2 for the execution of their sentences, and with a notice that such order would be presented to the District Court for signature on the indicated day of surrender. Petitioners were thereupon informed by their counsel that their presence in court would be required on July 2. Both, however, disappeared from their homes, failed to appear in court when the surrender order was signed on July 2, and remained fugitives for more than four and a half years. Ultimately both voluntarily surrendered to the United States Marshal in New York, Green on February 27, 1956, and Winston on March 5, 1956. Shortly thereafter, the United States instituted criminal contempt proceedings against the petitioners in the District Court for willful disobedience of the surrender order in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 401 (see p. 168, infra). Pursuant to Rule 42 (b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, these proceedings were tried to the court without a jury. Following a hearing, the court found petitioners guilty of the contempts charged and sentenced each to three years’ imprisonment to commence after service of the five-year sentences imposed in the conspiracy case. See 140 F. Supp. 117 (opinion as to Green). The Court of Appeals affirmed, 241 F. 2d 631, and we granted certiorari because the case presented important issues relating to the scope of the power of federal district courts to convict and sentence for criminal contempts. 353 U. S. 972. The petitioners urge four grounds for reversal, namely: (1) the criminal contempt power of federal courts does not extend to surrender orders; (2) even if such power exists, the evidence was insufficient to support the judgments of contempt; (3) a prison sentence for criminal contempt cannot, as a matter of law, exceed one year; and (4) in any event the three-year sentences imposed were so excessive as to constitute an abuse of discretion on the part of the District Court. For the reasons given hereafter we think that none of these contentions can be sustained, and that the judgment of the Court of Appeals must be upheld. I. The contempt judgments rest on 18 U. S. C. § 401, which in pertinent part provides that a federal court: “... shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as— “(3) Disobedience or resistance to its lawful... order....” Since the order here issued was beyond dispute “lawful,” § 401 plainly empowered the District Court to punish petitioners for disobeying it unless, as petitioners claim, this order is outside the scope of subdivision (3). This claim rests on the argument that the statute, viewed in its historical context, does not embrace an order requiring the surrender of a bailed defendant. An evaluation of this argument requires an analysis of the course of development of federal statutes relating to criminal contempts. The first statute bearing on the contempt powers of.federal courts was enacted as § 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat. 73, 83. It stated that federal courts “shall have power to... punish by fine or imprisonment, at the discretion of said courts, all contempts of authority in any cause or hearing before the same....” The generality of this language suggests that § 17 was intended to do no more than expressly attribute to the federal judiciary those powers to punish for contempt possessed by English courts at common law. Indeed, this Court has itself stated that under § 17 the definition of contempts and the procedure for their trial were “left to be determined according to such established rules and principles of the common law as were applicable to our situation.” Savin, Petitioner, 131 U. S. 267, 275-276. At English common law disobedience of a writ under the King’s seal was early treated as a contempt, 4 Blackstone Commentaries 284, 285; Beale, Contempt of Court, 21 Harv. L. Rev. 161, 164-167; Fox, The Summary Process to Punish Contempt, 25 L. Q. Rev. 238, 249, and over the centuries English courts came to use the King’s seal as a matter of course as a means of making effective their own process. Beale, at 167. It follows that under the Judiciary Act of 1789 the contempt powers of the federal courts comprehended the power to punish violations of their own orders. So much the petitioners recognize. They point out, however, that, at early English law, courts dealt with absconding defendants not by way of contempt, but under the ancient doctrine of outlawry, a practice whereby the defendant was summoned by proclamation to five successive county courts and, for failure to appear, was declared forfeited of all his goods and chattels. 4 Blackstone Commentaries 283, 319. In view of this distinct method at English common law of punishing refusal to respond to this summons, which was the equivalent of the present surrender order, petitioners argue that § 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, incorporating English practice, did not reach to a surrender order, and that the unique status of such an order subsisted under all statutory successors to § 17, including § 401 (3) of the existing contempt statute. We find these arguments unconvincing. The reasons for the early English practice of proceeding against absconding defendants by way of outlawry rather than by contempt are obscure. It may have been that outlawry was resorted to because absconding was regarded so seriously as to require the drastic penalties of outlawry rather than fine or imprisonment. But whatever the reasons may have been, the fact that English courts adhered to the practice of dealing with such cases by outlawry should not obscure the general principle that they had power to treat willful disobedience of their orders as contempts of court. It is significant that, so far as we know, the severe remedy of outlawry, which fell into early disuse in the state courts, was never known to the federal law. See United States v. Hall, 198 F. 2d 726, 727-728. Its unavailability to federal courts, and the absence of any other sanctions for the disobedience of surrender orders, are in themselves factors which point away from the conclusion that the kind of power traditionally used to assure respect for a court’s process should be found wanting in this one instance. The subsequent development of the federal contempt power lends no support to the petitioners’ position, for the significance of the Act of 1831, 4 Stat. 487, 488, lies quite in the opposite direction. Sentiment for passage of that Act arose out of the impeachment proceedings instituted against Judge James H. Peck because of his conviction and punishment for criminal contempt of a lawyer who had published an article critical of a decision of the judge then on appeal. Although it is true that the Act marks the first congressional step to curtail the contempt powers of the federal courts, the important thing to note is that the area of curtailment related not to punishment for disobedience of court orders but to punishment for conduct of the kind that had provoked Judge Peck’s controversial action. As to such conduct, the 1831 Act confined the summary power of punishment to “... mis-behaviour of any person... in the presence of the... courts, or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice....” The cases in this Court which have curbed the exercise of the contempt power by federal courts have concerned this clause, as found in statutory successors to the Act of 1831 including subdivision (1) of present 18 U. S. C. § 401, or a further clause in the Act and its successors dealing with misbehavior of court “officers,” now found in subdivision (2) of § 401. In contrast to the judicial restrictions imposed on the contempt power exercisable under the clauses now found in subdivisions (1) and (2) of § 401, we find no case suggesting that subdivision (3) of § 401, before us here, is open to any but its obvious meaning. This clause also finds its statutory source in the Act of 1831, which first made explicit the authority of federal courts to punish for conduct of the kind involved in this case by providing that the contempt power should extend to “... disobedience or resistance... to any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command...” of a federal court. Particularly in the absence of any showing that the old practice of outlawry was ever brought to the attention of Congress, there is no warrant for engrafting upon this unambiguous clause a dubious exception to the English contempt power stemming from this practice. Although the 1831 Act no doubt incorporated many of the concepts of the English common law, its legislative history indicates that Congress sought to define independently the contempt powers of federal courts rather than to have the Act simply reflect all the oddities of early English practice. The House Committee which reported the bill had been directed “to inquire into the expediency of defining by statute all offences which may be punished as con-tempts of...” federal courts. 7 Cong. Deb., 21st Cong., 2d Sess. (Gale’s & Seaton’s Reg.), pp. 560-561. (Italics added.) See Frankfurter and Landis, Power to Regulate Contempts, 37 Harv. L. Rev. 1010, 1024-1028. Entirely apart from the historical argument, there are no reasons of policy suggesting a need for limitation of the contempt power in this situation. As the present cases evidence, the issuance of a bench warrant and the forfeiture of bail following flight have generally proved inadequate to dissuade defendants from defying court orders. See Willopghby, Principles of Judicial Administration (1929), 561-566. At the time these contempts were committed bail-jumping itself was not a criminal offense, and considerations in past decisions limiting the scope of the contempt power where the conduct deemed to constitute a contempt was also punishable as a substantive crime are not here.relevant. Cf. Ex parte Hudgings, 249 U. S. 378, 382. There is small justification for permitting a defendant the assurance that his only risk in disobeying a surrender order is the forfeiture of a known sum of money, particularly when such forfeiture may result in injury only to a bail surety. It may be true, as petitioners state, that this case and those of the other absconding Dennis defendants, United States v. Thompson, 214 F. 2d 545; United States v. Hall, 198 F. 2d 726, provide the first instances where a federal court has exercised the contempt power for disobedience of a surrender order. But the power to punish for willful disobedience of a court order, once found to exist, cannot be said to have atrophied by disuse in this particular instance. Indeed, when Congress in 1954 made bail-jumping a crime in 18 U. S. C. § 3146, it expressly preserved the contempt power in this very situation. We find support in neither history nor policy to carve out so singular an exception from the clear meaning of § 401 (3). II. Petitioners contend that the evidence was insufficient to support their contempt convictions, in that it failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt their knowledge of the existence of the surrender order. The Court of Appeals did not address itself to this contention, considering the issue foreclosed by its prior decisions in the Thompson and Hall cases, supra, where the evidence as to those other two Dennis defendants who were convicted of similar criminal contempts was identical with that involved here, except as to the circumstances of their ultimate apprehension. In this Court, petitioners interpret the District Court’s opinion to rest the contempt convictions on alternative theories: (a) that the petitioners had actual knowledge of the issuance of the July 2 surrender order, or (b) that they at least had notice of its prospective issuance and hence were chargeable with knowledge that it was in fact issued. But we find no such dual aspect to the District Court’s decision, which rested solely on findings that, beyond a reasonable doubt, Green “knowingly disobeyed” the surrender order and Winston absented himself “with knowledge” of the order. Since we are satisfied that the record supports these findings, we need not consider whether mere notice of the prospective issuance of the order, cf. Pettibone v. United States, 148 U. S. 197, 206-207, would be sufficient to sustain these convictions on the theory that petitioners were chargeable as a matter of law with notice that it was later issued. The evidence for the Government, there being none offered by the defense, related to three time intervals: (1) the period up to June 28,1951; (2) the four-day interval between June 28, when the proposed surrender order was served on counsel with the notice of settlement, and July 2, when the surrender order was signed; and (3) the period ending with the surrender of the petitioners— February 27, 1956, in the case of Green, and March 5, 1956, in the case of Winston. 1. The judgments of conviction upon the conspiracy indictment under the Smith Act were entered, and the petitioners were sentenced, on October 21, 1949. On November 2, 1949, the Court of Appeals admitted the petitioners to bail, pending appeal upon separate recognizances, signed by each petitioner on November 3, by which each undertook, among other things, to “surrender himself in execution of the judgment and sentence appealed from upon such day as the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York may direct, if the judgment and sentence appealed from shall be affirmed... (Italics added.) Following the Court of Appeals’ affirmance of the conspiracy convictions on August 1, 1950, 183 F. 2d 201, Mr. Justice Jackson, as Circuit Justice, continued petitioners’ bail on September 25, 1950, pending review of the convictions by this Court. 184 F. 2d 280. This Court, as noted above, affirmed the conspiracy convictions on June 4, 1951, and on June 22, 1951, Mr. Justice Jackson denied a stay of the Court’s mandate. 2. On Thursday, June 28, 1951, one of the counsel in the Dennis case accepted service on behalf of all the defendants, including petitioners, of a proposed order on mandate requiring the defendants to “personally surrender to the United States Marshal for the Southern District of New York... on the 2nd day of July, 1951, at 11:05” a. m., together with a notice stating that the proposed order would be presented to the District Court “for settlement and signature” at 10 a. m. on that day. It appears from the testimony of this same counsel and another Dennis counsel that on the following day, Friday, June 29, an unsuccessful request was made to the United States Attorney and the District Court to postpone the defendants’ surrender until after the July 4 holiday; that on the same day these lawyers told the petitioners and the other Dennis defendants that they must be in court on Monday, July 2; and that petitioners assured counsel of their appearance on that day. On July 2 all of the Dennis defendants surrendered, except the two petitioners, and Hall and Thompson. The surrender order was signed, bench warrants were issued for the arrest of these four, and the proceedings were adjourned to the following day, July 3. 3. On July 3 the names of the petitioners were called again in open court, and after interrogating counsel as to their disappearance (see note 6, supra), the court declared their bail forfeited. The petitioners remained in hiding until their eventual surrender, some four and a half years later. Prior to their respective surrenders in February and March, 1956, Green and Winston issued press releases announcing their intention to surrender and “enter prison.” When he turned up on the steps of the courthouse, Green also responded to certain questions put by reporters and stated, among other things, that he intended “to go to the United States Marshal’s office,” this being a requirement found only in the surrender order itself. Winston made a similar statement in his press release. In summary, one day after counsel was served on June 28 with the proposed order calling for petitioners’ surrender on July 2, together with the notice stating that the order would also be presented for the court’s signature on that day, petitioners were unequivocally notified by counsel that their presence in court was required on July 2. From these undisputed facts, coupled with petitioners’ disappearance, it was certainly permissible for the District Court to infer that petitioners knew of the proposed surrender order, of the failure of counsel’s efforts on June 29 to postpone the surrender date, and of the court’s intention to sign the order on July 2. We need not decide whether these facts alone would sustain the finding that petitioners knew of the issuance of the surrender order on July 2 as planned, for unquestionably as background they furnished significant support for the District Court’s ultimate finding that petitioners’ statements to the press at the time of their eventual surrender in 1956 (see note 7, supra) indicated their knowledge of the issuance of the order, a finding strengthened by the fact that the recognizance admitting the petitioners to bail obligated petitioners to surrender for service of sentence only when so directed by the District Court. No doubt some of this evidence lent itself to conflicting inferences, but those favorable to the petitioners were, in our view, not of such strength as to compel the trier of the facts to reject alternative unfavorable inferences. Our duty as an appellate court is to assess the evidence as a whole under the rigorous standards governing criminal trials, rather than to test by those standards each item of evidence relied on by the District Court. 9 Wig-more, Evidence (3d ed. 1940), § 2497; 1 Wharton, Criminal Evidence (12th ed. 1955), § 16. So viewing the entire record, we think the District Court was justified in finding that the evidence established, beyond a reasonable doubt, petitioners’ knowing violations of the surrender order. III. We deal here with petitioners’ claim that the District Court was without power to sentence them to imprisonment for more than one year. Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 confirmed the power of federal courts “... to punish by fine or imprisonment, at the discretion of said courts...” certain con-tempts. The Act of 1831 simply referred to the power to “inflict summary punishments,” and present § 401 contains substantially the above language of the Act of 1789. Petitioners contend that despite the provision for “discretion,” the power to punish under § 401 is limited to one year by certain sections of the Clayton Act of 1914, 38 Stat. 730, 738-740. In any event, we are urged to read such a limitation into § 401 in order to avoid constitutional difficulties which, it is said, would otherwise confront us. We turn first to the argument based on the Clayton Act. Sections 21 and 22 of that Act provided that certain rights not traditionally accorded persons charged with contempt, notably the right to trial by jury, should be granted in certain classes of criminal contempts, and that persons tried under these procedures were not subject to a fine of more than $1,000 or imprisonment for longer than six months. Section 24 of the Act made these provisions inapplicable to other categories of contempts, including the contempt for which the petitioners here have been convicted, and provided that such excluded categories of contempts were to be punished “in conformity to the usages at law and in equity now prevailing.” (Italics added.) In the recodification of 1948 the foregoing provisions of the Clayton Act were substantially re-enacted in § 402 of the present contempt statute, and the above-quoted clause now reads: “in conformity to the prevailing usages at law.” Petitioners’ argument is that the purpose and effect of the “usages... now prevailing” language of § 24 of the Clayton Act was to freeze into federal contempt law the sentencing practices of federal courts, which up to that time appear never to have imposed a contempt sentence of more than one year. These practices, suggest petitioners, reflect the unarticulated belief of federal courts that criminal contempts are not infamous crimes and hence not subject to punishment by imprisonment for over one year; this belief is said to derive from the constitutional considerations to which we shortly turn. In view of this suggested effect of § 24, petitioners would have us read the “discretion” vested in federal courts by § 401 as referring exclusively to the choice between sentencing to fine or imprisonment, or in any event as subject to the unexpressed limitation of one year’s imprisonment. Particularly in the context of the rest of the Clayton Act of 1914 we cannot read the “usages... now prevailing” clause of § 24 as incorporating into the statute the sentencing practices up to that date. In § 22 the statute specifically restricts to six months the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for commission of any of the contempts described in § 21. Had Congress also intended to restrict the term of imprisonment for con-tempts excluded from the operation of the Act by § 24, it is difficult to understand why it did not make explicit its intention, as it did in § 22, rather than so subtly express its purpose by proceeding in the devious manner attributed to it by the petitioners. Further, there is no evidence that the past sentencing practices of the courts were ever brought to the attention of Congress. That the federal courts themselves have not considered their sentencing power to be restricted by § 24 of the Clayton Act or by § 402 of the present contempt statute is indicated by the fact that in at least nine cases subsequent to 1914, contempt convictions carrying sentences of more than one year have been affirmed by four different Courts of Appeals and on one occasion by this Court. Such of the legislative history as is germane here argues against the petitioners and strengthens our conclusions that the “usages... now prevailing” clause of § 24 of the Clayton Act did no more than emphasize that con-tempts other than those specified in § 21 were to be tried under familiar contempt procedures, that is, among other things, by the court rather than a jury. The House Report accompanying the bill which was substantially enacted as §§ 21, 22 and 24 of the Clayton Act referred to the provisions later forming these sections as dealing “... entirely with questions of Federal procedure relating to injunctions and contempts committed without the presence of the court.” H. R. Rep. No. 627, 63d Cong., 2d Sess. 21. There is no evidence of a broader purpose to enact so substantial a rule of substantive law encompassing all criminal contempts. We are nevertheless urged to read into § 401 a one-year limitation on the sentencing power in order to avoid constitutional issues which the petitioner^ deem present in the absence of such a restriction. But in view of what we have shown, the section’s provision that a federal court may punish “at its discretion” the enumerated classes of contempts cannot reasonably be read to allow a court merely the choice between fines and imprisonment. We think the Court of Appeals correctly said: “The phrase 'at its discretion,’ does not mean that the court must choose between fine and imprisonment; the word ‘or/ itself provides as much and the words, if so construed, would have been redundant. The term of imprisonment is to be as much in the court’s discretion as the fine.” 241 F. 2d, at 634. We therefore turn to petitioners’ constitutional arguments. The claim is that proceedings for criminal con-tempts, if contempts are subject to prison terms of more than one year, must be based on grand jury indictments under the clause of the Fifth Amendment providing: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury....” (Italics added.) Since an “infamous crime” within the meaning of the Amendment is one punishable by imprisonment in a penitentiary, Mackin v. United States, 117 U. S. 348, and since imprisonment in a penitentiary can be imposed only if a crime is subject to imprisonment exceeding one year, 18 U. S. C. § 4083, petitioners assert that criminal contempts if subject to such punishment are infamous crimes under the Amendment. But this assertion cannot be considered in isolation from the general status of contempts under the Constitution, whether subject to “infamous” punishment or not. The statements of this Court in a long and unbroken line of decisions involving contempts ranging from misbehavior in court to disobedience of court orders establish beyond peradventure that criminal contempts are not subject to jury trial as a matter of constitutional right. Although appearing to recognize this, petitioners nevertheless point out that punishment for criminal con-tempts cannot in any practical sense be distinguished from punishment for substantive crimes, see Gompers v. United, States, 233 U. S. 604, 610, and that contempt proceedings have traditionally been surrounded with many of the protections available in a criminal trial. But this Court has never suggested that such protections included the right to grand jury indictment. Cf. Savin, Petitioner, 131 U. S. 267, 278; Gompers v. United States, supra, at 612. And of course the summary procedures followed by English courts prior to adoption of the Constitution in dealing with many contempts of court did not embrace the use of either grand or petit jury. See 4 Blackstone Commentaries 283-287. It would indeed be anomalous to conclüde that contempts subject to sentences of imprisonment for over one year are “infamous crimes” under the Fifth Amendment although they are neither “crimes” nor “criminal prosecutions” for the purpose of jury trial within the meaning of Art. Ill, § 2, and the Sixth Amendment. We are told however that the decisions of this Court denying the right to jury trial in criminal contempt proceedings are based upon an “historical error” reflecting a misunderstanding as to the scope of the power of English courts at the early common law to try summarily for contempts, and that this error should not here be extended to a denial of the right to grand jury. But the more recent historical research into English contempt practices predating the adoption of our Constitution reveals no such clear error and indicates if anything that the precise nature of those practices is shrouded in much obscurity. And whatever the breadth of the historical error said by contemporary scholarship to have been committed by English courts of the late Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries in their interpretation of English precedents involving the trials of contempts of court, it at lpast seems clear that English practice by the early Eighteenth Century comprehended the use of summary powers of conviction by courts to punish for a variety of contempts committed within and outside court. Such indeed is the statement of English law of this period found in Blackstone, supra, p. 184, who explicitly recognized use of a summary power by English courts to deal with disobedience of court process. It is noteworthy that the Judiciary Act of 1789, first attempting a definition of the contempt power, was enacted by a Congress with a Judiciary Committee including members of the recent Constitutional Convention, who no doubt shared the prevailing views in the American Colonies of English law as expressed in Blackstone. See Ex parte Burr, 4 Fed. Cas. 791, 797 (No. 2,186). Against this historical background, this Court has never deviated from the view that the constitutional guarantee of trial by jury for “crimes” and “criminal prosecutions” was not intended to reach to criminal contempts. And indeed beginning with the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress has consistently preserved the summary nature of the contempt power in the Act of 1831 and its statutory successors, departing from this traditional notion only in specific instances where it has provided for jury trial for certain categories of contempt. We do not write upon a clean slate. The principle that criminal contempts of court are not required to be tried by a jury under Article III or the Sixth Amendment is firmly rooted in our traditions. Indeed, the petitioners themselves have not contended that they were entitled to a jury trial. By the same token it is clear that criminal contempts, although subject, as we have held, to sentences of imprisonment exceeding one year, need not be prosecuted by indictment under the Fifth Amendment. In various respects, such as the absence of a statutory limitation of the amount of a fine or the length of a prison sentence which may be imposed for their commission, criminal contempts have always differed from the usual statutory crime under federal law. As to trial by jury and indictment by grand jury, they possess a unique character under the Constitution. IV. Petitioners contend that the three-year sentences imposed upon them constituted an abuse of discretion on the part of the District Court. We take this occasion to reiterate our view that in the areas where Congress has not seen fit to impose limitations on the sentencing power for contempts the district courts have a special duty to exercise such an extraordinary power with the utmost sense of responsibility and circumspection. The “discretion” to punish vested in the District Courts by § 401 is not an unbridled discretion. Appellate courts have here a special responsibility for determining that the power is not abused, to be exercised if necessary by revising themselves the sentences imposed. This Court has in past cases taken pains to emphasize its concern with the use to which the sentencing power has occasionally been put, both by remanding for reconsideration of contempt sentences in light of factors it deemed important, see Yates v. United States, 355 U. S. 66; Nilva v. United States, 352 U. S. 385, and by itself modifying such sentences. See United States v. United Mine Workers, 330 U. S. 258. The answer to those who see in the contempt power a potential instrument of oppression lies in assurance of its careful use and supervision, not in imposition of artificial limitations on the power. It is in this light that we have considered the claim that the sentences here were so excessive as to amount to an abuse of discretion. We are led to reject the claim under the facts of this case for three reasons. First, the contempt here was by any standards a most egregious one. Petitioners had been accorded a fair trial on the conspiracy charges against them and had been granted bail pending review of their convictions by the Court of Appeals and this Court. Nevertheless they absconded, and over four and a half years of hiding culminated not in a belated recognition of the authority of the court, but in petitioners’ reassertion of justification for disobeying the surrender order. Second, comparing these sentences with those imposed on the other fugitives in the Dennis case, the sentences here are shorter by a year than that upheld in the Thompson case, and no longer than that inflicted in the Hall case. It is true that Hall and Thompson were apprehended, but the record shows that the District Court took into account the fact that the surrender of these petitioners was voluntary; there is the further factor that the period during which petitioners remained fugitives was longer than that in either the Hall or Thompson case. Third, the sentences were well within the maximum five-year imprisonment for bail-jumping provided now by 18 U. S. C. § 3146, a statute in which Congress saw fit expressly to preserve the contempt power. without enacting any limitation on contempt sentences. In these circumstances we cannot say that the sentences imposed were beyond the bounds of the reasonable exercise of the District Court's discretion., ~, ,, Affirmed. This Rule provides that criminal contempts other than those committed in the actual presence of the court and seen or heard by the court shall be prosecuted on notice. Notice may be given, as in the present case, by an order to show cause. The Rule states that a defendant is entitled to trial by jury if an Act of Congress so provides. See note 19, infra. The debates conducted in 1830-1831 by leading counsel of that period during the impeachment proceedings against Judge James H. Peck, see p. 171, infra, contained discussions of the Act of 1789, and the limitations to be imposed upon it, which were cast largely in terms of the English common law preceding its enactment. See Stansbury, Report of the Trial of James H. Peck (1833). During the debates in 1830-1831 referred to in note 2, supra, several of the managers who argued that Judge Peck had exceeded the historical boundaries of the contempt power by the conduct which had provoked the impeachment proceedings (see p. 171, infra) appear to have assumed that courts were historically justified in employing the contempt power to deal with disobedience to court process. See Stansbury, supra, note 2, at 313, 395-396, 436, 444. See, e. g., In re Michael, 326 U. S. 224, Nye v. United States, 313 U. S. 33, and Ex parte Hudgings, 249 U. S. 378, all concerning the predecessor statutes to present § 401 (1), which relates to misbehavior in court or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice, and Cammer v. United States, 350 U. S. 399, arising under §401 (2), which deals with misbehavior of court officers in their official transactions. This order can hardly be interpreted otherwise than as imposing on the Dennis defendants from the time that the order became effective on July 2 a continuing obligation to surrender promptly upon becoming aware of its effectiveness. The printed record before us indicates that the proposed order given counsel on June 28 read precisely in the form quoted in the text above, but the original copy of the order reveals that the time for surrender was first written as “10:30” a. m., and at some later time prior to the time the order was signed was changed to read “11.05.” Petitioners make no issue of this discrepancy, and we attach no significance to it. The events of June 29, 1951, were testified to in court on July 3, 1951, by petitioners’ counsel, Messrs. Sacher and Isserman. By stipulation, a transcript of this testimony was introduced into evidence during the contempt proceedings in the District Court, and excerpts from the testimony follow: The Court: “Now, you did make a statement last week that you will have the four defendants [Green, Winston, Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy 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. Respondent was convicted of possessing an unregistered still, carrying on the business of a distiller without giving bond and with intent to defraud the Government of whiskey tax, possessing 175 gallons of whiskey upon which no taxes had been paid, and conspiring to defraud the United States of tax revenues. 26 U. S. C. §§ 5179, 5205, 5601 et seq.; 18 U. S. C. § 371. Prior to trial respondent moved to suppress copies of checks and other bank records obtained by means of allegedly defective subpoenas duces tecum served upon two banks at which he had accounts. The records had been maintained by the banks in compliance with the requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, 84 Stat. 1114, 12 U. S. C. § 1829b (d). The District Court overruled respondent’s motion to suppress, and the evidence was admitted. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed on the ground that a depositor’s Fourth Amendment rights are violated when bank records maintained pursuant to the Bank Secrecy Act are obtained by means of a defective subpoena. It held that any evidence so obtained must be suppressed. Since we find that respondent had no pro-tectable Fourth Amendment interest in the subpoenaed documents, we reverse the decision below. I On December 18, 1972, in response to an informant’s tip, a deputy sheriff from Houston County, Ga., stopped a van-type truck occupied by two of respondent’s alleged co-conspirators. The truck contained distillery apparatus and raw material. On January 9, 1973, a fire broke out in a Kathleen, Ga., warehouse rented to respondent. During the blaze firemen and sheriff department officials discovered a 7,500-gallon-eapacity distillery, 175 gallons of non-tax-paid whiskey, and related paraphernalia. Two weeks later agents from the Treasury Department’s Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Bureau presented grand jury subpoenas issued in blank by the clerk of the District Court, and completed by the United States Attorney’s office, to the presidents of the Citizens & Southern National Bank of Warner Robins and the Bank of Byron, where respondent maintained accounts. The subpoenas required the two presidents to appear on January 24, 1973, and to produce “all records of accounts, i. e., savings, checking, loan or otherwise, in the name of Mr. Mitch Miller [respondent], 3859 Mathis Street, Macon, Ga. and/or Mitch Miller Associates, 100 Executive Terrace, Warner Robins, Ga., from October 1, 1972, through the present date [January 22, 1973, in the case of the Bank of Byron, and January 23, 1973, in the case of the Citizens & Southern National Bank of Warner Robins] The banks did not advise respondent that the subpoenas had been served but ordered their employees to make the records available and to provide copies .of any documents the agents desired. At the Bank of Byron, an agent was shown microfilm records of the relevant account and provided with copies of one deposit slip and one or two checks. At the Citizens & Southern National Bank microfilm records also were shown to the agent, and he was given copies-of the records of respondent's account during the applicable period. These included all checks, deposit slips, two financial statements, and three monthly statements. The bank presidents were then told that it would not be necessary to appear in person before the grand jury. The grand jury met on February 12, 1973, 19 days after the return date on the subpoenas. Respondent and four others were indicted. The overt acts alleged to have been committed in furtherance of the conspiracy included three financial transactions — the rental by respondent of the van-type truck, the purchase by respondent of radio equipment, and the purchase by respondent of a quantity of sheet metal and metal pipe. The record does not indicate whether any of the bank records were in fact presented to the grand jury. They were used in the investigation and provided “one or two" investigatory leads. Copies of the checks also were introduced at trial to establish the overt acts described above. In his motion to suppress, denied by the District Court, respondent contended that the bank documents were illegally seized. It was urged that the subpoenas were defective because they were issued by the United States Attorney rather than a court, no return was made to a court, and the subpoenas were returnable on a date when the grand jury was not in session. The Court of Appeals reversed. 500 F. 2d 751 (1974). Citing the prohibition in Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 622 (1886), against “compulsory production of a man’s private papers to establish a criminal charge against him,” the court held that the Government had improperly circumvented Boyd’s protections of respondent’s Fourth Amendment right against “unreasonable searches and seizures” by “first requiring a third party bank to copy all of its depositors’ personal checks and then, with an improper invocation of legal process, calling upon the bank to allow inspection and reproduction of those copies.” 500 F. 2d, at 757. The court acknowledged that the recordkeeping requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act had been held to be constitutional on their face in California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz, 416 U. S. 21 (1974), but noted that access to the records was to be controlled by “existing legal process.” See id., at 52. The subpoenas issued here were found not to constitute adequate “legal process.” The fact that the bank officers cooperated voluntarily was found to be irrelevant, for “he whose rights are threatened by the improper disclosure here was a bank depositor, not a bank official.” 500 F. 2d, at 758. The Government contends that the Court of Appeals erred in three respects: (i) in finding that respondent had the Fourth Amendment interest necessary to entitle him to challenge the validity of the subpoenas duces tecum through his motion to suppress; (ii) in holding that the subpoenas were defective; and (iii) in determining that suppression of the evidence obtained was the appropriate remedy if a constitutional violation did take place. We find that there was no intrusion into any area in which respondent had a protected Fourth Amendment interest and that the District Court therefore correctly denied respondent’s motion to suppress. Because we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals on that ground alone, we do not reach the Government’s latter two contentions. II In Hoffa v. United States, 385 U. S. 293, 301-302 (1966), the Court said that “no interest legitimately protected by the Fourth Amendment” is implicated by governmental investigative activities unless there is an intrusion into a zone of privacy, into “the security a man relies upon when he places himself or his property within a constitutionally protected area.” The Court of Appeals, as noted above, assumed that respondent had the necessary Fourth Amendment interest, pointing to the language in Boyd v. United States, supra, at 622, which describes that Amendment’s protection against the “compulsory production of a man’s private papers.” We think that the Court of Appeals erred in finding the subpoenaed documents to fall within a protected zone of privacy. On their face, the documents subpoenaed here are not respondent’s “private papers.” Unlike the claimant in Boyd, respondent can assert neither ownership nor possession. Instead, these are the business records of the banks. As we said in California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz, supra, at 48-49, “[blanks are . . . not . . . neutrals in transactions involving negotiable instruments, but parties to the instruments with a substantial stake in their continued availability and acceptance.” The records of respondent’s accounts, like “all of the records [which are required to be kept pursuant to the Bank Secrecy Act,] pertain to transactions to which the bank was itself a party.” Id., at 52. Respondent argues, however, that the Bank Secrecy Act introduces a factor that makes the subpoena in this case the functional equivalent of a search and seizure of the depositor’s “private papers.” We have held, in California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz, supra, at 54, that the mere maintenance of records pursuant to the requirements of the Act “invade [s] no Fourth Amendment right of any depositor.” But respondent contends that the combination of the recordkeeping requirements of the Act and the issuance of a subpoena to obtain those records permits the Government to circumvent the requirements of the Fourth Amendment by allowing it to obtain a depositor’s private records without complying with the legal requirements that would be applicable had it proceeded against him directly. Therefore, we must address the question whether the compulsion embodied in the Bank Secrecy Act as exercised in this case creates a Fourth Amendment interest in the depositor where none existed before. This question was expressly reserved in California Bankers Assn., supra, at 53-54, and n. 24. Respondent urges that he has a Fourth Amendment interest in the records kept by the banks because they are merely copies of personal records that were made available to the banks for a limited purpose and in which he has a reasonable expectation of privacy. He relies on this Court’s statement in Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 353 (1967), quoting Warden v. Hayden, 387 U. S. 294, 304 (1967), that “we have . . . departed from the narrow view” that “ 'property interests control the right of the Government to search and seize,’ ” and that a “search and seizure” become unreasonable when the Government’s activities violate “the privacy upon which [a person] justifiably reliefs].” But in Katz the Court also stressed that “[w]hat a person knowingly exposes to the public ... is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection.” 389 U. S., at 351. We must examine the nature of the particular documents sought to be protected in order to determine whether there is a legitimate “expectation of privacy” concerning their contents. Cf. Couch v. United States, 409 U. S. 322, 335 (1973). Even if we direct our attention to the original checks and deposit slips, rather than to the microfilm copies actually viewed and obtained by means of the subpoena, we perceive no legitimate “expectation of privacy” in their contents. The checks are not confidential communications but negotiable instruments to be used in commercial transactions. All of the documents obtained, including financial statements and deposit slips, contain only information voluntarily conveyed to the banks and exposed to their employees in the ordinary course of business. The lack of any legitimate expectation of privacy concerning the information kept in bank records was assumed by Congress in enacting the Bank Secrecy Act, the expressed purpose of which is to require records to be maintained because they “have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax, and regulatory investigations and proceedings.” 12 U. S. C. § 1829b (a) (1). Cf. Couch v. United States, supra, at 335. The depositor takes the risk, in revealing his affairs to another, that the information will be conveyed by that person to the Government. United States v. White, 401 U. S. 745, 751-752 (1971). This Court has held repeatedly that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the obtaining of information revealed to a third party and conveyed by him to Government authorities, even if the information is revealed on the assumption that it will be used only for a limited purpose and the confidence placed in the third party will not be betrayed. Id., at 752; Hoffa v. United States, 385 U. S., at 302; Lopez v. United States, 373 U. S. 427 (1963). This analysis is not changed by the mandate of the Bank Secrecy Act that records of depositors' transactions be maintained by banks. In California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz, 416 U. S., at 52-53, we rejected the contention that banks, when keeping records of their depositors' transactions pursuant to the Act, are acting solely as agents of the Government. But, even if the banks could be said to have been acting solely as Government agents in transcribing the necessary information and complying without protest with the requirements of the subpoenas, there would be no intrusion upon the depositors' Fourth Amendment rights. See Osborn v. United States, 385 U. S. 323 (1966); Lewis v. United States, 385 U. S. 206 (1966). Ill Since no Fourth Amendment interests of the depositor are implicated here, this case is governed by the general rule that the issuance of a subpoena to a third party to obtain the records of that party does not violate the rights of a defendant, even if a criminal prosecution is contemplated at the time the subpoena is issued. California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz, supra, at 53; Donaldson v. United States, 400 U. S. 517, 537 (1971) (Douglas, J., concurring). Under these principles, it was firmly settled, before the passage of the Bank Secrecy Act, that an Internal Revenue Service summons directed to a third-party bank does not violate the Fourth Amendment rights of a depositor under investigation. See First National Bank of Mobile v. United States, 267 U. S. 576 (1925), aff’g 295 F. 142 (SD Ala. 1924). See also California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz, supra, at 53; Donaldson v. United States, supra, at 522. Many banks traditionally kept permanent records of their depositors’ accounts, although not all banks did so and the practice was declining in recent years. By requiring that such records be kept by all banks, the Bank Secrecy Act is not a novel means designed to circumvent established Fourth Amendment rights. It is merely an attempt to facilitate the use of a proper and longstanding law enforcement technique by insuring that records are available when they are needed. We hold that the District Court correctly denied respondent’s motion to suppress, since he possessed no Fourth Amendment interest that could be vindicated by a challenge to the subpoenas. IV Respondent contends not only that the subpoenas duces tecum directed against the banks infringed his Fourth Amendment rights, but that a subpoena issued to a bank to obtain records maintained pursuant to the Act is subject to more stringent Fourth Amendment requirements than is the ordinary subpoena. In making this assertion he relies on our statement in California Bankers Assn., supra, at 52, that access to the records maintained by banks under the Act is to be controlled by "existing legal process.” In Oklahoma Press Pub. Co. v. Walling, 327 U. S. 186, 208 (1946), the Court said that “the Fourth [Amendment], if applicable [to subpoenas for the production of business records and papers], at the most guards against abuse only by way of too much indefiniteness or breadth in the things required to be 'particularly described,’ if also the inquiry is one the demanding agency is authorized by law to make and the materials specified are relevant.” See also United States v. Dionisio, 410 U. S. 1, 11-12 (1973). Respondent, citing United States v. United States District Court, 407 U. S. 297 (1972), in which we discussed the application of the warrant requirements of the Fourth Amendment to domestic security surveillance through electronic eavesdropping, suggests that greater judicial scrutiny, equivalent to that required for a search warrant, is necessary when a subpoena is to be used to obtain bank records of a depositor’s account. But in California Bankers Assn., 416 U. S., at 52, we emphasized only that access to the records was to be in accordance with “existing legal process.” There was no indication that a new rule was to be devised, or that the traditional distinction between a search warrant and a subpoena would not be recognized. In any event, for the reasons stated above, we hold that respondent lacks the requisite Fourth Amendment interest to challenge the validity of the subpoenas. V The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed. The court deferred decision on whether the trial court had improperly overruled respondent’s motion to suppress distillery apparatus and raw material seized from a rented truck. We remand for disposition of that issue. So ordered. The Fourth Amendment implications of Boyd as it applies to subpoenas duces tecum have been undercut by more recent cases. Fisher v. United States, ante, at 407-409. See infra, at 445-446. Respondent appears to contend that a depositor’s Fourth Amendment interest comes into play only when a defective subpoena is used to obtain records kept pursuant to the Act. We see no reason why the existence of a Fourth Amendment interest turns on whether the subpoena is defective. Therefore, we do not limit our consideration to the situation in which there is an alleged defect in the subpoena served on the bank. It is not clear whether respondent refers to attempts to obtain private documents through a subpoena issued directly to the depositor or through a search pursuant to a warrant. The question whether personal business records may be seized pursuant to a valid warrant is before this Court in No. 74-1646, Andresen v. Maryland, cert. granted, 423 U. S. 822. We do not address here the question of evidentiary privileges, such as that protecting communications between an attorney and his client. Cf. Fisher v. United States, ante, at 403-405. Nor did the banks notify respondent, a neglect without legal consequences here, however unattractive it may be. Respondent does not contend that the subpoenas infringed upon his First Amendment rights. There was no blanket reporting requirement of the sort we addressed in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 60-84 (1976), nor any allegation of an improper inquiry into protected associational activities of the sort presented in Eastland v. United States Servicemen’s Fund, 421 U. S. 491 (1975). We are not confronted with a situation in which the Government, through “unreviewed executive discretion,” has made a wide-ranging inquiry that unnecessarily "touch[es] upon intimate areas of an individual’s personal affairs.” California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz, 416 U. S., at 78-79 (Powell, J., concurring). Here the Government has exercised its powers through narrowly directed subpoenas duces tecum subject to the legal restraints attendant to such process. See Part IV, infra. This case differs from Burrows v. Superior Court, 13 Cal. 3d 238, 529 P. 2d 590 (1974), relied on by Mr. Justice Brennan in dissent, in that the bank records of respondent’s accounts were furnished in response to “compulsion by legal process” in the form of subpoenas duces tecum. The court in Burrows found it “significant . . . that the bank [in that case) provided the statements to the police in response to an informal oral request for information.” Id., at 243, 529 P. 2d, at 593. A subpoena duces tecum issued to obtain records is subject to nó more stringent Fourth Amendment requirements than is the ordinary subpoena. A search warrant, in contrast, is issuable only pursuant to prior judicial approval and authorizes Government officers to seize evidence without requiring enforcement through the courts. See United States v. Dionisio, 410 U. S. 1, 9-10 (1973). There is no occasion for us to address whether the subpoenas complied with the requirements outlined in Oklahoma Press Pub. Co. v. Walling, 327 U. S. 186 (1946). The banks upon which they were served did not contest their 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:

A

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr. Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court. After finding that conditions in the Arkansas penal system constituted cruel and unusual punishment, the District Court entered a series of detailed remedial orders. On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, petitioners challenged two aspects of that relief: (1) an order placing a maximum limit of 30 days on confinement in punitive isolation; and (2) an award of attorney’s fees to be paid out of Department of Correction funds. The Court of Appeals affirmed and assessed an additional attorney’s fee to cover services on appeal. 548 F. 2d 740 (1977). We granted certiorari, 434 U. S. 901, and now affirm. This litigation began in 1969; it is a sequel to two earlier cases holding that conditions in the Arkansas prison system violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Only a brief summary of the facts is necessary to explain the basis for the remedial orders. The routine conditions that the ordinary Arkansas convict had to endure were characterized by the District Court as “a dark and evil world completely alien to the free world.” Holt v. Sarver, 309 F. Supp. 362, 381 (ED Ark. 1970) (Holt II). That characterization was amply supported by the evidence. The punishments for misconduct not serious enough to result in punitive isolation were cruel, unusual, and unpredictable. It is the discipline known as “punitive isolation” that is most relevant for present purposes. Confinement in punitive isolation was for an indeterminate period of time. An average of 4, and sometimes as many as 10 or 11, prisoners were crowded into windowless 8'xlO' cells containing no furniture other than a source of water and a toilet that could only be flushed from outside the cell. Holt v. Sarver, 300 F. Supp. 825, 831-832 (ED Ark. 1969) (Holt I). At night the prisoners were given mattresses to spread on the floor. Although some prisoners suffered from infectious diseases such as hepatitis and venereal disease, mattresses were removed and jumbled together each morning, then returned to the cells at random in the evening. Id,, at 832. Prisoners in isolation received fewer than 1,000 calories a day; their meals consisted primarily of 4-inch squares of “grue,” a substance created by mashing meat, potatoes, oleo, syrup, vegetables, eggs, and seasoning into a paste and baking the mixture in a pan. Ibid. After finding the conditions of confinement unconstitutional, the District Court did not immediately impose a detailed remedy of its own. Instead, it directed the Department of Correction to “make a substantial start” on improving conditions and to file reports on its progress. Holt I, supra, at 833-834. When the Department’s progress proved unsatisfactory, a second hearing was held. The District Court found some improvements, but concluded that prison conditions remained unconstitutional. Holt II, 309 F. Supp., at 383. Again the court offered prison administrators an opportunity to devise a plan of their own for remedying the constitutional violations, but this time the court issued guidelines, identifying four areas of change that would cure the worst evils: improving conditions in the isolation cells, increasing inmate safety, eliminating the barracks sleeping arrangements, and putting an end to the trusty system. Id., at 385. The Department was ordered to move as rapidly as funds became available. Ibid. After this order was affirmed on appeal, Holt v. Sarver, 442 F. 2d 304 (CA8 1971), more hearings were held in 1972 and 1973 to review the Department’s progress. Finding substantial improvements, the District Court concluded that continuing supervision was no longer necessary. The court held, however, that its prior decrees would remain in effect and noted that sanctions, as well as an award of costs and attorney’s fees, would be imposed if violations occurred. Holt v. Hutto, 363 F. Supp. 194, 217 (ED Ark. 1973) (Holt HI). The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s decision to withdraw its supervisory jurisdiction, Finney v. Arkansas Board of Correction, 505 F. 2d 194 (CA8 1974), and the District Court held a fourth set of hearings. 410 F. Supp. 251 (ED Ark. 1976). It found that, in some respects, conditions had seriously deteriorated since 1973, when the court had withdrawn its supervisory jurisdiction. Cummins Farm, which the court had condemned as overcrowded in 1970 because it housed 1,000 inmates, now had a population of about 1,500. Id., at 254-255. The situation in the punitive isolation cells was particularly disturbing. The court concluded that either it had misjudged conditions in these cells in 1973 or conditions had become much worse since then. Id., at 275. There were twice as many prisoners as beds in some cells. And because inmates in punitive isolation are often violently antisocial, overcrowding led to persecution of the weaker prisoners. The “grue” diet was still in use, and practically all inmates were losing weight on it. The cells had been vandalized to a “very substantial” extent. Id., at 276. Because of their inadequate numbers, guards assigned to the punitive isolation cells frequently resorted to physical violence, using nightsticks and Mace in their efforts to maintain order. Prisoners were sometimes left in isolation for months, their release depending on “their attitudes as appraised by prison personnel.” Id., at 275. The court concluded that the constitutional violations identified earlier had not been cured. It entered an order that placed limits on the number of men that could be confined in one cell, required that each have a bunk, discontinued the “grue” diet, and set 30 days as the maximum isolation sentence. The District Court gave detailed consideration to the matter of fees and expenses, made an express finding that petitioners had acted in bad faith, and awarded counsel “a fee of $20,000.00 to be paid out of Department of Correction funds.” Id,., at 285. The Court of Appeals affirmed and assessed an additional $2,500 to cover fees and expenses on appeal. 548 F. 2d, at 743. I The Eighth Amendment’s ban on inflicting cruel and unusual punishments, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, “proscribe[s] more than physically barbarous punishments.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U. S. 97, 102. It prohibits penalties that are grossly disproportionate to the offense, Weems v. United States, 217 U. S. 349, 367, as well as those that transgress today’s “ ‘broad and idealistic concepts of dignity, civilized standards, humanity, and decency.’ ” Estelle v. Gamble, supra, at 102, quoting Jackson v. Bishop, 404 F. 2d 571, 579 (CA8 1968). Confinement in a prison or in an isolation cell is a form of punishment subject to scrutiny under Eighth Amendment standards. Petitioners do not challenge this proposition; nor do they disagree with the District Court’s original conclusion that conditions in Arkansas’ prisons, including its punitive isolation cells, constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Rather, petitioners single out that portion of the District Court’s most recent order that forbids the Department to sentence inmates to more than 30 days in punitive isolation. Petitioners assume that the District Court held that indeterminate sentences to punitive isolation always constitute cruel and unusual punishment. This assumption misreads the District Court’s holding. Read in its entirety, the District Court’s opinion makes it abundantly clear that the length of isolation sentences was not considered in a vacuum. In the court’s words, punitive isolation “is not necessarily unconstitutional, but it may be, depending on the duration of the confinement and the conditions thereof.” 410 F. Supp., at 275. It is perfectly obvious that every decision to remove a particular inmate from the general prison population for an indeterminate period could not be characterized as cruel and unusual. If new conditions of confinement are not materially different from those affecting other prisoners, a transfer for the duration of a prisoner’s sentence might be completely unobjectionable and well within the authority of the prison administrator. Cf. Meachum v. Fano, 427 U. S. 215. It is equally plain, however, that the length of confinement cannot be ignored in deciding whether the confinement meets constitutional standards. A filthy, overcrowded cell and a diet of “grue” might be tolerable for a few days and intolerably cruel for weeks or months. The question before the trial court was whether past constitutional violations had been remedied. The court was entitled to consider the severity of those violations in assessing the constitutionality of conditions in the isolation cells. The court took note of the inmates’ diet, the continued overcrowding, the rampant violence, the vandalized cells, and the “lack of professionalism and good judgment on the part of maximum security personnel.” 410 F. Supp., at 277 and 278. The length of time each inmate spent in isolation was simply one consideration among many. We find no error in the court’s conclusion that, taken as a whole, conditions in the isolation cells continued to violate the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. In fashioning a remedy, the District Court had ample authority to go beyond earlier orders and to address each element contributing to the violation. The District Court had given the Department repeated opportunities to remedy the cruel and unusual conditions in the isolation cells. If petitioners had fully complied with the court’s earlier orders, the present time limit might well have been unnecessary. But taking the long and unhappy history of the litigation into account, the court was justified in entering a comprehensive order to insure against the risk of inadequate compliance. The order is supported by the interdependence of the conditions producing the violation. The vandalized cells and the atmosphere of violence were attributable, in part, to overcrowding and to deep-seated enmities growing out of months of constant daily friction. The 30-day limit will help to correct these conditions. Moreover, the limit presents little danger of interference with prison administration, for the Commissioner of Correction himself stated that prisoners should not ordinarily be held in punitive isolation for more than 14 days. Id., at 278. Finally, the exercise of discretion in this case is entitled to special deference because of the trial judge’s years of experience with the problem at hand and his recognition of the limits on a federal court’s authority in a case of this kind. Like the Court of Appeals, we find no error in the inclusion of a 30-day limitation on sentences to punitive isolation as a part of the District Court’s comprehensive remedy. II The Attorney General of Arkansas, whose office has represented petitioners throughout this litigation, contends that any award of fees is prohibited by the Eleventh Amendment. He also argues that the Court of Appeals incorrectly held that fees were authorized by the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976. We hold that the District Court’s award is adequately supported by its finding of bad faith and that the Act supports the additional award by the Court of Appeals. A. The District Court Award Although the Attorney General argues that the finding of bad faith does not overcome the State’s Eleventh Amendment protection, he does not question the accuracy of the finding made by the District Court and approved by the Court of Appeals. Nor does he question the settled rule that a losing litigant’s bad faith may justify an allowance of fees to the prevailing party. He merely argues that the order requiring that the fees be paid from public funds violates the Eleventh Amendment. In the landmark decision in Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, the Court held that, although prohibited from giving, orders directly to a State, federal courts could enjoin state officials in their official capacities. And in Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651, when the Court held that the Amendment grants the States an immunity from retroactive monetary relief, it reaffirmed the principle that state officers are not immune from prospective injunctive relief. Aware that the difference between retroactive and prospective relief “will not in many instances be that between day and night,” id., at 667, the Court emphasized in Edélman that the distinction did not immunize the States from their obligation to obey costly federal-court orders. The cost of compliance is “ancillary” to the prospective order enforcing federal law. Id., at 668. The line between retroactive and prospective relief cannot be so rigid that it defeats the effective enforcement of prospective relief. The present case requires application of that principle. In exercising their prospective powers under Ex parte Young and Edelman v. Jordan, federal courts are not reduced to issuing injunctions against state officers and hoping'for compliance. Once issued, an injunction may be enforced. Many of the court’s most effective enforcement weapons involve financial penalties. A criminal contempt prosecution for “resistance to [the court’s] lawful.’.. order” may result in a jail term or a fine. 18 U. S. C. §.401 (1976 ed.). Civil contempt proceedings may yield a conditional jail term or fine. United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U. S. 258, 305. Civil contempt may also be punished by a remedial fine, which compensates the party who won the injunction for the effects of his opponent’s noncompliance. Id., at 304; Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U. S. 418. If a state agency refuses to adhere to a court order, a financial penalty may be the most effective means of insuring compliance. The principles of federalism that inform Eleventh Amendment doctrine surely do not require federal courts to enforce their decrees only by sending high state officials to jail. The less intrusive power to impose a fine is properly treated as ancillary to the federal court’s power to impose injunctive relief. In this case, the award of attorney’s fees for bad faith served the same purpose as a remedial fine imposed for civil contempt. It vindicated the District Court’s authority over a recalcitrant litigant. Compensation was not the sole motive for the award; in setting the amount of the fee, the court said that it would “make no effort to adequately compensate counsel for the work that they have done or for the time that they have spent on the case.” 410 F. Supp., at 285. The court did allow a “substantial” fee, however, because “the allowance thereof may incline the Department to act in such a manner that further protracted litigation about the prisons will not be necessary.” Ibid. We see no reason to distinguish this award from any other penalty imposed to enforce a prospective injunction. Hence the substantive protections of the Eleventh Amendment do not prevent an award of attorney’s fees against the Department’s officers in their official capacities. Instead of assessing the award against the defendants in their official capacities, the District Court directed that the fees are “to be paid out of Department of Correction funds.” Ibid. Although the Attorney General objects to the form of the order, no useful purpose would be served by requiring that it be recast in different language. We have previously approved directives that were comparable in their actual impact on the State without pausing to attach significance to the language used by the District Court. Even if it might have been better form to omit the reference to the Department of Correction, the use of that language is surely not reversible error. B. The Court of Appeals Award Petitioners, as the losing litigants in the Court of Appeals, were ordered to pay an additional $2,500 to counsel for the prevailing parties “for their services on this appeal.” 548 F. 2d, at 743. The order does not expressly direct the Department of Correction to pay the award, but since petitioners are sued in their official capacities, and since they are represented by the Attorney General, it is obvious that the award will be paid with state funds. It is also clear that this order is not supported by any finding of bad faith. It is founded instead on the provisions of the Civil Rights Attorney’s Pees Awards Act of 1976. Pub.. L. No. 94-559, 90 Stat. 2641, 42 U. S. C. § 1988 (1976 ed.). The Act declares that, in suits under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 and certain other statutes, federal courts may award prevailing parties reasonable attorney’s fees “as part of the costs.”' As this Court made clear in Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U. S. 445, Congress has plenary power to set aside the States’ immunity from retroactive relief in order to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment. When it passed the Act, Congress undoubtedly intended to exercise that power and to authorize fee awards payable by the States when their officials are sued in their official capacities. The Act itself could not be broader. It applies to “any” action brought to enforce certain civil rights laws. It contains no hint of an exception for States defending injunction actions; indeed, the Act primarily applies to laws passed specifically to restrain state action. See, e. g., 42 U. S. C. 1 1983. The legislative history is equally plain: “[I]t is intended that the attorneys’ fees, like other items of costs, will be collected either directly from the official, in his official capacity, from funds of his agency or under his control, or from the State or local government (whether or not the agency or government is a named party).” S. Rep. No. 94^1011, p. 5 (1976) (footnotes omitted). The House Report is in accord: “The greater resources available to governments provide an ample base from which fees can be awarded to the prevailing plaintiff in suits against governmental officials or entities.” H. R. Rep. No. 94U1558, p. 7 (1976). The Report adds in a footnote that: “Of course, the 11th Amendment is not a bar to the awarding of counsel fees against state governments. Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer.” Id., at 7 n. 14. Congress’ intent was expressed in deeds as well as words.- It rejected at least two attempts to amend the Act and immunize state and local governments from awards. The Attorney General does not quarrel with the rule established in Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, supra. Rather, he argues that these plain indications of legislative intent are not enough. In his view, Congress must enact express statutory language making the States liable if it wishes to abrogate their immunity. The Attorney General points out that this Court has sometimes refused to impose retroactive liability on the States in the absence of an extraordinarily explicit statutory mandate. See Employees v. Missouri Public Health & Welfare Dept., 411 U. S. 279; see also Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651. But these eases concern retroactive liability for preliti-gation conduct rather than expenses incurred in litigation seeking only prospective relief. The Act imposes attorney’s fees “as part of the costs.” Costs have traditionally been awarded without regard for the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity. The practice of awarding costs against the States goes back to 1849 in this Court. See Missouri v. Iowa, 7 How. 660, 681; North Dakota v. Minnesota, 263 U. S. 583 (collecting cases). The Court has never viewed the Eleventh Amendment as barring such awards, even in suits between States and individual litigants. In Fairmont Creamery Co. v. Minnesota, 275 U. S. 70, the State challenged this Court’s award of costs, but we squarely-rejected the State’s claim of immunity. Far from requiring an explicit abrogation of state immunity, we relied on a statutory mandate that was entirely silent on the question of state liability. The power to make the award was supported by “the inherent authority of the Court in the orderly administration of justice as between all parties litigant.” Id., at 74. A federal court’s interest in orderly, expeditious proceedings “justifies [it] in treating the state just as any other litigant and in imposing costs upon it” when an award is called for. Id., at 77. Just as a federal court may treat a State like any other litigant when it assesses costs, so also may Congress amend its definition of taxable costs and have the amended class of costs apply to the States, as it does to all other litigants, without expressly stating that it intends to abrogate the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity. For it would be absurd to require an express reference to state litigants whenever a filing fee, or a new item, such as an expert witness’ fee, is added to the category of taxable costs. There is ample precedent for Congress’ decision to authorize an award of attorney’s fees as an item of costs. In England, costs “as between solicitor and client,” Sprague v. Ticonic Nat. Bank, 307 U. S. 161, 167, are routinely taxed today, and have been awarded since 1278. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U. S. 240, 247 n. 18. In America, although fees are not routinely awarded, there are a large number of statutory and common-law situations in which allowable costs include counsel fees. Indeed, the federal statutory definition of costs, which was enacted before the Civil War and which remains in effect today, includes certain fixed attorney’s fees as recoverable costs. In Fairmont Creamery itself, the Court awarded these statutory attorney’s fees against the State of Minnesota along with other taxable costs, even though the governing statute said nothing about state liability. It is much too late to single out attorney’s fees as the one kind of litigation cost whose recovery may not be authorized by Congress without an express statutory waiver of the States’ immunity. Finally, the Attorney General argues that, even if attorney’s fees may be awarded against a State, they should not be awarded in this case, because neither the State nor the Department is expressly named as a defendant. Although the Eleventh Amendment prevented respondents from suing the State by name, their injunctive suit against prison officials was, for all practical purposes, brought against the State. The actions of the Attorney General himself show that. His office has defended this action since it began. See Holt I, 300 F. Supp., at 826. The State apparently paid earlier fee awards; and it was the State’s lawyers who decided to bring this appeal, thereby risking another award. Like the Attorney General, Congress recognized that suits brought against individual officers for injunctive relief are for all practical purposes suits against the State itself. The legislative history makes it clear that in such suits attorney’s fee awards should generally be obtained “either directly from the official, in his official capacity, from funds of his agency or under his control, or from the State or local government (whether or not the agency or government is a named party) S. Rep. No. 94-1011, p. 5 (1976). Awards against the official in his individual capacity, in contrast, were not to be affected by the statute; in injunctive suits they would continue to be awarded only “under the traditional bad faith standard recognized by the Supreme Court in Alyeska,.” Id., at 5 n. 7. There is no indication in this case that the named defendants litigated in bad faith before the Court of Appeals. Consequently, the Department of Correction is the entity intended by Congress to bear the burden of the counsel-fees award. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly affirmed. It is so ordered. Mr. Justice White joins only Part I of this opinion. Petitioners are the Commissioner of Correction and members of the Arkansas Board of Correction. This case began as Holt v. Sarver, 300 F. Supp. 826 (ED Ark. 1969) [Holt I). The two earlier cases were Talley v. Stephens, 247 F. Supp. 683 (ED Ark. 1965), and Jackson v. Bishop, 268 F. Supp. 804 (ED Ark. 1967), vacated, 404 F. 2d 571 (CA8 1968). Judge Henley decided the first of these cases in 1965, when he was Chief Judge of the Eastern District of Arkansas. Although appointed to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in 1975, he was specially designated to continue to hear this case as a District Judge. The administrators of Arkansas’ prison system evidently tried to operate their prisons at a profit. See Talley v. Stephens, supra, at 688. Cummins Farm, the institution at the center of this litigation, required its 1,000 inmates to work in the fields 10 hours a day, six days a week, using mule-drawn tools and tending crops by hand. 247 F. Supp., at 688. The inmates were sometimes required to run to and from the fields, with a gua,rd in an automobile or on horseback driving them on. Holt v. Hutto, 363 F. Supp. 194, 213 (ED Ark. 1973) (Holt III). They worked in all sorts of weather, so long as the temperature was above freezing, sometimes in unsuitably light clothing or without shoes. Holt II, 309 F. Supp., at 370. The inmates slept together in large, 100-man barracks, and some convicts, known as “creepers,” would slip from their beds to crawl along the floor, stalking their sleeping enemies. In one 18-month period, there were 17 stabbings, all but 1 occurring in the barracks. Holt I, supra, at 830-831. Homosexual rape was so common and uncontrolled that some potential victims dared not sleep; instead they would leave their beds and spend the night clinging to the bars nearest the guards’ station. Holt II, supra, at 377. Inmates were lashed with a wooden-handled leather strap five feet long and four inches wide. Talley v. Stephens, supra, at 687. Although it was not oificial policy to do so, some inmates were apparently whipped for mmor offenses until their skin was bloody and bruised. Jackson v. Bishop, supra, at 810-811. The “Tucker telephone,” a hand-cranked device, was used to administer electrical shocks to various sensitive parts of an inmate’s body. Jackson v. Bishop, supra, at 812. Most of the guards were simply inmates who had been issued guns. Holt II, supra, at 373. Although it had 1,000 prisoners, Cummins employed only eight guards who were not themselves convicts. Only two noneonvict guards kept watch over the 1,000 men at night. 309 F. Supp., at 373. While the “trusties” maintained an appearance of order, they took a high toll from the other prisoners. Inmates could obtain access to medical treatment only if they bribed the trusty in charge of sick call. As the District Court found, it was “within the power of a trusty guard to murder another inmate with practical impunity,” because trusties with weapons were authorized to use deadly force against escapees. Id., at 374. “Accidental shootings” also occurred; and one trusty fired his shotgun into a crowded barracks because the inmates would not turn off their TV. Ibid. Another trusty beat an inmaté so badly the victim required partial dentures. Talley v. Stephens, supra, at 689. A daily allowance of 2,700 calories is recommended for the average male between 23 and 50. National Academy of Sciences, Recommended Dietary Allowances, Appendix (8th rev. ed. 1974). Prisoners in punitive isolation are less active than the average person; but a mature man who spends 12 hours a day lying down and 12 hours a day simply sitting or standing consumes approximately 2,000 calories a day. Id., at 27. The Department reads the following sentence in the District Court’s 76-page opinion as an unqualified holding that any indeterminate sentence to solitary confinement is unconstitutional: “The court holds that the policy of sentencing inmates to indeterminate periods of confinement in punitive isolation is unreasonable and unconstitutional.” 410 F. Supp., at 278. But in the context of its full opinion, we think it quite clear that the court was describing the specific conditions found in the Arkansas penal system. Indeed, in the same paragraph it noted that “segregated confinement under maximum security conditions is one thing; segregated confinement under the punitive conditions that have been described is quite another thing.” Ibid, (emphasis in original). The Department also suggests that the District Court made rehabilitation a constitutional requirement. The court did note its agreement with an expert witness who testified “that punitive isolation as it exists at Cummins today serves no rehabilitative purpose, and that it is counterproductive.” Id., at 277. The court went on to say that punitive isolation “makes bad men worse. It must be changed.” Ibid. We agree with the Department’s contention that the Constitution does not require that every aspect of prison discipline serve a rehabilitative purpose. Novak v. Beto, 453 F. 2d 661, 670-671 (CA5 1971); Nadeau v. Helgemoe, 561 F. 2d 411, 415-416 (CA1 1977). But the District Court did not impose a new legal test. Its remarks form the transition from a detailed description of conditions in the isolation cells to a traditional legal analysis of those conditions. The quoted passage simply summarized the facts and presaged the legal conclusion to come. As we' explained in Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U. S. 267, 281, state and local authorities have primary responsibility for curing constitutional violations. “If, however ‘[those] authorities fad in their affirmative obligations... judicial authority may be invoked.’ Swann [v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U. S. 1,] 15. Once invoked, ‘the scope of a district court’s equitable powers to remedy past wrongs is broad, for breadth and flexibility are inherent in equitable remedies.’ ” Ibid. In this case, the District Court was not remedying the present effects of a violation in the past. It was seeking to bring an ongoing violation to an immediate halt. Cooperation on the part of Department officials and compliance with other aspects of the decree may justify elimination of this added safeguard in the future, but it is entirely appropriate for the District Court to postpone any such determination until the Department's progress can be evaluated. The District Court noted “that as a class the inmates of the punitive cells hate those in charge of them, and that they may harbor particular hatreds against prison employees who have been in charge of the same inmates for a substantial period of time.” 410 F. Supp., at 277. As early as 1969, the District Court had identified shorter sentences as a possible remedy for overcrowding in the isolation cells. Holt I, 300 F. Supp., at 834. The limit imposed in 1976 was a mechanical — and therefore an easily enforced — method of minimizing overcrowding, with its attendant vandalism and unsanitary conditions. See, e. g., Holt II, 309 F. Supp., at 369: “The Court, however, is limited in its inquiry to the question of whether or not the constitutional rights of inmates are being invaded and with whether the Penitentiary itself is unconstitutional. The Court is not judicially concerned with questions which in the last analysis are addressed to legislative and administrative judgment. A practice that may be bad from the standpoint of penology may not necessarily be forbidden by the Constitution.” In affirming the award, the Court of Appeals relied chiefly on the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976, but it also noted expressly that “the record fully supports the finding of the district court that the conduct of the state officials justified the award under the bad faith exception enumerated in Alyeska [Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U. S. 240].” 648 F. 2d 740, 742 n. 6. An equity court has the unquestioned power to award attorney’s fees against a party who shows bad faith by delaying or disrupting the litigation or by hampering enforcement of a court order. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U. S. 240, 258-269; Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U. S. 412; Straub v. Vaisman & Co., Inc., 540 F. 2d 591, 598-600 (CA3 1976); cf. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 56 (g) (attorney’s fees to be awarded against party filing summary judgment affidavits “in bad faith or solely for the purpose of delay”); Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 37 (a) (4) (motions to compel discovery; prevailing party may recover attorney’s fees). The award vindicates judicial authority without resort to the more drastic sanctions available for contempt of court and makes the prevailing party whole for expenses caused by his opponent’s obstinacy. Cf. First Nat. Bank v. Dunham, 471 F. 2d 712 (CA8 1973). Of course, fees can also be awarded as part of a civil contempt penalty. See, e. g., Toledo Scale Co. v. Computing Scale Co., 261 U. S. 399; Signal Delivery Service, Inc. v. Highway Truck Drivers, 68 F. R. D. 318 (ED Pa. 1975). “Ancillary” costs may be very large indeed. Last Term, for example, this Court rejected an Eleventh Amendment defense and approved an injunction ordering a State to pay almost $6 million to help defray the costs of desegregating the Detroit school system. Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U. S., at 293 (Powell, J., concurring in judgment). See Note, Attorneys’ Fees and the Eleventh Amendment, 88 Harv. L. Rev. 1875,1892 (1975). That the award had a compensatory effect does not in any event distinguish it from a fine for civil contempt, which also compensates a private party for the consequences of a contemnor’s disobedience. Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U. S. 418. Moreover, the Court has approved federal rulings requiring a State to support programs that compensate for past misdeeds, saying: “That the programs are also ‘compensatory’ in nature does not change the fact that they are part of a plan that operates prospectively to bring about the delayed benefits of a unitary school system. We therefore hold that such prospective relief is not barred by the Eleventh Amendment.” Milliken v. Bradley, supra, at 290 (emphasis in original). The award of attorney’s fees against a State disregarding a federal order stands on the same footing; like other enforcement powers, it is integral to the court’s grant of prospective relief. The Attorney General has not argued that this award was so large or so unexpected that it interfered with the State’s budgeting process. Although the Eleventh Amendment does not prohibit attorney’s fees awards for bad faith, it may counsel moderation in determining the size of the award or in giving the State time to adjust its budget before paying the full amount of the fee. Cf. Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651, 666 n. 11. In this case, however, the timing of the award has not been put in issue; nor has the State claimed that the award was larger than necessary to enforce the court’s prior orders. We do not understand the Attorney General to urge that the fees should have been awarded against the officers personally; that would be a Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

F

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr. Justice White delivered the opinion of the Court. After a jury trial in the District Court for the Fifteenth Judicial District of Lafayette Parish, Louisiana, petitioner, a Negro, was convicted of rape and sentenced to life imprisonment. His conviction was affirmed on appeal by the Louisiana Supreme Court, and this Court granted certiorari. Prior to trial, petitioner had moved to quash the indictment because (1) Negro citizens were included on the grand jury list and venire in only token numbers, and (2) female citizens were systematically excluded from the grand jury list, venire, and impaneled grand jury.. Petitioner therefore argued that the indictment against him was invalid because it was returned by a grand jury impaneled from a venire made up contrary to the requirements of the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Petitioner’s motions were denied. According to 1960 U. S. census figures admitted into evidence below, Lafayette Parish contained 44,986 persons over 21 years of age and therefore presumptively eligible for grand jury service; of this total, 9,473 persons (21.06%) were Negro. At the hearing on petitioner’s motions to quash the indictment, the evidence revealed that the Lafayette Parish jury commission consisted of five members, all of whom were white, who had been appointed by the court. The commission compiled a list of names from various sources (telephone directory, city directory, voter registration rolls, lists prepared by the school board, and by the jury commissioners themselves) and sent questionnaires to the persons on this list to determine those qualified for grand jury service. The questionnaire included a space to indicate the race of the recipient. Through this process, 7,374 questionnaires were returned, 1,015 of which (13.76,%') were from Negroes, and the jury commissioners attached to each questionnaire an information card designating, among other things, the race of the person, and a white slip indicating simply the name and address of the person. The commissioners then culled out about 5,000 questionnaires, ostensibly on the ground that these persons were not qualified for grand jury service or were exempted under state law. The remaining 2,000 sets of papers were placed on a table, and the papers of 400 persons were selected, purportedly at random, and placed in a box from which the grand jury panels of 20 for Lafayette Parish were drawn. Twenty-seven of the persons thus selected were Negro (6.75%). On petitioner’s grand jury venire, one of the 20 persons drawn was Negro (5%), but none of the 12 persons on the grand jury that indicted him, drawn from this 20, was Negro. I For over 90 years, it has been established that a criminal conviction of a Negro cannot stand under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if it is based on an indictment of a grand jury from which Negroes were excluded by reason of their race. Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303 (1880); Neal v. Delaware, 103 U. S. 370 (1881). Although a defendant has no right to demand that members of his race be included on the grand jury that indicts him, Virginia v. Rives, 100 U. S. 313 (1880), he is entitled to require that the State not deliberately and systematically deny to members of his race the right to participate as jurors in the administration of justice. Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339 (1880); Gibson v. Mississippi, 162 U. S. 565 (1896). Cf. Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U. S. 475 (1954). It is only the application of these settled principles that is at issue here. This is not a case where it is claimed that there have been no Negroes called for service within the last 30 years, Patton v. Mississippi, 332 U. S. 463, 464 (1947); only one Negro chosen within the last 40 years, Pierre v. Louisiana, 306 U. S. 354, 359 (1939); or no Negroes selected “within the memory of witnesses who had lived [in the area] all their lives,” Norris v. Alabama, 294 U. S. 587, 591 (1935). Rather, petitioner argues that, in his case, there has been a consistent process of progressive and disproportionate reduction of the number of Negroes eligible to serve on the grand jury at each stage of the selection process until ultimately an all-white grand jury was selected to indict him. In Lafayette Parish, 21% of the population was Negro and 21 or over, therefore presumptively eligible for grand jury service. Use of questionnaires by the jury commissioners created a pool of possible grand jurors which was 14% Negro, a reduction by one-third of possible black grand jurors. The commissioners then twice culled this group to create a list of 400 prospective jurors, 7% of whom were Negro — a further reduction by one-half. The percentage dropped to 5% on petitioner’s grand jury venire and to zero on the grand jury that actually indicted him. Against this background, petitioner argues that the substantial disparity between the proportion of blacks chosen for jury duty and the proportion of blacks in the eligible population raises a strong inference that racial discrimination and not chance has produced this result because elementary principles of probability make it extremely unlikely that a random selection process would, at each stage, have so consistently reduced the number of Negroes. This Court has never announced mathematical standards for the demonstration of “systematic” exclusion of blacks but has, rather, emphasized that a factual inquiry is necessary in each case that takes into account all possible explanatory factors. The progressive decimation of potential Negro grand jurors is indeed striking here, but we do not rest our conclusion that petitioner has demonstrated a prima facie case of invidious racial discrimination on statistical improbability alone, for the selection procedures themselves were not racially neutral. The racial designation on both the questionnaire and the information card provided a clear and easy opportunity for racial discrimination. At two crucial steps in the selection process, when the number of returned questionnaires was reduced to 2,000 and when the final selection of the 400 names was made, these racial identifications were visible on the forms used by the jury commissioners, although there is no evidence that the commissioners consciously selected by race. The situation here is thus similar to Avery v. Georgia, 345 U. S. 559 (1953), where the Court sustained a challenge to an array of petit jurors in which the names of prospective jurors had been selected from segregated tax lists. Juror cards were prepared from these lists, yellow cards being used for Negro citizens and white cards for whites. Cards were drawn by a judge, and there was no evidence of specific discrimination. The Court held that such evidence was unnecessary, however, given the fact that no Negroes had appeared on the final jury: “Obviously that practice makes it easier for those to discriminate who are of a mind to discriminate.” 345 U. S., at 562. Again, in Whitus v. Georgia, 385 U. S. 545 (1967), the Court reversed the conviction of a defendant who had been tried before an all-white petit jury. Jurors had been selected from a one-volume tax digest divided into separate sections of Negroes and whites; black taxpayers also had a “(c)” after their names as required by Georgia law at the time. The jury commissioners testified that they were not aware of the “(c)” appearing after the names of the Negro taxpayers; that they had never included or excluded anyone because of race; that they had placed on the jury list only those persons whom they knew personally; and that the jury list they compiled had had no designation of race on it. The county from which jury selection was made was 42%' Negro, and 27% of the county’s taxpayers were Negro. Of the 33 persons drawn for tjie grand jury panel, three (9%) were Negro, while on the 19-member grand jury only one was Negro; on the 90-man venire from which the petit jury was selected, there were seven Negroes (8%), but no Negroes appeared on the actual jury that tried petitioner. The Court held that this combination of factors constituted a prima facie case of discrimination, and a similar conclusion is mandated in the present case. Once a prima facie case of invidious discrimination is established, the burden of proof shifts to the State to rebut the presumption of unconstitutional action by showing that permissible racially neutral selection criteria and procedures have produced the monochromatic result. Turner v. Fouche, 396 U. S. 346, 361 (1970); Eubanks v. Louisiana, 356 U. S. 584, 587 (1958). The State has not carried this burden in this case; it has not adequately explained the elimination of Negroes during the process of selecting the grand jury that indicted petitioner. As in Whitus v. Georgia, supra, the clerk of the court, who was also a member of the jury commission, testified that no consideration was given to race during the selection procedure. App. 34. The Court has squarely held, however, that affirmations of good faith in making individual selections are insufficient to dispel a prima facie case of systematic exclusion. Turner v. Fouche, supra, at 361; Jones v. Georgia, 389 U. S. 24, 25 (1967); Sims v. Georgia, 389 U. S. 404, 407 (1967). “The result bespeaks discrimination, whether or not it was a conscious decision on the part of any individual jury commissioner.” Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U. S., at 482. See also Norris v. Alabama, 294 U. S., at 598. The clerk’s testimony that the mailing list for questionnaires was compiled from nonracial sources is not, in itself, adequate to meet the State’s burden of proof, for the opportunity to discriminate was presented at later stages in the process. The commissioners, in any event, had a duty “not to pursue a course of conduct in the administration of their office which would operate to discriminate in the selection of jurors on racial grounds.” Hill v. Texas, 316 U. S. 400, 404 (1942). See also Smith v. Texas, 311 U. S. 128, 130 (1940). Cf. Carter v. Jury Commission, 396 U. S. 320, 330 (1970). We conclude, therefore, that “the opportunity for discrimination was present and [that it cannot be said] on this record that it was not resorted to by the commissioners.” Whitus v. Georgia, supra, at 552. II Petitioner also challenges the Louisiana statutory-exemption of women who do not volunteer for grand jury service. Article 402, La. Code Crim. Proc. This claim is novel in this Court and, when urged by a male, finds no support in our past cases. The strong constitutional and statutory policy against racial discrimination has permitted Negro defendants in criminal cases to challenge the systematic exclusion of Negroes from the grand juries that indicted them. Also, those groups arbitrarily excluded from grand or petit jury service are themselves afforded an appropriate remedy. Cf. Carter v. Jury Commission, supra. But there is nothing in past adjudications suggesting that petitioner himself has been denied equal protection by the alleged exclusion of women from grand jury service. Although the Due Process Clause guarantees petitioner a fair trial, it does not require the States to observe the Fifth Amendment’s provision for presentment or indictment by a grand jury. In Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145 (1968), the Court held that because trial by jury in criminal cases under the Sixth Amendment is “fundamental to the American scheme of justice,” id., at 149, such a right was guaranteed to defendants in state courts by the Fourteenth Amendment, but the Court has never held that federal concepts of a “grand jury,” binding on the federal courts under the Fifth Amendment, are obligatory for the States. Hurtado v. California, 110 U. S. 516, 538 (1884). Against this background and because petitioner’s conviction has been set aside on other grounds, we follow our usual custom of avoiding decision of constitutional issues unnecessary to the decision of the case before us. Burton v. United States, 196 U. S. 283, 295 (1905). See Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U. S. 288, 346-348 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring). The State may or may not recharge petitioner, a properly constituted grand jury may or may not return another indictment, and petitioner may or may not be convicted again. See Ballard v. United States, 329 U. S. 187, 196 (1946). Reversed. Mr. Justice Powell and Mr. Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. 255 La. 941, 233 So. 2d 891 (1970). Petitioner was indicted for aggravated rape, and a 12-member jury unanimously returned a verdict of “Guilty without Capital Punishment.” 401 U. S. 936 (1971). Petitioner does not here challenge the composition of the petit jury that convicted him. The principles that apply to the systematic exclusion of potential jurors on the ground of race are essentially the same for grand juries and for petit juries, however. Pierre v. Louisiana, 306 U. S. 354, 358 (1939). See generally Neal v. Delaware, 103 U. S. 370 (1881). The general qualifications for’jurors set by Louisiana law are that a person must be a citizen of the United States and of Louisiana who has resided in the parish for at least a year prior to jury service, be at least 21 years old,, be able to read, write, and speak the English language, “[n]ot be under interdiction, or incapable of serving as a juror because of a mental or physical infirmity,” and “ [n] ot be under indictment for a felony, nor have been convicted of a felony for which he has not been pardoned.” La. Code Crim. Proc., Art. 401 (1967). Testimony at the hearing on the motion to quash the indictment also revealed that there were 40,896 registered voters in the parish. Of this total, 17,803 were white males, and 16,483 were white females; 3,573 were Negro males, and 3,037 were Negro females. App. 38. One hundred and eighty-nine questionnaires had no racial designation. App. 15. There are some inconsistencies in the record as to the total number of Negroes in this group. The State introduced a certification by the clerk of the court stating that there were 25 Negroes and four persons with no race shown. App. 15. A count of the actual list of jurors, however, shows 27 Negroes and five persons with no race shown. App. 16-24. Section 4 of the 1875 Civil Rights Act, 18 Stat. 336, now codified as 18 U. S. C. § 243, affirms and reinforces this constitutional right: “No citizen possessing all other qualifications which are or may be prescribed by law shall be disqualified for service as grand or petit juror in any court of the United States, or of any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude; and whoever, being an officer or other person charged with any duty in the selection or summoning of jurors, excludes or fails to summon any citizen for such cause, shall be fined not'more than $5,000.” We take note, as we did in Whitus v. Georgia, 385 U. S. 545, 552 n. 2 (1967), of petitioner’s demonstration that under one statistical technique of calculating probability, the chances that 27 Negroes would have been selected at random for the 400-member final jury list, when 1,015 out of the 7,374 questionnaires returned were from Negroes, are one in 20,000. Brief for Petitioner 18 n. 18. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy 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. This case concerns a congressional statute “recognizing] and affirming]” the “inherent” authority of a tribe to bring a criminal misdemeanor prosecution against an Indian who is not a member of that tribe — authority that this Court previously held a tribe did not possess. Compare 25 U. S. C. § 1301(2) with Duro v. Reina, 495 U. S. 676 (1990). We must decide whether Congress has the constitutional power to relax restrictions that the political branches have, over time, placed on the exercise of a tribe’s inherent legal authority. We conclude that Congress does possess this power. I Respondent Billy Jo Lara is an enrolled member of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians in north-central North Dakota. He married a member of a different tribe, the Spirit Lake Tribe, and lived with his wife and children on the Spirit Lake Reservation, also located in North Dakota. See Brief for Spirit Lake Sioux Tribe of North Dakota et al. as Amici Curiae 4-5. After several incidents of serious misconduct, the Spirit Lake Tribe issued an order excluding him from the reservation. Lara ignored the order; federal officers stopped him; and he struck one of the arresting officers. 324 F. 3d 635, 636 (CA8 2003) (en banc). The Spirit Lake Tribe subsequently prosecuted Lara in the Spirit Lake Tribal Court for “violence to a policeman.” Ibid. Lara pleaded guilty and, in respect to that crime, served 90 days in jail. See ibid.; Tr. of Oral Arg. 28. After Lara’s tribal conviction, the Federal Government charged Lara in the Federal District Court for the District of North Dakota with the federal crime of assaulting a federal officer. 324 F. 3d, at 636; 18 U. S. C. § 111(a)(1). Key elements of this federal crime mirror elements of the tribal crime of “violence to a policeman.” See Brief for United States 7. And this similarity between the two crimes would ordinarily have brought Lara within the protective reach of the Double Jeopardy Clause. U. S. Const., Arndt. 5 (the Government may not “subject” any person “for the same of-fence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb”); 324 F. 3d, at 636. But the Government, responding to Lara’s claim of double jeopardy, pointed out that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar successive prosecutions brought by separate sovereigns, and it argued that this “dual sovereignty” doctrine determined the outcome here. See Heath v. Alabama, 474 U. S. 82, 88 (1985) (the Double Jeopardy Clause reflects the “common-law conception of crime as an offense against the sovereignty of the government”; when “a defendant in a single act violates the ‘peace and dignity’ of two sovereigns by breaking the laws of each, he has committed two distinct ‘offences’ ”). The Government noted that this Court has held that an Indian tribe acts as a separate sovereign when it prosecutes its own members. United States v. Wheeler, 435 U. S. 313, 318, 322-323 (1978) (a tribe’s “sovereign power to punish tribal offenders,” while subject to congressional “defea-sance,” remains among those “ ‘inherent powers of a limited sovereignty which has never been extinguished’” (emphasis added and deleted)). The Government recognized, of course, that Lara is not one of the Spirit Lake Tribe’s own members; it also recognized that, in Duro v. Reina, supra, this Court had held that a tribe no longer possessed inherent or sovereign authority to prosecute a “nonmember Indian.” Id., at 682. But it pointed out that, soon after this Court decided Duro, Congress enacted new legislation specifically authorizing a tribe to prosecute Indian members of a different tribe. See Act of Nov. 5, 1990, §§ 8077(b) — Cd), 104 Stat. 1892-1893 (temporary legislation until September 30, 1991); Act of Oct. 28, 1991, 105 Stat. 646 (permanent legislation). That new statute, in permitting a tribe to bring certain tribal prosecutions against nonmember Indians, does not purport to delegate the Federal Government’s own federal power. Rather, it enlarges the tribes’ own “ ‘powers of self-government’” to include “the inherent power of Indian tribes, hereby recognized and affirmed, to exercise criminal jurisdiction over all Indians,” including nonmembers. 25 U. S. C. § 1301(2) (emphasis added). In the Government’s view, given this statute, the Tribe, in prosecuting Lara, had exercised its own inherent tribal authority, not delegated federal authority; hence the “dual sovereignty” doctrine applies, Heath, supra, at 88; and since the two prosecutions were brought by two different sovereigns, the second, federal, prosecution does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Federal Magistrate Judge accepted the Government’s argument and rejected Lara’s double jeopardy claim. 324 F. 3d, at 636-637. An Eighth Circuit panel agreed with the Magistrate Judge. 294 F. 3d 1004 (2002). But the en banc Court of Appeals, by a vote of 7 to 4, reached a different conclusion. 324 F. 3d 635 (2003). It held the Tribal Court, in prosecuting Lara, was exercising a federal prosecutorial power; hence the “dual sovereignty” doctrine does not apply; and the Double Jeopardy Clause bars the second prosecution. Id., at 640. The four dissenting judges, agreeing with the Federal Government, concluded that the Tribal Court had exercised inherent tribal power in prosecuting Lara; hence the “dual sovereignty” doctrine applies and allows the second, federal, prosecution. Id., at 641 (opinion of M. Arnold, J.). Because the Eighth Circuit and Ninth Circuit have reached different conclusions about the new statute, we granted certiorari. Cf. United States v. Enas, 255 F. 3d 662 (CA9 2001) (en banc), cert. denied, 534 U. S. 1115 (2002). We now reverse the Eighth Circuit. II We assume, as do the parties, that Lara’s double jeopardy claim turns on the answer to the “dual sovereignty” question. What is “the source of [the] power to punish” nonmember Indian offenders, “inherent tribal sovereignty” or delegated federal authority? Wheeler, supra, at 322 (emphasis added). We also believe that Congress intended the former answer. The statute says that it “recognize[s] and affirm[s]” in each tribe the “inherent” tribal power (not delegated federal power) to prosecute nonmember Indians for misdemeanors. See supra, at 198; Appendix, infra (emphasis added). And the statute’s legislative history confirms that such was Congress’ intent. See, e.g., H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 102-261, pp. 3-4 (1991) (“The Committee of the Conference notes that ... this legislation is not a delegation of this jurisdiction but a clarification of the status of tribes as domestic dependent nations”); accord, H. R. Rep. No. 102-61, p. 7 (1991); see also S. Rep. No. 102-168, p. 4 (1991) (“recognizing] and reaffirming] the inherent authority of tribal governments to exercise criminal jurisdiction over all Indians”); 137 Cong. Ree. 9446 (1991) (remarks of Sen. Inouye) (the “premise [of the legislation] is that the Congress affirms the inherent jurisdiction of tribal governments over nonmember Indians” (emphasis added)); id., at 10712-10714 (remarks of Rep. Miller, House manager of the bill) (the statute “is not a delegation of authority but an affirmation that tribes retain all rights not expressly taken away” and the bill “recognizes an inherent tribal right which always existed”); id., at 10713 (remarks of Rep. Richardson, a sponsor of the amendment) (the legislation “reaffirms” tribes’ power). Thus the statute seeks to adjust the tribes’ status. It relaxes the restrictions, recognized in Duro, that the political branches had imposed on the tribes’ exercise of inherent prosecutorial power. The question before us is whether the Constitution authorizes Congress to do so. Several considerations lead us to the conclusion that Congress does possess the constitutional power to lift the restrictions on the tribes’ criminal jurisdiction over nonmember Indians as the statute seeks to do. First, the Constitution grants Congress broad general powers to legislate in respect to Indian tribes, powers that we have consistently described as “plenary and exclusive.” E. g., Washington v. Confederated Bands and Tribes of Yakima Nation, 439 U. S. 463, 470-471 (1979); Negonsott v. Samuels, 507 U. S. 99, 103 (1993); see Wheeler, 435 U. S., at 323; see also W. Canby, American Indian Law 2 (3d ed. 1998) (hereinafter Canby) (“[T]he independence of the tribes is subject to exceptionally great powers of Congress to regulate and modify the status of the tribes”). This Court has traditionally identified the Indian Commerce Clause, U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 3, and the Treaty Clause, Art. II, § 2, cl. 2, as sources of that power. E. g., Morton v. Mancari, 417 U. S. 535, 552 (1974); McClanahan v. Arizona Tax Comm’n, 411 U. S. 164, 172, n. 7 (1973); see also Canby 11-12; F. Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law 209-210 (1982 ed.) (hereinafter Cohen) (also mentioning, inter alia, the Property Clause). The “central function of the Indian Commerce Clause,” we have said, “is to provide Congress with plenary power to legislate in the field of Indian affairs.” Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico, 490 U. S. 163, 192 (1989); see also, e. g., Ramah Navajo School Bd., Inc. v. Bureau of Revenue of N. M., 458 U. S. 832, 837 (1982) (“broad power” under the Indian Commerce Clause); White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U. S. 136, 142 (1980) (same, and citing Wheeler, supra, at 322-323). The treaty power does not literally authorize Congress to act legislatively, for it is an Article II power authorizing the President, not Congress, “to make Treaties.” U. S. Const., Art. II, § 2, cl. 2. But, as Justice Holmes pointed out, treaties made pursuant to that power can authorize Congress to deal with “matters” with which otherwise “Congress could not deal.” Missouri v. Holland, 252 U. S. 416, 433 (1920); see also L. Henkin, Foreign Affairs and the U. S. Constitution 72 (2d ed. 1996). And for much of the Nation’s history, treaties, and legislation made pursuant to those treaties, governed relations between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes. See, e. g., Cohen 109-111; F. Prucha, American Indian Policy in the Formative Years 44-49 (1962). We recognize that in 1871 Congress ended the practice of entering into treaties with the Indian tribes. 25 U. S. C. § 71 (stating that tribes are not entities “with whom the United States may contract by treaty”). But the statute saved existing treaties from béing “invalidated or impaired,” ibid., and this Court has explicitly stated that the statute “in no way affected Congress’ plenary powers to legislate on problems of Indians,” Antoine v. Washington, 420 U. S. 194, 203 (1975) (emphasis deleted). Moreover, “at least during the first century of America’s national existence . . . Indian affairs were more an aspect of military and foreign policy than a subject of domestic or municipal law.” Cohen 208 (footnotes omitted). Insofar as that is so, Congress’ legislative authority would rest in part, not upon “affirmative grants of the Constitution,” but upon the Constitution’s adoption of preconstitutional powers necessarily inherent in any Federal Government, namely, powers that this Court has described as “necessary concomitants of nationality.” United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U. S. 304, 315-322 (1936); Henkin, supra, at 14-22, 63-72; cf. 2 J. Continental Cong. 174-175 (1775) (W. Ford ed. 1905) (creating departments of Indian affairs, appointing Indian commissioners, and noting the great importance of “securing and preserving the friendship of the Indian Nations”); Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515, 557 (1832) (“The treaties and laws of the United States contemplate . .. that all intercourse with [Indians] shall be carried on exclusively by the government of the union”). Second, Congress, with this Court’s approval, has interpreted the Constitution’s “plenary” grants of power as authorizing it to enact legislation that both restricts and, in turn, relaxes those restrictions on tribal sovereign authority. From the Nation’s beginning Congress’ need for such legislative power would have seemed obvious. After all, the Government’s Indian policies, applicable to numerous tribes with diverse cultures, affecting billions of acres of land, of necessity would fluctuate dramatically as the needs of the Nation and those of the tribes changed over time. See, e. g., Cohen 48. And Congress has in fact authorized at different times very different Indian policies (some with beneficial results but many with tragic consequences). Congressional policy, for example, initially favored “Indian removal,” then “assimilation” and the breakup of tribal lands, then protection of the tribal land base (interrupted by a movement toward greater state involvement and “termination” of recognized tribes); and it now seeks greater tribal autonomy within the framework of a “government-to-government relationship” with federal agencies. 59 Fed. Reg. 22951 (1994); see also 19 Weekly Comp, of Pres. Doc. 98 (1983) (President Reagan reaffirming the rejection of termination as a policy and announcing the goal of decreasing tribal dependence on the Federal Government); see 25 U. S. C. § 450a(b) (congressional commitment to “the development of strong and stable tribal governments”). See generally Cohen 78-202 (describing this history); Canby 13-32 (same). Such major policy changes inevitably involve major changes in the metes and bounds of tribal sovereignty. The 1871 statute, for example, changed the status of an Indian tribe from a “powe[r] . . . capable of making treaties” to a “power with whom the United States may [not] contract by treaty.” Compare Worcester, supra, at 559, with 25 U.S. C. §71. One can readily find examples in congressional decisions to recognize, or to terminate, the existence of individual tribes. See United States v. Holliday, 3 Wall. 407, 419 (1866) (“If by [the political branches] those Indians are recognized as a tribe, this court must do the same”); Menominee Tribe v. United States, 391 U. S. 404 (1968) (examining the rights of Menominee Indians following the termination of their Tribe). Indeed, Congress has restored previously extinguished tribal status — by re-recognizing a Tribe whose tribal existence it previously had terminated. 25 U. S. C. §§ 903-903f (restoring the Menominee Tribe); cf. United States v. Long, 324 F. 3d 475 (CA7) (upholding against double jeopardy challenge successive prosecutions by the restored Menominee Tribe and the Federal Government), cert. denied, 540 U. S. 822 (2003). Congress has advanced policies of integration by conferring United States citizenship upon all Indians. 8 U. S. C. § 1401(b). Congress has also granted tribes greater autonomy in their inherent law enforcement authority (in respect to tribal members) by increasing the maximum criminal penalties tribal courts may impose. §4217, 100 Stat. 3207-146, codified at 25 U. S. C. § 1302(7) (raising the maximum from “a term of six months and a fine of $500” to “a term of one year and a fine of $5,000”). Third, Congress’ statutory goal — to modify the degree of autonomy enjoyed by a dependent sovereign that is not a State — is not an unusual legislative objective. The political branches, drawing upon analogous constitutional authority, have made adjustments to the autonomous státus of other such dependent entities — sometimes making far more radical adjustments than those at issue here. See, e. g., Hawaii— Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U. S. 197, 209-211 (1903) (describing annexation of Hawaii by joint resolution of Congress and the maintenance of a “Republic of Hawaii” until formal incorporation by Congress); Northern Mariana Islands — note following 48 U. S. C. § 1801 (“in accordance with the [United Nations] trusteeship agreement . . . [establishing] a self-governing commonwealth ... in political union with and under the sovereignty of the United States”); the Philippines — 22 U. S. C. § 1394 (congressional authorization for the President to “withdraw and surrender all right of... sovereignty” and to “recognize the independence of the Philippine Islands as a separate and self-governing nation”); Presidential Proclamation No. '2695, 60 Stat. 1352 (so proclaiming); Puerto Rico — Act of July 3,1950, 64 Stat. 319 (“[T]his Act is now adopted in the nature of a compact so that people of Puerto Rico may organize a government pursuant to a constitution of their own adoption”); P. R. Const., Art. I, §1 (“Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico”); see also Cordova & Simonpietri Ins. Agency Inc. v. Chase Manhattan Bank N. A., 649 F. 2d 36, 39-41 (CA1 1981) (describing various adjustments to Puerto Rican autonomy through congressional legislation since 1898). Fourth, Lara points to no explicit language in the Constitution suggesting a limitation on Congress’ institutional authority to relax restrictions on tribal sovereignty previously imposed by the political branches. But cf. Part III, infra. Fifth, the change at issue here is a limited one. It concerns a power similar in some respects to the power to prosecute a tribe’s own members — a power that this Court has called “inherent.” Wheeler, 435 U. S., at 322-323. In large part it concerns a tribe’s authority to control events that occur upon the tribe’s own land. See United States v. Mazurie, 419 U. S. 544, 557 (1975) (“Indian tribes are unique aggregations possessing attributes of sovereignty over both their members and their territory” (emphasis added)); see also, e. g., S. Rep. No. 102-168, at 21 (remarks of P. Hugen). And the tribes’ possession of this additional criminal jurisdiction is consistent with our traditional understanding of the tribes’ status as “domestic dependent nations.” Chero kee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Pet. 1, 17 (1831); see also id., at 16 (describing tribe as “a distinct political society, separated from others, capable of managing its own affairs and governing itself”)- Consequently, we are not now faced with a question dealing with potential constitutional limits on congressional efforts to legislate far more radical changes in tribal status. In particular, this case involves no interference with the power or authority of any State. Nor do we now consider the question whether the Constitution’s Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses prohibit tribes from prosecuting a nonmember citizen of the United States. See Part III, infra. Sixth, our conclusion that Congress has the power to relax the restrictions imposed by the political branches on the tribes’ inherent prosecutorial authority is consistent with our earlier cases. True, the Court held in those cases that the power to prosecute nonmembers was an aspect of the tribes’ external relations and hence part of the tribal sovereignty that was divested by treaties and by Congress. Wheeler, supra, at 326; Oliphant v. Suquamish Tribe, 435 U. S. 191, 209-210 (1978); Duro, 495 U. S., at 686. But these holdings reflect the Court’s view of the tribes’ retained sovereign status as of the time the Court made them. They did not set forth constitutional limits that prohibit Congress from changing the relevant legal circumstances, i. e., from taking actions that modify or adjust the tribes’ status. To the contrary, Oliphant and Duro make clear that the Constitution does not dictate the metes and bounds of tribal autonomy, nor do they suggest that the Court should second-guess the political branches’ own determinations. In Oliphant, the Court rested its conclusion about inherent tribal authority to prosecute tribe members in large part upon “the commonly shared presumption of Congress, the Executive Branch, and lower federal courts,” a presumption which, “[w]hile not conclusive!,] carries considerable weight.” 435 U. S., at 206. The Court pointed out that “ ‘Indian law’ draws principally upon the treaties drawn and executed by the Executive Branch and legislation passed by Congress.” Ibid, (emphasis added). It added that those “instruments . . . form the backdrop for the intricate web of judicially made Indian law.” Ibid, (emphasis added). Similarly, in Duro, the Court drew upon a host of different sources in order to reach its conclusion that a tribe does not possess the inherent power to prosecute a nonmember. The Court referred to historic practices, the views of experts, the experience of forerunners of modern tribal courts, and the published opinions of the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior. 495 U. S., at 689-692. See also, e. g., Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U. S. 353, 361, n. 4 (2001) (“Our holding in Worcester must be considered in light of... the 1828 treaty” (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted)); South Dakota v. Bourland, 508 U. S. 679, 695 (1993) (“Having concluded that Congress clearly abrogated the Tribe’s pre-existing regulatory control over non-Indian hunting and fishing, we find no evidence in the relevant treaties or statutes that Congress intended to allow the Tribes to assert regulatory jurisdiction over these lands pursuant to inherent sovereignty” (emphasis added)); National Farmers Union Ins. Cos. v. Crow Tribe, 471 U. S. 845, 855-856 (1985) (“[T]he existence and extent of a tribal court’s jurisdiction will require [inter alia] a detailed study of relevant statutes, Executive Branch policy as embodied in treaties and elsewhere, and administrative or judicial decisions”); United States v. Kagama, 118 U. S. 375, 382-383 (1886) (characterizing Ex parte Crow Dog, 109 U. S. 556, 570 (1883), as resting on extant treaties and statutes and recognizing congressional overruling of Crow Dog). Thus, the Court in these cases based its descriptions of inherent tribal authority upon the sources as they existed at the time the Court issued its decisions. Congressional legislation constituted one such important source. And that source was subject to change. Indeed Duro itself anticipated change by inviting interested parties to “address the problem [to] Congress.” 495 U. S., at 698. We concede that Duro, like several other cases, referred only to the need to obtain a congressional statute that “delegated” power to the tribes. See id., at 686 (emphasis added); Bourland, supra, at 695, n. 15; Montana v. United States, 450 U. S. 544, 564 (1981); Mazurie, 419 U. S., at 556-557. But in so stating, Duro (like the other cases) simply did not consider whether a statute, like the present one, could constitutionally achieve the same end by removing restrictions on the tribes’ inherent authority. Consequently we do not read any of these cases as holding that the Constitution forbids Congress to change “judicially made” federal Indian law through this kind of legislation. Oliphant, supra, at 206; cf. County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of N. Y., 470 U. S. 226, 233-237 (1985) (recognizing the “federal common law” component of Indian rights, which “common law” federal courts develop as “a ‘necessary expedient’ when Congress has not ‘spoken to a particular issue’ ” (quoting Milwaukee v. Illinois, 451 U. S. 304, 313-315 (1981))); id., at 313 (“[F]ederal common law is ‘subject to the paramount authority of Congress’ ” (quoting New Jersey v. New York, 283 U. S. 336, 348 (1931))). Wheeler, Oliphant, and Duro, then, are not determinative because Congress has enacted a new statute, relaxing restrictions on the bounds of the inherent tribal authority that the United States recognizes. And that fact makes all the difference. III Lara makes several additional arguments. First, he points out that the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, 82 Stat. 77, lacks certain constitutional protections for criminal defendants, in particular the right of an indigent defendant to counsel. See 25 U. S. C. § 1302. And he argues that the Due Process Clause forbids Congress to permit a tribe to prosecute a nonmember Indian citizen of the United States in a forum that lacks this protection. See Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U. S. 25 (1972) (Constitution guarantees indigents counsel where imprisonment possible). Lara’s due process argument, however, suffers from a critical structural defect. To explain the defect, we contrast this argument with Lara’s “lack of constitutional power” argument discussed in Part II, supra. Insofar as that “constitutional power” argument might help Lara win his double jeopardy claim, it must proceed in four steps: Step One: Congress does not possess the constitutional power to enact a statute that modifies tribal power by “recognizing] and affirming]” the tribes’ “inherent” authority to prosecute nonmember Indians. 25 U. S. C. § 1301(2). Step Two: Consequently, the word “inherent” in the statute’s phrase “inherent power” is void. Step Three: The word “inherent” is severable from the rest of the statute (as are related words). The remainder of the statute is valid without those words, but it then delegates federal power to the tribe to conduct the prosecution. Step Four: Consequently, the Tribe’s prosecution of Lara was federal. The current, second, prosecution is also federal. Hence Lara wins his Double Jeopardy Clause claim, the subject of the present proceeding. Although the Eighth Circuit accepted this argument, 324 F. 3d, at 640, we reject Step One of the argument, Part II, supra. That rejection, without more, invalidates the argument. Lara’s due process argument, however, is significantly different. That argument (if valid) would show that any prosecution of a nonmember Indian under the statute is invalid; so Lara’s tribal prosecution would be invalid, too. Showing Lara’s tribal prosecution was invalid, however, does not show that the source of that tribal prosecution was federal power (showing that a state prosecution violated the Due Process Clause does not make that prosecution federal). But without that “federal power” showing, Lara cannot win his double jeopardy claim here. Hence, we need not, and we shall not, consider the merits of Lara’s due process claim. Other defendants in tribal proceedings remain free to raise that claim should they wish to do so. See 25 U. S. C. § 1303 (vesting district courts with jurisdiction over habeas writs from tribal courts). Second, Lara argues that Congress’ use of the words “all Indians,” in the statutory phrase “inherent power ... to exercise criminal jurisdiction over all Indians,” violates the Equal Protection Clause. He says that insofar as the words include nonmember Indians within the statute’s scope (while excluding all non-Indians) the statute is race based and without justification. Like the due process argument, however, this equal protection argument is simply beside the point, therefore we do not address it. At best for Lara, the argument (if valid) would show, not that Lara’s first conviction was federal, but that it was constitutionally defective. And that showing cannot help Lara win his double jeopardy claim. Third, Lara points out that the Duro Court found the absence of certain constitutional safeguards, for example, the guarantee of an indigent’s right to counsel, as an important reason for concluding that tribes lacked the “inherent power” to try a “group of citizens” (namely, nonmember Indians) who were not “include[d]” in those “political bodies.” 495 U. S., at 693-694. In fact, Duro says the following: “We hesitate to adopt a view of tribal sovereignty that would single out another group of citizens, nonmember Indians, for trial by political bodies that do not include them.” Id., at 693. But this argument simply repeats the due process and equal protection arguments rejected above in a somewhat different form. Since precisely the same problem would exist were we to treat the congressional statute as delegating federal power, this argument helps Lara no more than the others. IV For these reasons, we hold, with the reservations set forth in Part III, supra, that the Constitution authorizes Congress to permit tribes, as an exercise of their inherent tribal authority, to prosecute nonmember Indians. We hold that Congress exercised that authority in writing this statute. That being so, the Spirit Lake Tribe’s prosecution of Lara did not amount to an exercise of federal power, and the Tribe acted in its capacity of a separate sovereign. Consequently, the Double Jeopardy Clause does not prohibit the Federal Government from proceeding with the present prosecution for a discrete federal offense. Heath, 474 U. S., at 88. The contrary judgment of the Eighth Circuit is Reversed. APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT Title 25 U. S. C. § 1301(2), as amended by Act of Oct. 28, 1991, 105 Stat. 646, provides: “ ‘[Pjowers of self-government’ means and includes all governmental powers possessed by an Indian tribe, executive, legislative, and judicial, and all offices, bodies, and tribunals by and through which they are executed, including courts of Indian offenses; and means the inherent power of Indian tribes, hereby recognized and affirmed, to exercise criminal jurisdiction over all Indians.” Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy 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 O’Connor delivered the opinion of the Court. In 1987, the Michigan Legislature enacted a statute that had the effect of requiring petitioners General Motors Corporation (GM) and Ford Motor Company (Ford) to repay workers’ compensation benefits GM and Ford had withheld in reliance on a 1981 workers’ compensation statute. Petitioners challenge the provision of the statute mandating these retroactive payments on the ground that it violates the Contract Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Federal Constitution. I Since at least 1974, workers’ compensation law in Michigan has been the subject of legislative study and bitter debate. VanderLaan & Studley, Workers’ Compensation Reform: A Case Study of the Legislative Process in Michigan, 14 U. Mich. J. L. Ref. 451, 452-454 (1981). “Literally dozens of conflicting legislative proposals” were offered each year, and all were fought to a standstill by competing interest groups. Id., at 453. The legislative logjam was finally broken in 1980, when the Governor and four legislative leaders began a series of negotiations leading to an agreement on reforms. “Neither side was able to obtain everything it wanted — possibly a good indication of the degree of balance this compromise represents.” Id., at 458. Among other things, the 1980 legislation raised maximum weekly benefits to 90% of the state average weekly wage, and provided workers injured before 1980 an annual supplemental adjustment of their benefits of up to five percent. Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§418.355(2), 418.352(1) (West 1982). In 1981, the legislature enacted a statute allowing employers to decrease workers’ compensation benefits to those disabled employees eligible to receive wage-loss compensation from other employer-funded sources. §418.354. This provision, allowing what is called “benefit coordination,” is at the heart of the controversy in this case. The benefit coordination provision did not specify whether it was to be applied to workers injured before its effective date, March 31, 1982. Petitioners took the position that the 1981 law allowed them to reduce workers’ compensation benefits to workers injured before March 31, 1982, who were receiving benefits from other sources. For example, GM cut respondent Romein’s weekly payment by $132 per week, and Ford cut respondent Gonzalez’ payment by $176 per week. The lower state courts disagreed with petitioners’ interpretation, holding that coordination was allowed only for employees injured after 1982. See, e. g., Franks v. White Pine Copper Div., Copper Range Co., 122 Mich. App. 177, 185, 332 N. W. 2d 447, 449 (1982). Both Houses of the Michigan Legislature passed a concurrent resolution declaring that the coordination provisions were “not designed to disrupt benefits which were already being received by an employee prior to the effective date of this act or benefits resulting from injuries incurred prior to the act’s effective date.” See Senate Con. Res. 575, adopted by the Senate on April 1, 1982, and by the House on May 18, 1982; 1982 Senate J. 626, 706-707; 1982 House J. 1262. The same year, a bill was introduced in the Michigan Senate to amend the statute in this respect, but it was not passed. Senate Bill 834, introduced on May 26, 1982. Meanwhile, petitioners continued to attempt to persuade the Michigan courts that the 1981 statute should be applied to workers injured before its effective date. In 1985, petitioners’ interpretation was accepted by the Michigan Supreme Court. Chambers v. General Motors Corp., decided with Franks v. White Pine Copper Div., Copper Range Co., 422 Mich. 636, 375 N. W. 2d 715. The court held that the benefit coordination provision applied to all payment periods after its effective date, regardless of the date the employee had been injured. The court also held that application of the coordination provisions to employees injured before 1982 did not violate the Contract Clause or the Due Process Clause. After the decision in Chambers, employers who had not coordinated benefits for employees injured before 1982 began to demand reimbursement from these employees. See Jones, Firms Cut Checks for Disabled Workers, Detroit Free Press, Nov. 29, 1985, p. 3A. The Michigan Legislature responded almost immediately by introducing legislation to overturn the court’s decision. On October 16, 1985, before the Michigan Supreme Court had ruled on the motion for rehearing in Chambers, House Bill 5084 was introduced. As amended and passed by the House on January 29, 1986, the bill repudiated the Chambers decision, declared that employers who had not coordinated benefits before the Chambers decision could not seek reimbursement from affected employees, and required employers who had coordinated benefits before Chambers to reimburse their employees. Meanwhile, the Senate passed its own version of the bill, Senate Bill 67, also disapproving the Chambers decision and providing that employers could not require employees to reimburse them for benefits not coordinated after 1982. The Senate bill was amended by a Conference Committee to provide for reimbursement of benefits withheld as a result of coordination, putting employers who had coordinated benefits for previously disabled workers in the same position as those who had not. House Legislative Analysis of Senate Bill 67, p. 2 (May 7, 1987). The amended Senate bill passed into law on May 14, 1987. 1987 Mich. Pub. Acts No. 28. As a result of the 1987 statute, petitioners were ordered to refund nearly $25 million to disabled employees. They protested that the provision requiring reimbursement of benefits withheld was unfairly retroactive and violated the Contract Clause and the Due Process Clause. The Michigan Supreme Court upheld the statute against these challenges, on the ground that the employers had no vested rights in coordination for Contract Clause purposes, and that the retroactive provisions furthered a rational legislative purpose. 436 Mich. 515, 462 N. W. 2d 555 (1990). We granted certio-rari, 500 U. S. 915 (1991), and now affirm. l — i Article I, § 10, of the Constitution provides: “No State shall ... pass any ... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.” Petitioners claim that the 1987 statute requiring reimbursement of benefits withheld in reliance on the 1981 coordination provisions substantially impaired the obligation of the contracts with their employees. Generally, we first ask whether the change in state law has “operated as a substantial impairment of a contractual relationship.” Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus, 438 U. S. 234, 244 (1978); Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v. Kansas Power & Light Co., 459 U. S. 400, 411 (1983). This inquiry has three components: whether there is a contractual relationship, whether a change in law impairs that contractual relationship, and whether the impairment is substantial. Normally, the first two are unproblematic, and we need address only the third. In this case, however, we need not reach the questions of impairment, as we hold that there was no contractual agreement regarding the specific workers’ compensation terms allegedly at issue. The contracts allegedly impaired by the 1987 statute are employment contracts entered into after collective bargaining between petitioners and respondents. It is undisputed that the contracts themselves were formed before the 1981 law was enacted requiring benefit coordination. It is also undisputed that the contracts make no express mention of workers’ compensation benefits. Petitioners argue that the workers’ compensation law is an implied term of the contracts, because the parties bargained for other compensation with workers’ compensation benefits in mind. This implied term that was allegedly impaired by the 1987 statute is defined as a promise to pay the amount of workers’ compensation required by law for each payment period. Once performance of this obligation is completed by making payments for any disability period, petitioners claim that they have a settled expectation that cannot be undone by later state legislation. Because the 1987 statute “reopens” these closed transactions, petitioners contend its retroactive provisions violate the Contract Clause. The Michigan Supreme Court held that the term suggested by petitioners was not an implied term of the employment contracts between petitioners and respondents. We “accord respectful consideration and great weight to the views of the State’s highest court,” though ultimately we are “bound to decide for ourselves whether a contract was made.” Indiana ex rel. Anderson v. Brand, 303 U. S. 95, 100 (1938). The question whether a contract was made is a federal question for purposes of Contract Clause analysis, see Irving Trust Co. v. Day, 314 U. S. 556, 561 (1942), and “whether it turns on issues of general or purely local law, we can'not surrender the duty to exercise our own judgment.” Appleby v. City of New York, 271 U. S. 364, 380 (1926). In this case, however, we see no reason to disagree with the Michigan Supreme Court’s conclusion. While it is true that the terms to which the contracting parties give assent may be express or implied in their dealings, cf. Garrison v. City of New York, 21 Wall. 196, 203 (1875), the contracting parties here in no way manifested assent to limiting disability payments in accordance with the 1981 law allowing coordination of benefits. The employment contracts at issue were formed before the 1981 law allowing coordination of benefits came into effect. Thus, there was no occasion for the parties to consider in bargaining the question raised here: whether an unanticipated reduction in benefits could later be restored after the “benefit period” had closed. Petitioners argue that their right to rely on past payment periods as “closed” is a contractual term “incorporated” by law into the employment contracts, regardless of the assent, express or implied, of the parties. While petitioners cite passages from our prior decisions that “ ‘the laws which subsist at the time and place of the making of a contract . . . enter into and form a part of it/ ” Home Building & Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell, 290 U. S. 398, 429-430 (1934) (quoting Von Hoffman v. City of Quincy, 4 Wall. 535, 550 (1867)), that principle has no application here, since petitioners have not shown that the alleged right to rely on past payment periods as closed was part of Michigan law at the time of the original contract. Though Michigan courts, in awarding interest on unpaid workers’ compensation awards, had held that such awards were more analogous to contractual damages than tort damages, see, e. g., Wilson v. Doehler-Jarvis Division of National Lead Co., 358 Mich. 510, 517-519, 100 N. W. 2d 226, 229-230 (1960); Brown v. Eller Outdoor Advertising Co., 139 Mich. App. 7, 14, 360 N. W. 2d 322, 326 (1984), Michigan law does not explicitly imply a contractual term allowing an employer to depend on the closure of past disability compensation periods. Moreover, such right does not appear to be so central to the bargained-for exchange between the parties, or to the enforceability of the contract as a whole, that it must be deemed to be a term of the contract. Contrary to petitioners’ suggestion, we have not held that all state regulations are implied terms of every contract entered into while they are effective, especially when the regulations themselves cannot be fairly interpreted to require such incorporation. For the most part, state laws are implied into private contracts regardless of the assent of the parties only when those laws affect the validity, construction, and enforcement of contracts. See United States Trust Co. of N. Y. v. New Jersey, 431 U. S. 1, 19, n. 17 (1977). While it is somewhat misleading to characterize laws affecting the enforceability of contracts as “incorporated terms” of a contract, see 3 A. Corbin, Contracts §551, pp. 199-200 (1960), these laws are subject to Contract Clause analysis because without them, contracts are reduced to simple, unenforceable promises. “The obligation of a contract consists in its binding force on the party who makes it. This depends on the laws in existence when it is made; these are necessarily referred to in all contracts, and forming a part of them as the measure of the obligation to perform them by the one party, and the right acquired by the other.... If any subsequent law affect to diminish the duty, or to impair the right, it necessarily bears on the obligation of the contract.” McCracken v. Hayward, 2 How. 608, 612 (1844). See also Von Hoffman v. City of Quincy, supra. A change in the remedies available under a contract, for example, may convert an agreement enforceable at law into a mere promise, thereby impairing the contract’s obligatory force. See Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122, 197-198 (1819); Edwards v. Kearzey, 96 U. S. 595, 601 (1878). For this reason, changes in the laws that make a contract legally enforceable may trigger Contract Clause scrutiny if they impair the obligation of pre-existing contracts, even if they do not alter any of the contracts’ bargained-for terms. See, e. g., Von Hoffman v. City of Quincy, supra (repeal of tax designed to repay bond issue); Bronson v. Kinzie, 1 How. 311, 316 (1843) (law limiting foreclosure rights); McCracken, supra, at 611-614 (same). The 1987 statute did not change the legal enforceability of the employment contracts here. The parties still have the same ability to enforce the bargained-for terms of the employment contracts that they did before the 1987 statute was enacted. Moreover, petitioners’ suggestion that we should read every workplace regulation into the private contractual arrangements of employers and employees would expand the definition of contract so far that the constitutional provision would lose its anchoring purpose, i. e., “enabling] individuals to order their personal and business affairs according to their particular needs and interests.” Allied Structural Steel, 438 U. S., at 245. Instead, the Clause would protect against all changes in legislation, regardless of the effect of those changes on bargained-for agreements. The employment contract, in petitioners’ view, could incorporate workplace safety regulations, employment tax obligations, and laws prohibiting workplace discrimination, even if these laws are not intended to affect private contracts and are not subject to bargaining between the employer and employees. Moreover, petitioners’ construction would severely limit the ability of state legislatures to amend their regulatory legislation. Amendments could not take effect until all existing contracts expired, and parties could evade regulation by entering into long-term contracts. The ultimate irony of petitioners’ proposed principle is that, taken to an extreme, it would render the Contract Clause itself entirely dependent on state law. As Justice Story pointed out: “It has been contended, by some learned minds, that the municipal law of a place where a contract is made forms a part of it, and travels with it, wherever the parties to it may be found. If this were admitted to be true, the consequence would be, that all the existing laws of a State, being incorporated into the contract, would constitute a part of its stipulations .... If, therefore, the legislature should provide, by a law, that all contracts thereafter made should be subject to the entire control of the legislature, as to their obligation, validity, and execution, whatever might be their terms, they would be 'completely within the legislative power, and might be impaired or extinguished by future laws; thus having a complete ex post facto operation.” 2 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States § 1383, pp. 252-253 (5th ed. 1891). I — Í hH HH Petitioners also contend that the 1987 statute violated due process because its retroactive provisions unreasonably interfered with closed transactions. Retroactive legislation presents problems of unfairness that are more serious than those posed by prospective legislation, because it can deprive citizens of legitimate expectations and upset settled transactions. For this reason, “[t]he retroactive aspects of [economic] legislation, as well as the prospective aspects, must meet the test of due process”: a legitimate legislative purpose furthered by rational means. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. R. A. Gray & Co., 467 U. S. 717, 730 (1984). The statute in this case meets that standard. The purpose of the 1987 statute was to correct the unexpected results of the Michigan Supreme Court’s Chambers opinion. The retroactive repayment provision of the 1987 statute was a rational means of meeting this legitimate objective: It preserved the delicate legislative compromise that had been struck by the 1980 and 1981 laws — giving workers injured before 1982 their full benefits without coordination, but not the greater increases given to subsequently injured workers. Also, it equalized the payments made by employers who had gambled on the Chambers decision with those made by employers who had not. Cf. United States v. Sperry Corp., 493 U. S. 52, 64-65 (1989) (legitimate to legislate retrospectively in order to ensure that similarly situated persons bear similar financial burdens of program). In sum, petitioners knew they were taking a risk in reducing benefits to their workers, but they took their chances with their interpretation of the 1981 law. Having now lost the battle in the Michigan Legislature, petitioners wished to continue the war in court. Losing a political skirmish, however, in itself creates no ground for constitutional relief. Affirmed. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

H

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr. Justice Stewart delivered the opinion of the Court. In 1964 the Court held that the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against compulsory self-incrimination “is also protected by the Fourteenth Amendment against abridgment by the States.” Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U. S. 1, 6. In Griffin v. California, decided on April 28, 1965, the Court held that adverse comment by a prosecutor or trial judge upon a defendant’s failure to testify in a state criminal trial violates the federal privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, because such comment “cuts down on the privilege by making its assertion costly.” 380 U. S. 609, 614. The question before us now is whether the rule of Griffin v. California is to be given retrospective application. I. In the summer of 1961 the respondent was brought to trial before a jury in an Ohio court upon an indictment charging violations of the Ohio Securities Act. The respondent did not testify in his own behalf, and the prosecuting attorney in his summation to the jury commented extensively upon that fact. The jury found the respondent guilty, the judgment of conviction was affirmed by an Ohio court of appeals, and the Supreme Court of Ohio declined further review. 173 Ohio St. 542, 184 N. E. 2d 213. The respondent then brought his case to this Court, claiming several constitutional errors but not attacking the Ohio comment rule as such. On May 13, 1963, we dismissed the appeal and denied cer-tiorari, Mr. Justice Black dissenting. 373 U. S. 240. All avenues of direct review of the respondent’s conviction were thus fully foreclosed more than a year before our decision in Malloy v. Hogan, supra, and almost two years before our decision in Griffin v. California, supra. A few weeks after our denial of certiorari the respondent sought a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, again alleging various constitutional violations in his state trial. The District Court dismissed the petition, and the respondent appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On November 10, 1964, that court reversed, noting that “the day before the oral argument of this appeal, the Supreme Court in Malloy v. Hogan . . . reconsidered its previous rulings and held that the Fifth Amendment’s exception from self-incrimination is also protected by the Fourteenth Amendment against abridgment by the states,” and reasoning that “the protection against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment includes not only the right to refuse to answer incriminating questions, but also the right that such refusal shall not be commented upon by counsel for the prosecution.” 337 F. 2d 990, 992. We granted certiorari, requesting the parties “to brief and argue the question of the retroactivity of the doctrine announced in Griffin v. California . . . .” 381 U. S. 923. Since, as we have noted, the original Ohio judgment of conviction in this case became final long before Griffin v. California was decided by this Court, that question is squarely presented. II. In Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U. S. 618, we held that the exclusionary rule of Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643, was not to be given retroactive effect. The Linkletter opinion reviewed in some detail the competing conceptual and jurisprudential theories bearing on the problem of whether a judicial decision that overturns previously established law is to be given retroactive or only prospective application. Mr. Justice Clark's opinion for the Court outlined the history and theory of the problem in terms both of the views of the commentators and of the decisions in this and other courts which have reflected those views. It would be a needless exercise here to survey again a field so recently and thoroughly explored. Rather, we take as our starting point Linkletter’s conclusion that “the accepted rule today is that in appropriate cases the Court may in the interest of justice make the rule prospective,” that there is “no impediment — constitutional or philosophical — to the use of the same rule in the constitutional area where the exigencies of the situation require such an application,” in short that “the Constitution neither prohibits nor requires retrospective effect.” Upon that premise, resolution of the issue requires us to “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.” 381 U. S., at 628-629. III. Twining v. New Jersey was decided in 1908. 211 U. S. 78. In that case the plaintiffs in error had been convicted by the New Jersey courts after a trial in which the judge had instructed the jury that it might draw an adverse inference from the defendants’ failure to testify. The plaintiffs in error urged in this Court two propositions: “first, that the exemption from compulsory self-incrimination is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution against impairment by the States; and, second, if it be so guaranteed, that the exemption was in fact impaired in the case at bar.” 211 U. S., at 91. In a lengthy opinion which thoroughly considered both the Privileges and Immunities Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court held, explicitly and unambiguously, “that the exemption from compulsory self-incrimination in the courts of the States is not secured by any part of the Federal Constitution.” 211 U. S., at 114. Having thus rejected the first proposition advanced by the plaintiffs in error, the Court refrained from passing on the second. That is, the Court did not decide whether adverse comment upon a defendant’s failure to testify constitutes a violation of the federal constitutional right against self-incrimination. The rule thus established in the Twining case was reaffirmed many times through the ensuing years. In an opinion for the Court in 1934, Mr. Justice Cardozo cited Twining for the proposition that “[t]he privilege against self-incrimination may be withdrawn and the accused put upon the stand as a witness for the state.” Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U. S. 97, 105. Two years later Chief Justice Hughes, writing for a unanimous Court, reiterated the explicit statements of the rule in Twining and Snyder, noting that “[t]he compulsion to which the quoted statements refer is that of the processes of justice by which the accused may be called as a witness and required to testify.” Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U. S. 278, 285. In 1937 the Court again approved the Twining doctrine in Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U. S. 319, 324, 325-326. In Adamson v. California, 332 U. S. 46, the issue was once more presented to the Court in much the same form as it had been presented almost 40 years earlier in Twining. In Adamson there had been comment by judge and prosecutor upon the defendant’s failure to testify at his trial, as permitted by the California Constitution. The Court again followed Twining in holding that the Fourteenth Amendment does not require a State to accord the privilege against self-incrimination, and, as in Twining, the Court did not reach the question whether adverse comment upon a defendant’s failure to testify would violate the Fifth Amendment privilege. Thereafter the Court continued to adhere to the Twining rule, notably in Knapp v. Schweitzer, decided in 1958, 357 U. S. 371, 374, and in Cohen v. Hurley, decided in 1961, 366 U. S. 117, 127-129. In recapitulation, this brief review clearly demonstrates: (1) For more than half a century, beginning in 1908, the Court adhered to the position that the Federal Constitution does not require the States to accord the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. (2) Because of this position, the Court during that period never reached the question whether the federal guarantee against self-incrimination prohibits adverse comment upon a defendant’s failure to testify at his trial. Although there were strong dissenting voices, the Court made not the slightest deviation from that position during a period of more than 50 years. Thus matters stood in 1964, when Malloy v. Hogan announced that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment against abridgment by the States (378 U. S., at 6). Less than a year later, on April 28, 1965, Griffin v. California held that the Fifth Amendment “in its bearing on the States by reason of the Fourteenth Amendment, forbids . . . comment by the prosecution on the accused’s silence . . . (380 U. S., at 615.) IV. - Thus we must reckon here, as in Linkletter, 381 U. S., at 636, with decisional history of a kind which Chief Justice Hughes pointed out “is an operative fact and may have consequences which cannot justly be ignored. The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration.” Chicot County Drainage Dist. v. Baxter State Bank, 308 U. S. 371, 374. It is against this background that we look to the purposes of the Griffin rule, the reliance placed upon the Twining doctrine, and the effect on the administration of justice of a retrospective application of Griffin.' See Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U. S., at 636. In Linkletter, the Court stressed that the prime purpose of the rule of Mapp v. Ohio, rejecting the doctrine of Wolf v. Colorado as to the admissibility of unconstitutionally seized evidence, was “to deter the lawless action of the police and to effectively enforce the Fourth Amendment.” 381 U. S., at 637. There we could not “say that this purpose would be advanced by making the rule retrospective. The misconduct of the police prior to Mapp has already occurred and will not be corrected by releasing the prisoners involved.” Ibid. No such single and distinct “purpose” can be attributed to Griffin v. California, holding it constitutionally impermissible for a State to permit comment by a judge or prosecutor upon a defendant’s failure to testify in a criminal trial. The Griffin opinion reasoned that such comment “is a penalty imposed by courts for exercising a constitutional privilege. It cuts down on the privilege by making its assertion costly.” 380 U. S., at 614. It follows that the “purpose” of the Griffin rule is to be found in the whole complex of values that the privilege against self-incrimination itself represents, values described in the Malloy case as reflecting “recognition that the American system of criminal prosecution is accusa-torial, not inquisitorial, and that the Fifth Amendment privilege is its essential mainstay. . . . Governments, state and federal, are thus constitutionally compelled to establish guilt by evidence independently and freely secured, and may not by coercion prove a charge against an accused out of his own mouth.” 378 U. S., at 7-8. Insofar as these “purposes” of the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination bear on the question before us in the present case, several considerations become immediately apparent. First, the basic purposes that lie behind the privilege against self-incrimination do not relate to protecting the innocent from conviction, but rather to preserving the integrity of a judicial system in which even the guilty are not to be convicted unless the prosecution “shoulder the entire load.” Second, since long before Twining v. New Jersey, all the States have by their own law respected these basic purposes by extending the protection of the testimonial privilege against self-incrimination to every defendant tried in their criminal courts. In Twining the Court noted that “all the States of the Union have, from time to time, with varying form but uniform meaning, included the privilege in their constitutions, except the States of New Jersey and Iowa, and in those States it is held to be part of the existing law.” 211 U. S., at 92. See also 8 Wigmore, Evidence § 2252 (McNaughton rev. 1961). It follows that such variations as may have existed among the States in the application of their respective guarantees against self-incrimination during the 57 years between Twining and Griffin did not go to the basic purposes of the federal privilege. And finally, insofar as strict application of the federal privilege against self-incrimination reflects the Constitution’s concern for the essential values represented by “our respect for the inviolability of the human personality and of the right of each individual 'to a private enclave where he may lead a private life/ ” any impingement upon those values resulting from a State’s application of a variant from the federal standard cannot now be remedied. As we pointed out in Linkletter with respect to the Fourth Amendment rights there in question, “the ruptured privacy . . . cannot be restored.” 381 U. S., at 637. As in Mapp, therefore, we deal here with a doctrine which rests on considerations of quite a different order from those underlying other recent constitutional decisions which have been applied retroactively. The basic purpose of a trial is the determination of truth, and it is self-evident that to deny a lawyer’s help through the technical intricacies of a criminal trial or to deny a full opportunity to appeal a conviction because the accused is poor is to impede that purpose and to infect a criminal proceeding with the clear danger of convicting the innocent. See Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335; Doughty v. Maxwell, 376 U. S. 202; Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U. S. 12; Eskridge v. Washington Prison Board, 357 U. S. 214. The same can surely be said of the wrongful use of a coerced confession. See Jackson v. Denno, 378 U. S. 368; McNerlin v. Denno, 378 U. S. 575; Reck v. Pate, 367 U. S. 433. By contrast, the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination is not an adjunct to the ascertainment of truth. That privilege, like the guarantees of the Fourth Amendment, stands as a protection of quite different constitutional values— values reflecting the concern of our society for the right of each individual to be let alone. To recognize this is no more than to accord those values undiluted respect. There can be.no doubt of the States’ reliance upon the Twining rule for more than half a century, nor can it be doubted that they relied upon that constitutional doctrine in the utmost good faith. Two States amended their constitutions so as expressly to permit comment upon a defendant’s failure to testify, Ohio in 1912, and California in 1934. At least four other States followed some variant of the rule permitting comment. Moreover, this reliance was not only invited over a much longer period of time, during which the Twining doctrine was repeatedly reaffirmed in this Court, but was of unquestioned legitimacy as compared to the reliance of the States upon the doctrine of Wolf v. Colorado, considered in Linkletter as an important factor militating against the retroactive application of Mapp. During the 12-year period between Wolf v. Colorado and Mapp v. Ohio, the States were aware that illegal seizure of evidence by state officers violated the Federal Constitution. In the 56 years that elapsed from Twining to Malloy, by contrast, the States were repeatedly told that comment upon the failure of an accused to testify in a state criminal trial in no way violated the Federal Constitution. The last important factor considered by the Court in Linkletter was “the effect on the administration of justice of a retrospective application of Mapp.” 381 U. S., at 636. A retrospective application of Griffin v. California would create stresses upon the administration of justice more concentrated but fully as great as would have been created by a retrospective application of Mapp. A retrospective application of Mapp would have had an impact only in those States which had not themselves adopted the exclusionary rule, apparently some 24 in number. A retrospective application of Griffin would have an impact only upon those States which have not themselves adopted the no-comment rule, apparently six in number. But upon those six States the impact would be very grave indeed. It is not in every criminal trial that tangible evidence of a kind that might raise Mapp issues is offered. But it may fairly be assumed that there has been comment in every single trial in the courts of California, Connecticut, Iowa, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Ohio, in which the defendant did not take the witness stand — in accordance with state law and with the United States Constitution as explicitly interpreted by this Court for 57 years. Empirical statistics are not available, but experience suggests that California is not indulging in hyperbole when in its amicus curiae brief in this case it tells us that “Prior to this Court’s decision in Griffin, literally thousands of cases were tried in California in which comment was made upon the failure of the accused to take the stand. Those reaping the greatest benefit from a rule compelling retroactive application of Griffin would be [those] under lengthy sentences imposed many years before Griffin. Their cases would offer the least likelihood of a successful retrial since in many, if not most, instances, witnesses and evidence are no longer available.” There is nothing to suggest that what would be true in California would not also be true in Connecticut, Iowa, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Ohio. To require all of those States now to void the conviction of every person who did not testify at his trial would have an impact upon the administration of their' criminal law so devastating as to need no elaboration. V. We have proceeded upon the premise that “we are neither required to apply, nor prohibited from applying, a decision retrospectively.” Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U. S., at 629. We have considered the purposes of the Griffin rule, the reliance placed upon the Twining doctrine, and the effect upon the administration of justice of a retrospective application of Griffin. After full consideration of all the factors, we are not able to say that the Griffin rule requires retrospective application. The judgment is vacated and the case remanded to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for consideration of the claims contained in the respondent’s petition for habeas corpus, claims which that court has never considered. It is so ordered. Ohio Rev. Code §§ 1707.01-1707.45. Since 1912 a provision of the Ohio Constitution has permitted a prosecutor to comment upon a defendant’s failure to testify in a criminal trial. Article I, § 10, of the Constitution of Ohio provides, in part, as follows: “No person shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself; but his failure to testify may be considered by the court and jury and may be the subject of comment by counsel.” Section 2945.43 of the Revised Code of Ohio contains substantially the same wording. The Supreme Court of California and the Supreme Court of Ohio have both considered the question, and each court has unanimously held that under the controlling principles discussed in Link-letter v. Walker, 381 U. S. 618, the Griffin rule is not to be applied retroactively in those States. In re Gaines, 63 Cal. 2d 234, 404 P. 2d 473; Pinch v. Maxwell, 3 Ohio St. 2d 212, 210 N. E. 2d 883. As in Linkletter, the question in the present case is not one of “pure prospectivity.” The rule announced in Griffin was applied to reverse Griffin’s conviction. Compare England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners, 375 U. S. 411. Nor is there any question of the applicability of the Griffin rule to cases still pending on direct review at the time it was announced. Cf. O’Connor v. Ohio, ante, p. 286. The precise question is whether the rule of Griffin v. California is to be applied to eases in which the judgment of conviction was rendered, the availability of appeal exhausted, and the time for petition for certiorari elapsed or a petition for certiorari finally denied, all before April 28, 1965. See Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U. S. 618, 622-628. For a recent commentary on the Linkletter decision and a suggested alternative approach to the problem, see Mishkin, The Supreme Court 1964 Term — Foreword: The High Court, The Great Writ, and the Due Process of Time and Law, 79 Harv. L. Rev. 56. “We have assumed only for the purpose of discussion that what was done in the case at bar was an infringement of the privilege against self-incrimination. We do not intend, however, to lend any countenance to the truth of that assumption. The courts of New Jersey, in adopting the rule of law which is complained of here, have deemed it consistent with the privilege itself and not a denial of it. . . . The authorities upon the question are in conflict. We do not pass upon the conflict, because, for the reasons given, we think that the exemption from compulsory self-incrimination in the courts of the States is not secured by any part of the Federal Constitution.” 211 U. S., at 114. As the Court pointed out in Adamson, 332 U. S., at 50, n. 6, this question had never arisen in the federal courts, because a federal statute had been interpreted as prohibiting adverse comment upon a defendant’s failure to testify in a federal criminal trial. See 20 Stat. 30, as amended, now 18 U. S. C. § 3481; Bruno v. United States, 308 U. S. 287; Wilson v. United States, 149 U. S. 60. In the federal judicial system, the matter was controlled by a statute. See n. 7, supra. See, e. g., Mr. Justice Black’s historic dissenting opinion in Adamson v. California, 332 U. S., at 68. 367 U. S. 643. 338 U. S. 25. These values were further catalogued in Mr. Justice Goldberg’s opinion for the Court in Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n, 378 U. S. 52, announced the same day as Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U. S. 1: “The privilege against self-incrimination 'registers an important advance in the development of our liberty — “one of the great landmarks in man’s struggle to make himself civilized.’” Ullmann v. United States, 350 U. S. 422, 426. [The quotation is from Griswold, The Fifth Amendment Today (1955), 7.] It reflects many of our fundamental values and most noble aspirations: our unwillingness to subject those suspected of crime to the cruel trilemma of self-accusation, perjury or contempt; our preference for an accusatorial rather than an inquisitorial system of criminal justice; our fear that self-incriminating statements will be elicited by inhumane treatment and abuses; our sense of fair play which dictates 'a fair state-individual balance by requiring the government to leave the individual alone until good cause is shown for disturbing him and by requiring the government in its contest with the individual to shoulder the entire load,’ 8 Wigmore, Evidence (McNaughton rev., 1961), 317; our respect for the inviolability of the human personality and of the right of each individual ‘to a private enclave where he may lead a private life,’ United States v. Grunewald, 233 F. 2d 556, 581-582 (Frank, J., dissenting), rev’d 353 U. S. 391; our distrust of self-deprecatory statements; and our realization that the privilege, while sometimes ‘a shelter to the guilty,’ is often ‘a protection to the innocent.’ Quinn v. United States, 349 U. S. 155, 162.” 378 U. S., at 55. “[T]he privilege against self-incrimination represents many fundamental values and aspirations. It is ‘an expression of the moral striving of the community ... a reflection of our common conscience . . . .’ Malloy v. Hogan, ante, p. 9, n. 7, quoting Griswold, The Fifth Amendment Today (1955), 73. That is why it is regarded as so fundamental a part of our constitutional fabric, despite the fact that ‘the law and the lawyers . . . have never made up their minds just what it is supposed to do or just whom it is intended to protect.’ Kalven, Invoking the Fifth Amendment — Some Legal and Impractical Considerations, 9 Bull. Atomic Sci. 181, 182.” 378 U. S., at 56, n. 5. See n. 12, supra. See n. 2, supra. California Constitution, Art. I, § 13. See State v. Heno, 119 Conn. 29, 174 A. 181; State v. Ferguson, 226 Iowa 361, 372-373, 283 N. W. 917, 923; State v. Corby, 28 N. J. 106, 145 A. 2d 289; State v. Sandoval, 59 N. M. 85, 279 P. 2d 850. In Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U. S. 25, it was unequivocally determined by a unanimous Court that the Federal Constitution, by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures by state officers. “The security of one’s privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the police . . . is . . . implicit in ‘the concept of ordered liberty’ and as such enforceable against the States through the Due Process Clause.” 338 U. S., at 27-28. See, for example, Scott v. California, 364 U. S. 471, where, as late as December 1960, only a single member of the Court expressed dissent from the dismissal of an appeal challenging the constitutionality of the California comment rule. See Elkins v. United States, 364 U. S. 206, at 224-225 (Appendix). See notes 2, 15, and 16, supra. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

A

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr. Justice Black delivered the opinion of the Court. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, with Chief Judge Sobeloff dissenting, refused to enforce an order of the National Labor Relations Board directing the respondent Washington Aluminum Company to reinstate and make whole seven employees whom the company had discharged for leaving their work in the machine shop without permission on claims that the shop was too cold to work in. Because that decision raises important questions affecting the proper administration of the National Labor Relations Act, we granted certiorari. The Board’s order, as shown by the record and its findings, rested upon these facts and circumstances. The respondent company is engaged in the fabrication of aluminum products in Baltimore, Maryland, a business having interstate aspects that subject it to regulation under the National Labor Relations Act. The machine shop in which the seven discharged employees worked was not insulated and had a number of doors to the outside that had to be opened frequently. An oil furnace located in an adjoining building was the chief source of heat for the shop, although there were two gas-fired space heaters that contributed heat to a lesser extent. The heat produced by these units was not always satisfactory and, even prior to the day of the walkout involved here, several of the eight machinists who made up the day shift at the shop had complained from time to time to the company’s foreman “over the cold working conditions.” January 5, 1959, was an extraordinarily cold day for Baltimore, with unusually high winds and a low temperature of 11 degrees followed by a high of 22. When the employees on the day shift came to work that morning, they found the shop bitterly cold, due not only to the unusually harsh weather, but also to the fact that the large oil furnace had broken down the night before and had not as yet been put back into operation. As the workers gathered in the shop just before the starting hour of 7:30, one of them, a Mr. Caron, went into the office of Mr. Jarvis, the foreman, hoping to warm himself but, instead, found the foreman’s quarters as uncomfortable as the rest of the shop. As Caron and Jarvis sat in Jarvis’ office discussing how bitingly cold the building was, some of the other machinists walked by the office window “huddled” together in a fashion that caused Jarvis to exclaim that “[i]f those fellows had any guts at all, they would go home.” When the starting buzzer sounded a few moments later, Caron walked back to his working place in the shop and found all the other machinists “huddled there, shaking a little, cold.” Caron then said to these workers, “. . . Dave [Jarvis] told me if we had any guts, we would go home. ... I am going home, it is too damned cold to work.” Caron asked the other workers what they were going to do and, after some discussion among themselves, they decided to leave with him. One of these workers, testifying before the Board, summarized their entire discussion this way: “And we had all got together and thought it would be a good idea to go home; maybe we could get some heat brought into the plant that way.” As they started to leave, Jarvis approached and persuaded one of the workers to remain at the job. But Caron and the other six workers on the day shift left practically in a body in a matter of minutes after the 7:30 buzzer. When the company’s general foreman arrived between 7:45 and 8 that morning, Jarvis promptly informed him that all but one of the employees had left because the shop was too cold. The company’s president came in at approximately 8:20 a. m. and, upon learning of the walkout, immediately said to the foreman, “. . . if they have all gone, we are going to terminate them.” After discussion “at great length” between the general foreman and the company president as to what might be the effect of the walkout on employee discipline and plant production, the president formalized his discharge of the workers who had walked out by giving orders at 9 a. m. that the affected workers should be notified about their discharge immediately, either by telephone, telegram or personally. This was done. On these facts the Board found that the conduct of the workers was a concerted activity to protest the company’s failure to supply adequate heat in its machine shop, that such conduct is protected under the provision of § 7 of the National Labor Relations Act which guarantees that “Employees shall have the right... to engage in . . . concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,” and that the discharge of these workers by the company amounted to an unfair labor practice under § 8 (a)(1) of the Act, which forbids employers “to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7.” Acting under the authority of § 10 (c) of the Act, which provides that when an employer has been guilty of an unfair labor practice the Board can “take such affirmative action including reinstatement of employees with or without back pay, as will effectuate the policies of this Act,” the Board then ordered the company to reinstate the discharged workers to their previous positions and to make them whole for losses resulting from what the Board found to have been the unlawful termination of their employment. In denying enforcement of this order, the majority of the Court of Appeals took the position that because the workers simply “summarily left their place of employment” without affording the company an “opportunity to avoid the work stoppage by granting a concession to a demand,” their walkout did not amount to a concerted activity protected by § 7 of the Act. On this basis, they held that there was no justification for the conduct of the workers in violating the established rules of the plant by leaving their jobs without permission and that the Board had therefore exceeded its power in issuing the order involved here because § 10 (c) declares that the Board shall not require reinstatement or back pay for an employee whom an employer has suspended or discharged “for cause.” We cannot agree that employees necessarily lose their right to engage in concerted activities under § 7 merely because they do not present a specific demand upon their employer to remedy a condition they find objectionable. The language of § 7 is broad enough to protect concerted activities whether they take place before, after, or at the same time such a demand is made. To compel the Board to interpret and apply that language in the restricted fashion suggested by the respondent here would only tend to frustrate the policy of the Act to protect the right of workers to act together to better their working conditions. Indeed, as indicated by this very case, such an interpretation of § 7 might place burdens upon employees so great that it would effectively nullify the right to engage in concerted activities which that section protects. The seven employees here were part of a small group of employees who were wholly unorganized. They had no bargaining representative and, in fact, no representative of any kind to present their grievances to their employer. Under these circumstances, they had to speak for themselves as best they could. As pointed out above, prior to the day they left the shop, several of them had repeatedly complained to company officials about the cold working conditions in the shop. These had been more or less spontaneous individual pleas, unsupported by any threat of concerted protest, to which the company apparently gave little consideration and which it now says the Board should have treated as nothing more than “the same sort of gripes as the gripes made about the heat in the summertime.” The bitter cold of January 5, however, finally brought these workers’ individual complaints into concert so that some more effective action could be considered. Having no bargaining representative and no established procedure by which they could take full advantage of their unanimity of opinion in negotiations with the company, the men took the most direct course to let the company know that they wanted a warmer place in which to work. So, after talking among themselves, they walked out together in the hope that this action might spotlight their complaint and bring about some improvement in wrhat they considered to be the “miserable” conditions of their employment. This we think was enough to justify the Board’s holding that they were not required to make any more specific demand than they did to be entitled to the protection of § 7. Although the company contends to the contrary, we think that the walkout involved here did grow out of a “labor dispute” within the plain meaning of the definition of that term in § 2 (9) of the Act, which declares that it includes “any controversy concerning terms, tenure or conditions of employment . . . .” The findings of the Board, which are supported by substantial evidence and which were not disturbed below, show a running dispute between the machine shop employees and the company over the heating of the shop on cold days— a dispute which culminated in the decision of the employees to act concertedly in an effort to force the company to improve that condition of their employment. The fact that the company was already making every effort to repair the furnace and bring heat into the shop that morning does not change the nature of the controversy that caused the walkout. At the very most, that fact might tend to indicate that the conduct of the men in leaving was unnecessary and unwise, and it has long been settled that the reasonableness of workers’ decisions to engage in concerted activity is irrelevant to the determination of whether a labor dispute exists or not. Moreover, the evidence here shows that the conduct of these workers was far from unjustified under the circumstances. The company’s own foreman expressed the opinion that the shop was so cold that the men should go home. This statement by the foreman but emphasizes the obvious— that is, that the conditions of coldness about which complaint had been made before had been so aggravated on the day of the walkout that the concerted action of the men in leaving their jobs seemed like a perfectly natural and reasonable thing to do. Nor can we accept the company’s contention that because it admittedly had an established plant rule which forbade employees to leave their work without permission of the foreman, there was justifiable “cause” for discharging these employees, wholly separate and apart from any concerted activities in which they engaged in protest against the poorly heated plant. Section 10 (c) of the Act does authorize an employer to discharge employees for “cause” and our cases have long recognized this right on the part of an employer. But this, of course, cannot mean that an employer is at liberty to punish a man by discharging him for engaging in concerted activities which § 7 of the Act protects. And the plant rule in question here purports to permit the company to do just that for it would prohibit even the most plainly protected kinds of concerted work stoppages until and unless the permission of the company’s foreman was obtained. It is of course true that § 7 does not protect all concerted activities, but that aspect of the section is not involved in this case. The activities engaged in here do not fall within the normal categories of unprotected concerted activities such as those that are unlawful, violent or in breach of contract. Nor can they be brought under this Court’s more recent pronouncement which denied the protection of § 7 to activities characterized as “indefensible” because they were there found to show a disloyalty to the workers’ employer which this Court deemed unnecessary to carry on the workers’ legitimate concerted activities. The activities of these seven employees cannot be classified as “indefensible” by any recognized standard of conduct. Indeed, concerted activities by employees for the purpose of trying to protect themselves from working conditions as uncomfortable as the testimony and Board findings showed them to be in this case are unquestionably activities to correct conditions which modern labor-management legislation treats as too bad to have to be tolerated in a humane and civilized society like ours. We hold therefore that the Board correctly interpreted and applied the Act to the circumstances of this case and it was error for the Court of Appeals to refuse to enforce its order. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded to that court with directions to enforce the order in its entirety. Reversed and remanded. Mr. Justice Frankfurter and Mr. Justice White took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. 291 F. 2d 869. The Court of Appeals also refused to enforce another Board order requiring the respondent company to bargain collectively with the Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers of America, AFL-CIO, as the certified bargaining representative of its employees. Since the Union’s status as majority bargaining representative turns on the ballots cast in the Board election by four of the seven discharged employees, the enforceability of that order depends upon the validitj^ of the discharges being challenged in the principal part of the case. Our decision on the discharge question will therefore also govern the refusal-to-bargain issue. 49 Stat. 449, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, 29 U. S. C. § 151 et seq. 368 U. S. 924. The Board made a specific finding on this issue: “We rely, inter alia, upon . . . the credited testimony of employees Heinlein, Caron, and George as to previous complaints made to the Respondent’s foremen over the cold working conditions, and to the effect that the men left on the morning of January 5 in protest of the coldness at the plant . . . .” 126 N. L. R. B. 1410, 1411. The Trial Examiner expressly credited this testimony and the Board expressly relied upon it. 126 N. L. R. B., at 1411. 49 Stat. 452, as amended, 61 Stat. 140, 29 U. S. C. § 157. Section 7 in full is as follows: “Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 8 (a) (3) 49 Stat. 452, as amended, 61 Stat. 140, 29 U. S. C. § 158 (a) (1). 49 Stat. 453-454, as amended, 61 Stat. 146-147, 29 U. S. C. §160 (c). 291 F. 2d, at 877. "No order of the Board shall require the reinstatement of any individual as an employee who has been suspended or discharged, or the payment to him of any back pay, if such individual was suspended or discharged for cause.” 49 Stat. 453-454, as amended, 61 Stat. 146-147, 29 U. S. C. § 160(c). 49 Stat. 450, as amended, 61 Stat. 137-138, 29 U. S. C. § 152 (9). (Emphasis supplied.) “The wisdom or unwisdom of the men, their justification or lack of it, in attributing to respondent an unreasonable or arbitrar}' attitude in connection with the negotiations, cannot determine whether, when they struck, they did so as a consequence of or in connection with a current labor dispute.” Labor Board v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co., 304 U. S. 333, 344. See, e. g., Labor Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U. S. 1, 45. Southern Steamship Co. v. Labor Board, 316 U. S. 31. Labor Board v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corp., 306 U. S. 240. Labor Board v. Sands Manufacturing Co., 306 U. S. 332. Labor Board v. Local Union No. 1229, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 346 U. S. 464, 477. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy 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 White delivered the opinion of the Court. On his 1979 income tax return, petitioner, a shareholder in a Subchapter S corporation, claimed as “pass-through” items portions of a deduction and a tax credit reported on the corporation’s return. The question presented is whether the 3-year period in which the Internal Revenue Service is permitted to assess petitioner’s tax liability runs from the filing date of the individual return or the corporate return. We conclude with the Tax Court and the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that the relevant date is that on which petitioner’s return was filed. I Subchapter S of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U. S. C. §§ 1361-1379, was enacted in 1958 to eliminate tax disadvantages that might dissuade small businesses from adopting the corporate form and to lessen the tax burden on such businesses. The statute accomplishes these goals by means of a pass-through system under which corporate income, losses, deductions, and credits are attributed to individual shareholders in a manner akin to the tax treatment of partnerships. See §§ 1366-1368. In addition, since 1966, “S corporations” have been liable for certain capital gains and other taxes. 80 Stat. 111, 113; 26 U. S. C. §§ 1374, 1378. Petitioner was treasurer and a shareholder of Compo Financial Services, Inc., an S corporation. On February 1, 1980, Compo filed a return for the tax year of December 26, 1978, to November 30, 1979, as required by § 6037(a) of the Code. On that return, Compo reported a loss deduction and an investment tax credit arising from its partnership interest in a venture known as Printers Associates. Petitioner and his wife filed a joint return for 1979 on April 15, 1980. Their return claimed a pro rata share of the deduction and credit reported by Compo pursuant to the pass-through provisions of Subchapter S. Code § 6501(a) establishes a generally applicable statute of limitations providing that the Internal Revenue Service may assess tax deficiencies within a 3-year period from the date a return is filed. That limitations period may be extended by written agreement. § 6501(c)(4). In March 1983, before three years had passed from the time the joint return was filed, petitioner agreed to extend the period in which deficiencies arising from certain claims on the return could be assessed against him. No extension was obtained from Compo with respect to its return for the 1978-1979 tax year. In 1987, the Commissioner determined that the loss deduction and credit reported by Compo were erroneous and sent a notice of deficiency to petitioner based on the loss deduction and credit that he had claimed on his return. In the Tax Court, petitioner contended that the Commissioner’s claim was time barred because the disallowance was based on an error in Compo’s return, for which the 3-year assessment period had lapsed. The Tax Court found for the Commissioner, relying on its decision in Fehlhaber v. Commissioner, 94 T. C. 863 (1990), aff’d, 954 F. 2d 653 (CA11 1992). See App. 61. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed, holding that, where a tax deficiency is assessed against the shareholder, the filing date of the shareholder’s return is the relevant date for purposes of § 6501(a). 952 F. 2d 675 (1992). Because another Court of Appeals has a contrary view, we granted certiorari. 505 U. S. 1203 (1992). II Title 26 U. S. C. § 6501(a) states simply that “the amount of any tax imposed by this title shall be assessed within 3 years after the return was filed . . . The issue before us is whether “the” return is that of petitioner or that of the corporation which was the source of the loss and credit claimed on petitioner’s return. Petitioner’s position is that the Commissioner had three years from the date his return was filed to object to that return in any respect except the loss and credit items passed through to him by the corporation. To disallow those items, petitioner argues, the Commissioner must have acted within three years of the filing of the corporate return. Under this approach, “the” return referred to in § 6501(a) becomes two returns, and petitioner claims that there is adequate statutory basis for his submission. We have no doubt that the courts below properly concluded, as the Commissioner argued, that it is the filing of petitioner’s return that triggers the running of the statutory period. The Commissioner can only determine whether the taxpayer understated his tax obligation and should be assessed a deficiency after examining that taxpayer’s return. Plainly, then, “the” return referred to in § 6501(a) is the return of the taxpayer against whom a deficiency is assessed. Here, the Commissioner sought to assess taxes which petitioner owed under the Code because his return had erroneously reported a loss and credit to which he was not entitled. The fact that the corporation’s return erroneously asserted a loss and credit to be passed through to its shareholders is of no consequence. In this case, the errors on the corporate return did not and could not affect the tax liability of the corporation, and hence the Commissioner could only assess a deficiency against the stockholder-taxpayer whose return claimed the benefit of the errors. Under the plain language of § 6501(a), the Commissioner’s time to make the assessment ran from the filing date of petitioner’s return. By contrast, the S corporation’s return, which petitioner asserts triggers the beginning of the limitations period, is deficient precisely because it does not contain all of the information necessary to compute a shareholder’s taxes. If the Internal Revenue Service were required to rely on that return, it would be forced to conduct its assessment on the basis of incomplete information: “While [the corporate return] may show petitioner’s distributive share of losses, it does not indicate his adjusted basis in his corporate stock, which is information necessary to determine if the loss is deductible. Nor does it show petitioner’s income, losses, deductions, and credits from other sources. Moreover, the information return of the S corporation does not relate to the same taxable period as petitioner’s return . . . .” Fehlhaber, supra, at 869 (citation omitted). As noted in analogous cases, tax returns that “lack the data necessary for the computation and assessment of deficiencies” generally should not be regarded as triggering the period of assessment. Automobile Club of Mich. v. Commissioner, 353 U. S. 180, 188 (1957) (citing Commissioner v. Lane-Wells Co., 321 U. S. 219 (1944)). Petitioner asserts that § 6501(a) supports a contrary view when read in light of two related Code provisions pertaining to S corporations. Section 6012(a)(2) requires both Sub-chapter C and Subchapter S corporations to file income tax returns. Section 6037(a) specifies the information that each S corporation’s return must provide (including “each shareholder’s pro rata share of each item of the corporation”) and further states that “[a]ny return filed pursuant to this section shall, for purposes of [26 U. S. C. §§6501-6531], be treated as a return filed by the corporation under section 6012.” We do not see that these provisions aid petitioner’s cause. Read together, §§ 6012(a)(2), 6037(a), and 6501(a) establish only that each S corporation must file a tax return containing certain information and that a Commissioner desiring to make an assessment must act within three years of filing. Nothing on the face of these provisions demonstrates that an individual’s income tax return is brought within the compass of § 6037(a)’s reference to “any return” simply because a portion of that return reports income and losses that have passed through from the return of an S corporation. If anything, the phrase “[a]ny return filed pursuant to this section,” coupled with the fact that § 6037(a) is concerned with describing the contents of the corporation’s return, indicates that the provision is not meant to determine when the assessment period for a shareholder’s individual tax return begins. Petitioner argues that this reading of the relevant provisions runs afoul of the fact that, prior to 1966, S corporations were not subject to taxation. According to petitioner, no purpose would have been served by establishing an assessment period that applied to returns reporting corporate income on which no taxes could be assessed but not to the returns of corporate stockholders. This argument fails because even in the period when the S corporation could net be taxed, examination of a corporation’s return was necessary to determine if it could lay valid claim to Subchapter S status. Section 6037(a) thus originally functioned to set the starting date of the 3-year period within which that determination had to be made. See United States v. Adams Building Co., 531 F. 2d 342, 343, n. 2 (CA6 1976); see also 952 F. 2d, at 677 (citing Fehlhaber v. Commissioner, 94 T. C. 863 (1990)). Petitioner maintains that such a function would be superfluous because, if the election of S corporation status were found invalid, the corporation’s return would “automatically be subject to the existing rules for C corporations.” Brief for Petitioner 38. But this proposition is hardly self-evident, and petitioner cites no authority to support it. In the absence of § 6037(a), the Internal Revenue Service could claim that a corporation which flies a return containing an erroneous election of Subchapter S status has failed to file any return, which would allow the Service to issue a notice of deficiency with respect to the return “at any time.” See § 6601(c)(3); cf. Germantown Trust Co. v. Commissioner, 309 U. S. 304, 307 (1940); Mason v. United States, 801 F. Supp. 718, 721 (ND Ga. 1992). The Ninth Circuit’s rejection in Kelley v. Commissioner, 877 F. 2d 756 (1989), of the view adopted by the Commissioner was prompted in part by a concern to avoid unfairly burdening shareholders, who might find it difficult to obtain corporate records necessary to defend against a deficiency assessment based on an adjustment made to a corporation’s return years after it was filed. The Fifth Circuit’s opinion by Judge Goldberg in Green v. Commissioner, 963 F. 2d 783 (1992), neatly summarizes the appropriate response to that concern: “First, it is not unfamiliar in the world of tax to have ‘an individual’s income tax return ... dependent on records maintained by another entity.’ Fehlkaber, 954 F. 2d at 658 (citing partnership and trust taxation as examples). Second, the rule generally does not impose an undue burden on the corporation or the shareholder. ... A shareholder can ‘take the necessary steps to ensure that the corporation preserves the relevant records.’ Id. Such protective steps simply do not constitute an overly oppressive task for the shareholder. Bufferd, 952 F. 2d at 678. . . . Finally, we reject any suggestion that we elevate the ‘perceived unfairness to taxpayers’ over our duty to strictly construe in favor of the government a statute of limitation when the petitioner seeks application of the statute so as to bar the rights of the government. Fehlkaber, 954 F. 2d at 658.” Id., at 789. H-( H-( As found by the courts below, the plain language of § 6501(a) supports the Commissioner. The statutory evidence and policy considerations proffered by petitioner offer no basis for questioning this conclusion. We hold that the limitations period within which the Internal Revenue Service must assess the income tax liability of an S corporation shareholder runs from the date on which the shareholder’s return is filed. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. It is so ordered. Subchapter S was substantially amended and recodified by the Sub-chapter S Revision Act of 1982, 96 Stat. 1669. The pass-through provisions in effect in the period relevant to this case, see 26 U. S. C. §§ 1373-1374 (1976 ed.), differ in certain respects from the present provisions. These differences do not affect the case. In relevant part, the statute reads: “§ 6037. Return of S corporation “(a) In general “Every S corporation shall make a return for each taxable year, stating specifically the items of its gross income and the deductions allowable by subtitle A [and other information]. Any return filed pursuant to this section shall, for purposes of chapter 66 (relating to limitations), be treated as a return filed by the corporation under section 6012.” Phyllis Bufferd settled separately with the Commissioner and is not a party to this action. The statute reads in part: “§ 6601. Limitations on assessment and collection “(a) General rule “Except as otherwise provided . . . the amount of any tax imposed by this title shall be assessed within 3 years after the return was filed ... Kelley v. Commissioner, 877 F. 2d 766 (CA9 1989), held that the filing date of the corporation’s return controls. The Fifth and Eleventh Circuits have joined the Second Circuit in declining to follow Kelley. See Green v. Commissioner, 963 F. 2d 783 (CA6 1992); Fehlhaber v. Commissioner, 954 F. 2d 653 (CA11 1992). Even if it could credibly be argued that § 6501(a) is ambiguous because it does not expressly indicate how it is to be applied to S corporations and their stockholders, the Commissioner’s construction of the section is a reasonable one to say the least, and we should accept it absent convincing grounds for rejecting it. As noted in Badaracco v. Commissioner, 464 U. S. 386 (1984), “ ‘limitations statutes barring the collection of taxes otherwise due and unpaid are strictly construed in favor of the Government.’ ” Id., at 392 (quoting Lucia v. United States, 474 F. 2d 565, 570 (CA5 1973)). In these circumstances, the incompleteness of the corporate return provides a reason for doubting petitioner’s understanding of the Code. We do not thereby suggest that, for cases in which a corporate return does supply all of the information necessary to process a shareholder’s return, the mere fact of completeness is sufficient to establish the corporate return as “the” return of § 6501(a). Section 6012(a)(2) reads: “§ 6012. Persons required to make returns of income “(a) General rule “Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following:... “(2) Every corporation subject to taxation under subtitle A ... .” Since S corporations are now subject to limited taxation, § 6037(a) serves the additional function of determining the assessment period for those taxes. See 962 F. 2d, at 678. Petitioner’s reading of § 6037(a) is sufficiently lacking in textual support to obviate any need to examine legislative history. However, several courts have noted that the history of § 6037 contains evidence in support of the Commissioner’s interpretation. See, e. g., Green v. Commissioner, 963 F. 2d, at 788-790; Fehlhaber v. Commissioner, 954 F. 2d, at 656-657. Section 6037(a) was introduced in the Technical Amendments Act of 1958, 72 Stat. 1606, 1656. The Senate Report explaining the provision states: “Notwithstanding the fact that an electing small-business corporation is not subject to the tax imposed by chapter 1 of the 1954 Code, such corporation must make a return for each taxable year in accordance with new section 6037 .... Such return will be considered as a return filed under section 6012 for purposes of the provisions of chapter 66, relating to limitations. Thus, for example, the period of limitation on assessment and collection of any corporate tax found to be due upon a subsequent determination that the corporation was not entitled to the benefits of subchapter S, will run from the date of filing of the return required under the new section 6037.” S. Rep. No. 1983, 85th Cong., 2d Sess., 226 (1968). Although the passage would seem to support the Commissioner’s view, petitioner, following the reasoning of the Ninth Circuit in Kelley v. Commissioner, 877 F. 2d 756 (1989), maintains that the phrase “for example” necessarily implies that the Senate also had in mind the present case. This implication is hardly necessary: The phrase just as easily could have been meant to avoid foreclosing other applications of § 6037(a) to corporate returns. Indeed, had “for example” been omitted, the Commissioner could now rely on this passage to argue that the period for assessing capital gains taxes under 26 U. S. C. § 1374 is not controlled by § 6037(a), but is instead governed by the filing date of a shareholder’s return or some other triggering event. Likewise, in the absence of the phrase, it could be argued that, because the legislative history refers exclusively to a case in which taxes are assessed against a corporation that erroneously claims Subchapter S status, the period in which penalties may be assessed against the corporation should not be governed by § 6037(a). The Commissioner claims additional support in the Senate Report accompanying the 1982 amendments to Subchapter S, which states in relevant part: “Under present law, a taxpayer’s individual tax liability is determined in proceedings between the Internal Revenue Service and the individual whose tax liability is in dispute. Thus, any issues involving the income or deductions of a subchapter S corporation are determined separately in ... proceedings involving the individual shareholder whose tax liability is affected. Statutes of limitations apply at the individual level, based on the returns filed by the individual. The filing by the corporation of its return does not affect the statute of limitations applicable to the shareholders.” S. Rep. No. 97-640, p. 25 (1982). This passage is of little value to either side. While the views of a Congress engaged in the amendment of existing law as to the intent behind that law are “entitled to significant weight,” Seatrain Shipbuilding Corp. v. Shell Oil Co., 444 U. S. 572, 596 (1980), in this instance, the Report’s account of “present law” may have been colored, if not wholly determined, by the Tax Court, which had already adopted the view espoused by the Commissioner. See Leonhart v. Commissioner, 27 TCM 443 (1968), ¶ 68,098 P-H Memo TC, aff’d on other grounds, 414 F. 2d 749 (CA4 1969). Petitioner additionally asserts that the returns of shareholders of a Subchapter C corporation cannot be adjusted after the limitations period has run for assessing the corporation’s return, and that therefore S corporation shareholders are entitled to identical treatment. Brief for Petitioner 11-12, 21-22. However, petitioner has not provided a single authority in support of the premise of this assertion. At oral argument, the Commissioner maintained that the opposite is the case, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 27-28, relying mainly on Commissioner v. Munter, 331 U. S. 210 (1947), which, without addressing the limitations issue, allowed an adjustment of shareholders’ 1940 taxes based upon the Commissioner’s finding that, at the time of its creation by merger in 1928, the corporation had acquired the accumulated earnings and profits of its predecessor corporations. A recent Tax Court decision also provides indirect support for the Commissioner’s view: “We have held that the relevant return for determining whether, at the time a deficiency notice was issued, the period for assessment had expired under section 6601(a) ‘is that of petitioner against whom respondent has determined a deficiency.’ [Citing Fehlhaber, 94 T. C., at 868.] We have maintained that position consistently, without regard to the nature of the source entity involved. See [cases involving partnerships, trusts, and S corporations].” Lardas v. Commissioner, 99 T. C. 490, 493 (1992). In any event, it is doubtful that petitioner’s conclusion follows from his premise, for the taxation of C corporations and their stockholders is so markedly different from that of S corporations. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy 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 Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court. A federal statute, § 3599 of Title 18, entitles indigent defendants to the appointment of counsel in capital cases, including habeas corpus proceedings. The statute contemplates that appointed counsel may be “replaced . . . upon motion of the defendant,” § 3599(e), but it does not specify the standard that district courts should use in evaluating those motions. We hold that courts should employ the same “interests of justice” standard that they apply in non-capital cases under a related statute, § 3006A of Title 18. We also hold that the District Court here did not abuse its discretion in denying respondent Kenneth Clair’s motion to change counsel. I This case arises from the murder of Linda Rodgers in 1984. Rodgers resided at the home of Kai Henriksen and Margaret Hessling in Santa Ana, California. Clair was a squatter in a vacant house next door. About a week prior to the murder, police officers arrested Clair for burglarizing the Henriksen-Hessling home, relying on information Henriksen had provided. On the night the police released Clair from custody, Hessling returned from an evening out to find Rodgers’ dead body in the master bedroom, naked from the waist down and beaten, stabbed, and strangled. Some jewelry and household items were missing from the house. See People v. Clair, 2 Cal. 4th 629, 644-647, 828 P. 2d 705, 713-714 (1992); App. to Pet. for Cert. 23-24. The district attorney charged Clair with Rodgers’ murder and sought the death penalty. No forensic evidence linked Clair to the crime; instead, the main evidence against Clair came from his former girlfriend, Pauline Flores. Although she later recanted her testimony, see App. 36-42, Flores stated at trial that she and Clair were walking in the neighborhood on the night of the murder and split up near the Henriksen-Hessling house. When they reunited about an hour later, Flores recounted, Clair was carrying jewelry and other items and had blood on his right hand. According to Flores, Clair explained to her that he had “just finished beating up a woman.” Clair, 2 Cal. 4th, at 647, 828 P. 2d, at 714. The prosecution then introduced a tape recording of a talk between Flores and Clair several months after the murder, which Flores had made in cooperation with the police. On that tape, Clair at one point denied committing the murder, but also made several inculpatory statements. For example, when Flores told Clair that she had seen blood on him, he replied “Ain’t on me no more” and “They can’t prove nothing.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 53 (internal quotation marks omitted). And in response to her continued probing, Clair explained “[W]hat you fail to realize, how . . . they gonna prove I was there? . . . There ain’t no . . . fingerprints, ain’t no . . . body seen me go in there and leave out there.” Id., at 53-54 (internal quotation marks omitted). The jury convicted Clair and sentenced him to death. The California Supreme Court upheld the verdict, and this Court denied review, Clair v. California, 506 U. S. 1063 (1993). Clair commenced federal habeas proceedings by filing a request for appointment of counsel, which the District Court granted under §3599. Clair and his counsel filed an initial petition for habeas relief in 1994 and, after exhausting state remedies, an amended petition the following year. The petition alleged more than 40 claims, involving such matters as jury selection and composition, sufficiency of the evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, nondisclosure of exculpatory materials relating to state witnesses, and ineffectiveness of trial counsel. In the late 1990⅛, two associates from the firm representing Clair took jobs at the Office of the Federal Public Defender (FPD), and the court substituted that office as counsel of record. The court held an evidentiary hearing on Clair’s habeas petition in August 2004, and the parties submitted post-hearing briefs by February 2005. The court subsequently informed the parties that it viewed the briefing “to be complete and d[id] not wish to receive any additional material” about the petition. App. 3-4. On March 16, 2005, Clair sent a letter to the court stating that the FPD attorneys “no longer . .. ha[d] [his] best interest at hand” and that he did not want them to continue to represent him. Id., at 24; see id., at 18-25. Clair alleged that the lawyers had repeatedly dismissed his efforts to participate in his own defense. Prior to the evidentiary hearing, Clair wrote, he had become so frustrated with the attorneys that he enlisted a private detective to look into his case. But the lawyers, Clair charged, refused to cooperate with the investigator; they were seeking only to overturn his death sentence, rather than to prove his innocence. As a result, Clair felt that he and his counsel were not “on the same team.” Id., at 23. The District Court responded by asking both parties to address Clair’s motion to substitute counsel. See id., at 18. The State noted that “[w]hat the trial court does with respect to appointing counsel is within its discretion, providing the interests of justice are served.” Id., at 29. The State further advised the court that “nothing in [Clair’s] letter required] a change” of counsel because the FPD lawyers had provided appropriate representation and substitution would delay the case. Ibid. Clair replied to the court’s request through his FPD attorneys on April 26, 2005. Their letter stated: “After meeting with Mr. Clair, counsel understands that Mr. Clair wants the [FPD] to continue to serve as his counsel in this case at this time.” Id., at 27. On the basis of that representation, the court determined that it would “take no further action on the matter at this time.” Id., at 33. But the issue resurfaced just six weeks after the court’s decision. On June 16, 2005, Clair wrote a second letter to the court asking for substitution of counsel. That letter again asserted a “total break down of communication” between Clair and the FPD; according to Clair, he was “no longer able to trust anybody within that office.” Id., at 62-63. In explaining the source of the problem, Clair reiterated each of the points made in his prior complaint. And then he added one more. Clair recounted that his private investigator had recently learned that the police and district attorney’s office were in possession of fingerprints and other physical evidence from the crime scene that had never been fully tested. The FPD lawyers, Clair asserted, were doing nothing to analyze this evidence or otherwise follow up on its discovery. Clair attributed this failure, too, to the FPD’s decision to focus on his sentence, rather than on questions of guilt. Two weeks later, the District Court denied Clair’s renewed request for substitution without further inquiry. The court stated: “It does not appear to the Court that a change of counsel is appropriate. It appears that [Clair’s] counsel is doing a proper job. No conflict of interest or inadequacy of counsel is shown.” Id., at 61. On the same day, the court denied Clair’s habeas petition in a detailed opinion. Clair v. Brown, Case No. CV 93-1133 GLT (CD Cal., June 30, 2005), App. to Pet. for Cert. 20-91. Clair sought review of his substitution motion pro se, while the FPD filed a notice of appeal from the denial of his habeas petition. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit instructed the FPD to address whether substitution of counsel was now warranted, and in October 2005, the FPD informed the court that “the attorney-client relationship ha[d] broken down to such an extent that substitution of counsel [would be] appropriate.” Attorney for Appellant’s Response to Court’s Sept. 15, 2005 Order, in No. 05-99005 (CA9), Record, Doc. 9, p. 1. The State did not comment or object, and the Court of Appeals provided Clair with a new lawyer going forward. Clair then asked the District Court to vacate the denial of his habeas petition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), arguing that he should be allowed to explore the significance of the new physical evidence for his case. The District Court (with a new judge assigned, because the judge previously handling the ease had retired) rejected that request on the ground that the new evidence did not pertain to any of the claims presented in Clair’s habeas petition. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 9-10. Clair appealed that decision as well. After consolidating Clair’s appeals, the Ninth Circuit vacated the trial court’s denial of both Clair’s request for new counsel and his habeas petition. See Clair v. Ayers, 403 Fed. Appx. 276 (2010). The Court of Appeals’ opinion focused on Clair’s substitution motion. Holding that the “interests of justice” standard should apply to that motion, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the District Court abused its discretion by failing to inquire into the complaints in Clair’s second letter. See id., at 278. The Court of Appeals then considered how to remedy that error, given that Clair had received new counsel while on appeal. It decided that “the most reasonable solution” was to “treat Clair’s current counsel as if he were the counsel who might have been appointed” in June 2005, and to allow him to make whatever submissions he would have made then, including a motion to amend Clair’s habeas petition in light of new evidence. Id., at 279. We granted certiorari to review this judgment, 564 U. S. 1036 (2011), and now reverse. HH We first consider the standard that district courts should use to adjudicate federal habeas petitioners’ motions to substitute counsel in capital cases. The question arises because the relevant statute, 18 U. S. C. § 3599, contains a notable gap. Section 3599 first guarantees that indigent defendants in federal capital cases will receive the assistance of counsel, from pretrial proceedings through stay applications. See §§ 3599(a)(1), (a)(2), (e). It next grants a corresponding right to people like Clair who seek federal habeas relief from a state death sentence, for all post-conviction proceedings and related activities. See §§ 3599(a)(2), (e); McFarland v. Scott, 512 U. S. 849, 854-855 (1994); Harbison v. Bell, 556 U. S. 180, 183-185 (2009). And the statute contemplates that both sets of litigants may sometimes substitute counsel; it notes that an attorney appointed under the section may be “replaced by similarly qualified counsel upon the attorney’s own motion or upon motion of the defendant.” § 3599(e). But here lies the rub: The statute fails to specify how a court should decide such a motion. Section 3599 says not a word about the standard a court should apply when addressing a request for a new lawyer. The parties offer us two alternative ways to fill this statutory hole. Clair argues, and the Ninth Circuit agreed, that district courts should decide substitution motions brought under § 3599 “in the interests of justice.” That standard derives from 18 U. S. C. § 3006A, which governs the appointment and substitution of counsel in federal wow-capital litigation. By contrast, the State contends that district courts may replace an appointed lawyer under § 3599 only when the defendant has suffered an “actual or constructive denial” of counsel. Brief for Petitioner 33. That denial occurs, the State asserts, in just three situations: when the lawyer lacks the qualifications necessary for appointment under the statute; when he has a “disabling conflict of interest”; or when he has “completely abandoned” the client. Id., at 34. On this matter, we think Clair, not the State, gets it right. A trip back in time begins to show why. Prior to 1988, §3006A governed the appointment of counsel in all federal criminal cases and habeas litigation, regardless whether the matter involved a capital or a non-capital offense. That section provided counsel as a matter of right to most indigent criminal defendants, from pretrial proceedings through appeal. See §§3006A(a)(l), (c) (1982 ed.). In addition, the statute authorized courts to appoint counsel for federal ha-beas petitioners when “the interests of justice so require[d],” §3006A(g); and under that provision, courts almost always appointed counsel to represent petitioners convicted of capital offenses, see Ruthenbeck, Dueling With Death in Federal Courts, 4 ABA Crim. Justice, No. 3, pp. 2, 42 (Fall 1989). In all cases in which a court had appointed counsel, §3006A further provided (as it continues to do) that substitution motions should be decided “in the interests of justice.” § 3006A(c). So in those days, a court would have used that standard to evaluate a request like Clair’s. In 1988, Congress enacted the legislation now known as § 3599 to govern appointment of counsel in capital cases, thus displacing § 3006A for persons facing execution (but retaining that section for all others). See Anti-Drug Abuse Act, 102 Stat. 4393-4394, 21 U. S. C. §§848(q)(4)-(10) (1988 ed.) (recodified at 18 U. S. C. §3599 (2006 ed. and Supp. IV)). The new statute grants federal capital defendants and capital habeas petitioners enhanced rights of representation, in light of what it calls “the seriousness of the possible penalty and . . . the unique and complex nature of the litigation.” § 3599(d) (2006 ed.). Habeas petitioners facing execution now receive counsel as a matter of right, not an exercise of the court’s discretion. See § 3599(a)(2). And the statute aims in multiple ways to improve the quality of representation afforded to capital petitioners and defendants alike. Section 3599 requires lawyers in capital cases to have more legal experience than §3006A demands. Compare §§ 3599(b)-(d) with §3006A(b). Similarly, §3599 authorizes higher rates of compensation, in part to attract better counsel. Compare § 3599(g)(1) with §3006A(d) (2006 ed. and Supp. IV). And § 3599 provides more money for investigative and expert services. Compare §§ 3599(f) (2006 ed.), (g)(2) (2006 ed., Supp. IV), with §3006A(e) (2006 ed. and Supp. IV). As we have previously noted, those measures “refiec[t] a determination that quality legal representation is necessary” in all capital proceedings to foster “fundamental fairness in the imposition of the death penalty.” McFarland, 512 U. S., at 855, 859. That understanding of § 3599⅛ terms and origins goes far toward resolving the parties’ dispute over what standard should apply. We know that before § 3599’s passage, courts used an “interests of justice” standard to decide substitution motions in all cases — and that today, they continue to do so in all non-capital proceedings. We know, too, that in spinning off § 3599, Congress enacted a set of reforms to improve the quality of lawyering in capital litigation. With all those measures pointing in one direction, we cannot conclude that Congress silently prescribed a substitution standard that would head the opposite way. Adopting a more stringent test than § 3006A’s would deprive capital defendants of a tool they formerly had, and defendants facing lesser penalties still have, to handle serious representational problems. That result clashes with everything else §3599 does. By contrast, utilizing § 3006A’s standard comports with the myriad ways that § 3599 seeks to promote effective representation for persons threatened with capital punishment. The dearth of support for the State’s alternative standard reinforces the case for borrowing from § 3006A. Recall that the State thinks substitution proper “only when . . . counsel is completely denied” — which, the State says, occurs when counsel lacks the requisite experience; “actively represents conflicting interests”; or has “total[ly] desert[ed]” the client. Brief for Petitioner 15, 35, 38. As the State acknowledges, this test comes from . . . well, from nowhere. The State conceded during argument that Congress has not considered (much less adopted) the standard in any context; neither has a federal court used it in any case. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 16. Indeed, the standard is new to the State’s own attorneys. As noted earlier, when Clair first requested a change of counsel, the State responded that substitution is a “matter ... of trial court discretion,” based on “the interests of justice.” App. 29; see supra, at 654. Only later did the State devise its present proposal. Inventiveness is often an admirable quality, but here we think the State overdoes it. To be sure, we must infer a substitution standard for §3599; in that sense, we are writing on a blank slate. But in undertaking that task, we prefer to copy something familiar than concoct something novel. That enables courts to rely on experience and precedent, with a standard already known to work effectively. Still worse, the State’s proposed test guts §3599’s provision for substitution motions. See § 3599(e) (2006 ed.) (appointed counsel may be “replaced . . . upon motion of the defendant”). According to the State, a court may not change counsel under § 3599 even if the attorney-client relationship has broken down, so long as the lawyer has the required qualifications and is “act[ing] as an advocate.” Brief for Petitioner 35. And that is so, continues the State, even when substitution will not cause delay or other prejudice— because again, the defendant retains a functioning lawyer. See id., at 34. That approach, as already noted, undermines Congress’s efforts in § 3599 to enhance representation in capital cases. See supra, at 659-660. And beyond that, it renders § 3599’s substitution provision superfluous. Even in the absence of that provision, a court would have to ensure that the defendant’s statutory right to counsel was satisfied throughout the litigation; for example, the court would have to appoint new counsel if the first lawyer developed a conflict with or abandoned the client. So by confining substitution to cases in which the defendant has no counsel at all, the State’s proposal effectively deletes § 3599’s substitution clause. The State counters that only its approach comports with “this Court’s long-established jurisprudence that habeas prisoners, including capital prisoners,” have no right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment. Brief for Petitioner 18; see Murray v. Giarratano, 492 U. S. 1, 10, 12 (1989) (plurality opinion); id., at 14-15 (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment); cf. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U. S. 722, 755 (1991) (reserving question of whether the Sixth Amendment guarantees counsel when a habeas proceeding provides the first opportunity to raise a claim). But we do not understand the State’s basis for linking use of the “interests of justice” standard to cases in which an individual has a Sixth Amendment right. A statute need not draw the same lines as the Constitution, and neither § 3006A nor § 3599 does so in addressing the substitution of counsel. Section 3006A applies the “interests of justice” standard to substitution motions even when the Sixth Amendment does not require representation; that is presumptively so, for example, when a court provides counsel to a non-capital habeas petitioner. See §§ 3006A(a)(2)(B), (c). And whatever standard we adopt for §3599 will likewise apply both to litigants who have and to litigants who lack a Sixth Amendment right, because the section offers counsel on the same terms to capital defendants and habeas petitioners. In providing statutory rights to counsel, Congress declined to track the Sixth Amendment; accordingly, the scope of that Amendment cannot answer the statutory question presented here. The State’s stronger argument relates to delay in capital proceedings. Under the “interests of justice” standard, the State contends, substitution motions will become a mechanism to defer enforcement of a death sentence, contrary to historic restrictions on “abuse of the writ” and to the goals of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). See Brief for Petitioner 19-22. But this argument, like the last, forgets that § 3599 reaches not just habeas petitioners but also criminal defendants, who have not been convicted or sentenced and therefore have no incentive to delay. Moreover, the State’s claim misjudges the capacity of the “interests of justice” standard to deal with such issues. Protecting against abusive delay is an interest of justice. Because that is so, courts addressing substitution motions in both capital and non-capital cases routinely consider issues of timeliness. See, e. g., Hunter v. Delo, 62 F. 3d 271, 274 (CA8 1995) (citing “the need to thwart abusive delay” in affirming the denial of a habeas petitioner's substitution motion); United States v. White, 451 F. 2d 1225,1226 (CA6 1971) (per curiam) (approving a District Court’s refusal to change counsel under § 3006A(e) “on the morning of the trial”). Indeed, we will do so, just paragraphs from here, in this very case. See infra, at 665. The standard we adopt thus takes account of, rather than ignores or opposes, the State’s interest in avoiding undue delay. ( — l f — 1 ( — I The remaining question is whether the District Court abused its discretion in denying Clair’s second request for néw counsel under §3599’s “interests of justice” standard. We do not think the court did so, although the court’s failure to make any inquiry into Clair’s allegations makes this decision harder than necessary. As its name betrays, the “interests of justice” standard contemplates a peculiarly context-specific inquiry. So we doubt that any attempt to provide a general definition of the standard would prove helpful. In reviewing substitution motions, the courts of appeals have pointed to several relevant considerations. Those factors may vary a bit from circuit to circuit, but generally include: the timeliness of the motion; the adequacy of the district court’s inquiry into the defendant’s complaint; and the asserted cause for that complaint, including the extent of the conflict or breakdown in communication between lawyer and client (and the client’s own responsibility, if any, for that conflict). See, e.g., United States v. Prime, 431 F. 3d 1147, 1154 (CA9 2005); United States v. Doe, 272 F. 3d 116, 122-123 (CA2 2001); Hunter, 62 F. 3d, at 274; United States v. Welty, 674 F. 2d 185,188 (CA3 1982). Because a trial court’s decision on substitution is so fact-specific, it deserves deference; a reviewing court may overturn it only for an abuse of discretion. The District Court here received Clair’s second substitution motion on the eve of deciding his 10-year-old habeas petition. Recall that three months earlier, following an evi-dentiary hearing and post-hearing briefing, Clair had written the court to complain about his attorneys. In that first letter, Clair accused his lawyers of refusing to cooperate with a private detective and, more generally, of forgoing efforts to prove his innocence. After making proper inquiry, the court learned that Clair and his attorneys had worked through their dispute and Clair no longer wanted to substitute counsel. The court thus turned its attention once again to ruling on Clair’s habeas petition — only to receive another letter requesting a change in representation. If that second letter had merely recapitulated the charges in the first, this case would be relatively simple. Even then, the court might have done well to make further inquiry of Clair and his counsel. As all Circuits agree, courts cannot properly resolve substitution motions without probing why a defendant wants a new lawyer. See, e. g., United States v. lies, 906 F. 2d 1122, 1130 (CA6 1990) (“It is hornbook law that ‘[w]hen an indigent defendant makes a timely and good faith motion requesting that appointed counsel be discharged and new counsel appointed, the trial court clearly has a responsibility to determine the reasons for defendant’s dissatisfaction . . . ’ ” (quoting 2 W. LaFave & J. Israel, Criminal Procedure § 11.4, p. 36 (1984))). Moreover, an on-the-record inquiry into the defendant’s allegations “permit[s] meaningful appellate review” of a trial court’s exercise of discretion. United States v. Taylor, 487 U. S. 326, 336-337 (1988). But here the court had inquired, just a short time earlier, into Clair’s relationship with his lawyers. The court knew that Clair had responded to that inquiry by dropping his initial complaints. And the court had reason to think, based on 10 years of handling the case, that those charges lacked merit: Perhaps most important, the court knew that the lawyers had raised many challenges not just to Clair’s sentence, but to his conviction, including to the sufficiency of the State’s evidence. See, e. g., App. to Pet. for Cert. 27-69. Especially at this stage of the litigation, those factors would have provided ample basis to reject a simple reprise of Clair’s allegations. What complicates this case is that in his second letter, Clair added a new and significant charge of attorney error. Beyond asserting generally that his lawyers were not trying to prove his innocence, Clair now alleged that counsel had refused to investigate particular, newly located physical evidence. That evidence, according to Clair, might have shown that the police had suppressed Brady material, that his trial counsel had been ineffective in investigating the murder, or that he had not committed the offense. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 45-46. Especially in a case lacking physical evidence, built in part on since-recanted witness testimony, those possibilities cannot be blithely dismissed. In the mine run of circumstances, Clair’s new charge would have required the court to make further inquiry before ruling on his motion for a new attorney. But here, the timing of that motion precludes a holding that the District Court abused its discretion. The court received Clair’s second letter while putting the finishing touches on its denial of his habeas petition. (That lengthy decision issued just two weeks later.) After many years of litigation, an evidentiary hearing, and substantial post-hearing briefing, the court had instructed the parties that it would accept no further submissions. See App. 3-4; Tr. of Oral Arg. 4-5. The case was all over but the deciding; counsel, whether old or new, could do nothing more in the trial court proceedings. At that point and in that forum, Clair’s conflict with his lawyers no longer mattered. Clair, to be sure, wanted to press his case further in the District Court. He desired a new lawyer, after examining the physical evidence, to make whatever claims followed from it. But, notably, all of those claims would have been new; as the District Court later found in ruling on Clair’s Rule 60(b) motion, the physical evidence did not relate to any of the claims Clair had previously made in his habeas petition. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 9-10. A substitute lawyer thus would have had to seek an amendment of that petition, as well as an evidentiary hearing or, more likely, a stay to allow exhaustion of remedies in state court. See 403 Fed. Appx., at 279. The District Court could properly have rejected that motion, consistent with its order precluding further submissions (effectively remitting Clair to state court to pursue the matter). See Mayle v. Felix, 545 U. S. 644, 663 (2005). And if that is so, the court also acted within its discretion in denying Clair’s request to substitute counsel, even without the usually appropriate inquiry. The court was not required to appoint a new lawyer just so Clair could file a futile motion. We accordingly find that the Court of Appeals erred in overturning the District Court’s decision. The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. While litigating his Rule 60(b) motion in the District Court, Clair also pursued discovery in the California state courts relating to the newly found physical evidence. On the basis of material he obtained, Clair filed another petition for state habeas relief, alleging (among other claims) actual innocence and improper suppression of exculpatory material under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (1963). The California Supreme Court summarily denied that petition. See In re Clair, No. S169188 (Aug. 24, 2011). Section 3599(e) provides in full: “Unless replaced by similarly qualified counsel upon the attorney’s own motion or upon motion of the defendant, each attorney so appointed shall represent the defendant throughout every subsequent stage of available judicial proceedings, including pretrial proceedings, trial, sentencing, motions for new trial, appeals, applications for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States, and all available post-conviction process, together with applications for stays of execution and other appropriate motions and procedures, and shall also represent the defendant in such competency proceedings and proceedings for executive or other clemency as may be available to the defendant.” The State also makes a more specific argument based on AEDPA, see Brief for Petitioner 26-29, but we think it is not well taken. The State notes that the “interests of justice” standard enables a court, when ruling on a substitution motion, to take account of a lawyer’s effectiveness. That consideration, according to the State, conflicts with AEDPA’s injunction that “[t]he ineffectiveness or incompetence of counsel during Federal or State collateral post-conviction proceedings shall not be a ground for relief in a [habeas] proceeding arising under section 2254.” 28 U. S. C. §2254(i); see § 2261(e) (using similar language). But most naturally read, § 2254(i) prohibits a court from granting substantive habeas relief on the basis of a lawyer’s ineffectiveness in post-conviction proceedings, not from substituting counsel on that ground. Cf. Holland v. Florida, 560 U. S. 631, 650-651 (2010) (holding that §2254(i) does not preclude equitable tolling of a statute of limitations based on attorney misconduct in habeas proceedings). Indeed, if the State were right, we would also have to find that AEDPA silently repealed § 3006A’s instruction to courts to apply the “interests of justice” standard in non-capital habeas cases. We see nothing to suggest that Congress had that result in mind. We note as well that the Court of Appeals ordered the wrong remedy even assuming the District Court had abused its discretion in denying Clair’s substitution motion without inquiry. The way to cure that error would have been to remand to the District Court to decide whether substitution was appropriate at the time of Clair’s letter. Unless that court determined that counsel should have been changed, the Court of Appeals had no basis for vacating the denial of Clair’s habeas petition. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

B

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Justice Breyer announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which The Chief Justice, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Souter join. We here consider whether a Pennsylvania prison policy that “denies newspapers, magazines, and photographs” to a group of specially dangerous and recalcitrant inmates “violate[s] the First Amendment.” Brief for Petitioner i; see Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78, 89 (1987) (prison rules restricting a prisoner’s constitutional rights must be “reasonably related to legitimate penological interests”). The case arises on a motion for summary judgment. While we do not deny the constitutional importance of the interests in question, we find, on the basis of the record now before us, that prison officials have set forth adequate legal support for the policy. And the plaintiff, a prisoner who attacks the policy, has failed to set forth “specific facts” that, in light of the deference that courts must show to the prison officials, could warrant a determination in his favor. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 56(e); Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U. S. 126, 132 (2003) (need for “substantial deference to the professional judgment of prison administrators”). I A The prison regulation at issue applies to certain prisoners housed in Pennsylvania’s Long Term Segregation Unit. The LTSU is the most restrictive of the three special units that Pennsylvania maintains for difficult prisoners. The first such unit, the “Restricted Housing Unit” (RHU), is designed for prisoners who are under disciplinary sanction or who are assigned to administrative segregation. App. 80. The second such unit, the “Special Management Unit” (SMU), is intended for prisoners who “exhibit behavior that is continually disruptive, violent, dangerous or a threat to the orderly operation of their assigned facility.” Ibid. The third such unit, the LTSU, is reserved for the Commonwealth’s “most incorrigible, recalcitrant inmates.” Id., at 25. LTSU inmates number about 40. Id., at 127. Most, but not all, have “flunked out” of the SMU program. Id., at 137. To qualify, they must have met one or more of the following conditions: failure to “complete” the SMU program; “assaultive behavior with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury”; causing injury to other inmates or staff; “engaging in facility disturbance(s)”; belonging to an unauthorized organization or “Security Threat Group”; engaging in criminal activity that “threatens the community”; possessing while in prison “weapons” or “implements of escape”; or having a history of “serious” escape attempts, “exerting negative influence in facility activities,” or being a “sexual predator.” Id., at 85-86. The LTSU is divided into two levels. All inmates are initially assigned to the most restrictive level, level 2. After 90 days, depending upon an inmate’s behavior, an individual may graduate to the less restrictive level 1, although in practice most do not. Id., at 181-132, 138. The RHU, SMU, and LTSU all seriously restrict inmates’ ordinary prison privileges. At all three units, residents are typically confined to cells for 23 hours a day, have limited access to the commissary or outside visitors, and (with the exception of some phases of the SMU) may not watch television or listen to the radio. Id., at 102; Brief for Petitioner 2-4. Prisoners at level 2 of the LTSU face the most severe form of the restrictions listed above. They have no access to the commissary, they may have only one visitor per month (an immediate family member), and they are not allowed phone calls except in emergencies. App. 102. In addition they (unlike all other prisoners in the Commonwealth) are restricted in the manner at issue here: They have no access to newspapers, magazines, or personal photographs. Id., at 26. They are nonetheless permitted legal and personal correspondence, religious and legal materials, two library books, and writing paper. Id., at 35, 102, 169. If an inmate progresses to level 1, he enjoys somewhat less severe restrictions, including the right to receive one newspaper and five magazines. Id., at 26, 102. The ban on photographs is not lifted unless a prisoner progresses out of the LTSU altogether. Ibid. B In 2001, plaintiff Ronald Banks, respondent here, then a prisoner confined to LTSU level 2, filed this federal-court action against Jeffrey Beard, the Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. See Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1983. Banks claimed that the level 2 policy (Policy) forbidding inmates all access to newspapers, magazines, and photographs bears no reasonable relation to any legitimate penological objective and consequently violates the First Amendment. App. 15; see also Turner, supra; Overton, supra. The Secretary, the defendant, petitioner here, filed an answer. The District Court certified a class composed of similar level 2 inmates, and the court assigned the case to a Magistrate who conducted discovery. Banks’ counsel deposed a deputy superintendent at the prison, Joel Dickson. The parties introduced various prison policy manuals and related documents into the record. And at that point the Secretary filed a motion for summary judgment. He also filed a “Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute,” with a copy of the deputy superintendent’s deposition attached as an appendix. See App. 25; Rule 56.1(C)(1) (WD Pa. 2006). Banks (who was represented by counsel throughout) filed no opposition to the Secretary’s motion, but instead filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. Neither that cross-motion nor any other of Banks’ filings sought to place any significant fact in dispute, and Banks has never sought a trial to determine the validity of the Policy. Rather, Banks claimed in his cross-motion that the undisputed facts, including those in Dickson’s deposition, entitled him to summary judgment. In this way, and by failing specifically to challenge the facts identified in the defendant’s statement of undisputed facts, Banks is deemed to have admitted the validity of the facts contained in the Secretary’s statement. See Rule 56.1(E). On the basis of the record as described (the complaint, the answer, the statement of undisputed facts, other agreed-upon descriptions of the system, the Dickson deposition, and the motions for summary judgment), the Magistrate recommended that the District Court grant the Secretary’s motion for summary judgment and deny that of Banks. App. to Brief in Opposition 130. The District Court accepted the Magistrate’s recommendation. Id., at 131-132. On appeal, a divided Third Circuit panel reversed the District Court’s award of summary judgment to the Secretary. 399 F. 3d 134 (2005). The majority of the panel held that the prison regulation “cannot be supported as a matter of law by the record in this case.” Id., at 148; see also infra, at 536. The Secretary sought our review of the appeals court’s judgment, and we granted his petition. 546 U. S. 1015 (2005). II Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78 (1987), and Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U. S. 126 (2003), contain the basic substantive legal standards governing this case. This Court recognized in Turner that imprisonment does not automatically deprive a prisoner of certain important constitutional protections, including those of the First Amendment. 482 U. S., at 93; see also O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U. S. 342, 348 (1987). But at the same time the Constitution sometimes permits greater restriction of such rights in a prison than it would allow elsewhere. See, e. g., Turner, supra, at 84-85. As Overton (summarizing pre-Turner case law) pointed out, courts owe “substantial deference to the professional judgment of prison administrators.” 539 U. S., at 132. And Turner reconciled these principles by holding that restrictive prison regulations are permissible if they are “ ‘reasonably related’ to legitimate penological interests,” 482 U. S., at 87, and are not an “ ‘exaggerated response’ ” to such objectives, ibid. Turner also sets forth four factors “relevant in determining the reasonableness of the regulation at issue.” Id., at 89. First, is there a “‘valid, rational connection’ between the prison regulation and the legitimate governmental interest put forward to justify it”? Ibid. Second, are there “alternative means of exercising the right that remain open to prison inmates”? Id., at 90. Third, what “impact” will “accommodation of the asserted constitutional right... have on guards and other inmates, and on the allocation of prison resources generally”? Ibid. And, fourth, are “ready alternatives” for furthering the governmental interest available? Ibid. This case has arrived in this Court in the context of the Secretary’s motion for summary judgment. Thus we must examine the record to see whether the Secretary, in depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, affidavits and the like, has demonstrated “the absence of a genuine issue of material fact,” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 447 U. S. 317, 323 (1986), and his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. See, e. g., Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 56(c). If the Secretary has done so, then we must determine whether Banks, the plaintiff, who bears the burden of persuasion, Overton, supra, at 132, has “by affidavits or as otherwise provided” in Rule 56 (e. g., through depositions, etc.) “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Rule 56(e) (emphasis added). If not, the law requires entry of judgment in the Secretary’s favor. See Celotex Corp., supra, at 322 (Rule 56 “mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial”). We recognize that at this stage we must draw “all justifiable inferences” in Banks’ “favor.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U. S. 242, 255 (1986). In doing so, however, we must distinguish between evidence of disputed facts and disputed matters of professional judgment. In respect to the latter, our inferences must accord deference to the views of prison authorities. Overton, supra. Unless a prisoner can point to sufficient evidence regarding such issues of judgment to allow him to prevail on the merits, he cannot prevail at the summary judgment stage. Ill The Secretary in his motion set forth several justifications for the prison’s policy, including the need to motivate better behavior on the part of particularly difficult prisoners, the need to minimize the amount of property they control in their cells, and the need to ensure prison safety, by, for example, diminishing the amount of material a prisoner might use to start a cell fire. We need go no further than the first justification, that of providing increased incentives for better prison behavior. Applying the well-established substantive and procedural standards set forth in Part II, we find, on the basis of the record before us, that the Secretary’s justification is adequate. And that finding here warrants summary judgment in the Secretary’s favor. A The Secretary rested his motion for summary judgment primarily upon the statement of undisputed facts along with Deputy Prison Superintendent Dickson’s affidavit. The statement of undisputed facts says that the LTSU’s 40 inmates, about 0.01 percent of the total prison population, constitute the “‘worst of the worst,’” those who “have proven by the history of their behavior in prison, the necessity of holding them in the rigorous regime of confinement” of the LTSU. App. 26. It then sets forth three “penological rationales” for the Policy, summarized from the Dickson deposition: (1) to “motivat[e]” better “behavior” on the part of these “particularly difficult prisoners,” by providing them with an incentive to move to level 1, or out of the LTSU altogether, and to “discourage backsliding” on the part of level 1 inmates; (2) to minimize the amount of property controlled by the prisoners, on the theory that the “less property these high maintenance, high supervision, obdurate troublemakers have, the easier it is for... correctional officer[s] to detect concealed contraband [and] to provide security”; and (3) to diminish the amount of material (in particular newspapers and magazines) that prisoners might use as weapons of attack in the form of “ ‘spears’ ” or “ ‘blow guns,’ ” or that they could employ “as tools to catapult feces at the guards without the necessity of soiling one’s own hands,” or use “as tinder for cell fires.” Id., at 27. As we have said we believe that the first rationale itself satisfies Turner’s requirements. First, the statement and deposition set forth a “ ‘valid, rational connection’ ” between the Policy and “‘legitimate penological objectives.’” 482 U. S., at 89, 95. The deputy superintendent stated in his deposition that prison authorities are “very limited... in what we can and cannot deny or give to [a level 2] inmate [who typically has already been deprived of almost all privileges, see supra, at 526], and these are some of the items that we feel are legitimate as incentives for inmate growth.” App. 190. The statement of undisputed facts (relying on the deposition) added that the Policy “serves to encourage... progress and discourage backsliding by the level 1 inmates.” Id., at 27. These statements point to evidence—namely, the views of the deputy superintendent—that the regulations do, in fact, serve the function identified. The articulated connections between newspapers and magazines, the deprivation of virtually the last privilege left to an inmate, and a significant incentive to improve behavior, are logical ones. Thus, the first factor supports the Policy’s “reasonableness.” As to the second factor, the statement and deposition make clear that, as long as the inmate remains at level 2, no “alternative means of exercising the right” remain open to him. Turner, supra, at 90. After 90 days the prisoner may be able to graduate to level 1 and thus regain his access to most of the lost rights. In the approximately two years after the LTSU opened, about 25 percent of those confined to level 2 did graduate to level 1 or out of the LTSU altogether. App. 138; Reply Brief for Petitioner 8. But these circumstances simply limit, they do not eliminate, the fact that there is no alternative. The absence of any alternative thus provides “some evidence that the regulations [a]re unreasonable,” but is not “conclusive” of the reasonableness of the Policy. Overton, 539 U. S., at 135. As to the third factor, the statement and deposition indicate that, were prison authorities to seek to “accommodat[e]... the asserted constitutional right,” the resulting “impact” would be negative. Turner, 482 U. S., at 90. That circumstance is also inherent in the nature of the Policy: If the Policy (in the authorities’ view) helps to produce better behavior, then its absence (in the authorities’ view) will help to produce worse behavior, e. g., “backsliding” (and thus the expenditure of more “resources” at level 2). Ibid. Similarly, as to the fourth factor, neither the statement nor the deposition describes, points to, or calls to mind any “alternative method of accommodating the claimant’s constitutional complaint... that fully accommodates the prisoner’s rights at de minimis cost to valid penological interests.” Id., at 90-91. In fact, the second, third, and fourth factors, being in a sense logically related to the Policy itself, here add little, one way or another, to the first factor’s basic logical rationale. See post, at 547 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (noting that “deprivation theory does not map easily onto several of the Turner factors”), cf. post, at 540-542 (Thomas, J., concurring in judgment) (similar). The fact that two of these latter three factors seem to support the Policy does not, therefore, count in the Secretary’s favor. The real task in this case is not balancing these factors, but rather determining whether the Secretary shows more than simply a logical relation, that is, whether he shows a reasonable relation. We believe the material presented here by the prison officials is sufficient to demonstrate that the Policy is a reasonable one. Overton provides significant support for this conclusion. In Overton we upheld a prison’s “severe” restriction on the family visitation privileges of prisoners with repeat substance abuse violations. 539 U. S., at 134. Despite the importance of the rights there at issue, we held that withholding such privileges “is a proper and even necessary management technique to induce compliance with the rules of inmate behavior, especially for high-security prisoners who have few other privileges to lose.” Ibid. The Policy and circumstances here are not identical, but we have not found differences that are significant. In both cases, the deprivations at issue (all visits with close family members; all access to newspapers, magazines, and photos) have an important constitutional dimension. In both cases, prison officials have imposed the deprivation at issue only upon those with serious prison-behavior problems (here the 40 most intractable inmates in the Commonwealth). In both cases, prison officials, relying on their professional judgment, reached an experience-based conclusion that the policies help to further legitimate prison objectives. The upshot is that, if we consider the Secretary’s supporting materials (i. e., the statement and deposition), by themselves, they provide sufficient justification for the Policy. That is to say, unless there is more, they bring the Policy within Turner’s legitimating scope. B Although summary judgment rules provided Banks with an opportunity to respond to the Secretary’s materials, he did not offer any fact-based or expert-based refutation in the manner the rules provide. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 56(e) (requiring plaintiff through, e. g., affidavits, etc., to “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial” (emphasis added)). Instead, Banks filed his own cross-motion for summary judgment in which he claimed that the Policy fell of its own weight, i. e., that the Policy was “unreasonable as a matter of law.” Plaintiffs’ Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment in No. C. A. 01-1956 (WD Pa.), p. 13 (hereinafter Plaintiffs’ Brief). In particular, Banks argued (and continues to argue) that the Policy lacks any significant incentive effect given the history of incorrigibility of the inmates concerned and the overall deprivations associated with the LTSU, Brief for Respondent 22; Plaintiffs’ Brief 13. He points in support to certain court opinions that he believes reflect expert views that favor his position. Abdul Wali v. Coughlin, 754 F. 2d 1015, 1034 (CA2 1985); Bieregu v. Reno, 59 F. 3d 1445, 1449 (CA3 1995); Knecht v. Collins, 903 F. Supp. 1193, 1200 (SD Ohio 1995), aff'd in part, rev’d in part, vacated in part, 187 F. 3d 636 (CA6 1999). And he adds that only about one-quarter of level 2 inmates graduate out of that environment. The cases to which Banks refers, however, simply point out that, in the view of some courts, increased contact with the world generally favors rehabilitation. See Abdul Wali, supra, at 1034; Bieregu, supra, at 1449; Knecht, supra, at 1200. That circumstance, as written about in court opinions, cannot provide sufficient support, particularly as these courts were not considering contexts such as this one, where prison officials are dealing with especially difficult prisoners. Neither can Banks find the necessary assistance in the fact that only one-quarter or so of the level 2 population graduates to level 1 or out of the LTSU. Given the incorrigibility of level 2 inmates—which petitioner himself admits—there is nothing to indicate that a 25 percent graduation rate is low, rather than, as the Secretary suggests, acceptably high. We recognize that the Court of Appeals reached a contrary conclusion. But in doing so, it placed too high an evidentiary burden upon the Secretary. In respect to behavior-modification incentives, for example, the court wrote that the “District Court did not examine... whether the ban was implemented in a way that could modify behavior, or inquire into whether the [Department of Corrections’] deprivation theory of behavior modification had any basis in real human psychology, or had proven effective with LTSU inmates.” 399 F. 3d, at 142. And, the court phrased the relevant conclusions in terms that placed a high summary judgment evidentiary burden upon the Secretary, i. e., the moving party. See, e. g., id., at 141 (“[W]e cannot say that the [defendant] has shown how the regulations in this case serve [an incentive-related] purpose”). The court’s statements and conclusions here also offer too little deference to the judgment of prison officials about such matters. The court, for example, offered no apparent deference to the deputy prison superintendent’s professional judgment that the Policy deprived “particularly difficult” inmates of a last remaining privilege and that doing so created a significant behavioral incentive. Contrary to Justice Ginsburg’s suggestion, post, at 554-556 (dissenting opinion), we do not suggest that the deference owed prison authorities makes it impossible for prisoners or others attacking a prison policy like the present one ever to succeed or to survive summary judgment. After all, the constitutional interest here is an important one. Turner requires prison authorities to show more than a formalistic logical connection between a regulation and a penological objective. A prisoner may be able to marshal substantial evidence that, given the importance of the interest, the Policy is not a reasonable one. Cf. 482 U. S., at 97-99 (striking down prison policy prohibiting prisoner marriages). And with or without the assistance that public interest law firms or clinics may provide, it is not inconceivable that a plaintiff’s counsel, through rigorous questioning of officials by means of depositions, could demonstrate genuine issues of fact for trial. Finally, as in Overton, we agree that “the restriction is severe,” and “if faced with evidence that [it were] a de facto permanent ban... we might reach a different conclusion in a challenge to a particular application of the regulation.” 539 U. S., at 134. That is not, however, the case before us. Here prison authorities responded adequately through their statement and deposition to the allegations in the complaint. And the plaintiff failed to point to “ ‘specific facts’ ” in the record that could “lead a rational trier of fact to find” in his favor. Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U. S. 574, 587 (1986) (quoting Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 56(e)). The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. It is so ordered. Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Scalia joins, concurring in the judgment. J4dicial scrutiny of prison regulations is an endeavor fraught with peril. Just last Term, this Court invalidated California’s policy of racially segregating prisoners in its reception centers, notwithstanding that State’s warning that its policy was necessary to prevent prison violence. See Johnson v. California, 543 U. S. 499 (2005). California subsequently experienced several instances of severe race-based prison violence, including a riot that resulted in 2 fatalities and more than 100 injuries, and significant fighting along racial lines between newly arrived inmates, the very inmates that were subject to the policy invalidated by the Court in Johnson. See Winton & Bernstein, More Violence Erupts at Pitchess; Black and Latino inmates clash at the north county jail, leaving 13 injured, Los Angeles Times, Mar. 1, 2006, Metro Desk, p. Bl. This powerful reminder of the grave dangers inherent in prison administration confirms my view that the framework I set forth in Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U. S. 126, 138 (2003) (opinion concurring in judgment), is the least perilous approach for resolving challenges to prison regulations, as well as the approach that is most faithful to the Constitution. Accordingly, I concur only in the judgment of the Court. I Both the plurality and Justice Stevens’ dissent evaluate the regulations challenged in this case pursuant to the approach set forth in Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78 (1987), which permits prison regulations that “imping[e] on inmates’ constitutional rights” if the regulations are “reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.” Id., at 89. But as I explained in Overton, Turner and its progeny “rest on the unstated (and erroneous) presumption that the Constitution contains an implicit definition of incarceration.” Overton, 539 U. S., at 139 (opinion concurring in judgment). Because the Constitution contains no such definition, “States are free to define and redefine all types of punishment, including imprisonment, to encompass various types of deprivations—provided only that those deprivations are consistent with the Eighth Amendment.” Ibid, (emphasis in original). Respondent has not challenged Pennsylvania’s prison policy as a violation of the Eighth Amendment, and thus the sole inquiry in this case is whether respondent’s sentence deprived him of the rights he now seeks to exercise. Id., at 140. “Whether a sentence encompasses the extinction of a constitutional right enjoyed by free persons turns on state law, for it is a State’s prerogative to determine how it will punish violations of its law.” Ibid. Although the question whether Pennsylvania intended to confer upon respondent and other inmates a right to have unfettered access to newspapers, magazines, and photographs is thus “ultimately for the State itself to answer,” in the absence of a resolution of that question by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, we must resolve it in the instant case. Id., at 141. Fortunately, the answer is straightforward. In Overton, I explained: “Sentencing a criminal to a term of imprisonment may, under state law, carry with it the implied delegation to prison officials to discipline and otherwise supervise the criminal while he is incarcerated. Thus, restrictions imposed by prison officials may also be a part of the sentence, provided that those officials are not acting ultra vires with respect to the discretion given them, by implication, in the sentence.” Id., at 140, n. A term of imprisonment in Pennsylvania includes such an implied delegation. Pennsylvania inmates are subject to the rules and disciplinary measures set forth by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. See, e. g., Inmate Discipline, Policy No. DC-ADM 801 (2004), http://www.cor. state.pa.us /standards /lib / standards / DC-ADM_801_Inmate_ Diseipline.pdf (as visited June 12,2006, and available in Clerk of Court’s case file). And no one disputes that the regulations challenged in the instant litigation fall within the discretion given to the Department of Corrections. As in Overton, the conclusion that these regulations are included in the prison sentence is strongly supported by the plurality’s Turner analysis. A prison policy that has a “valid, rational connection [to] the... legitimate penological objectives” of improving prison security and discouraging inmate misbehavior, ante, at 531 (internal quotation marks omitted), “that [is] designed to avoid adverse impacts on guards, inmates, or prison resources, [and] that cannot be replaced by ‘ready alternatives,’ [is] presumptively included within a sentence of imprisonment,” Overton, 539 U. S., at 141-142 (Thomas, J., concurring in judgment). The “history of incarceration as punishment [also] supports the view that the sentence] imposed on respondent] terminated” his unfettered right to magazines, newspapers, and photographs. Id., at 142. As I explained in Overton, imprisonment as punishment “became standardized in the period between 1780 and 1865,” id., at 143 (citing McGowen, The Well-Ordered Prison: England, 1780-1865, in The Oxford History of the Prison: The Practice of Punishment in Western Society 79 (N. Morris & D. Rothman eds. 1995)), and was distinguished by the prisoner’s isolation from the outside world, 539 U. S., at 143. Indeed, both the Pennsylvania and Auburn prison models, which formed the basis for prison systems throughout the Nation in the early 1800’s, imposed this isolation specifically by denying prisoners access to reading materials and contact with their families. Rothman, Perfecting the Prison: United States, 1789-1865, in The Oxford History of the Prison, at 111, 117; see also id., at 118 (explaining that in the Pennsylvania system, inmates were “given nothing to read except the Bible and were prevented from corresponding with friends and family”); S. Christianson, With Liberty for Some: 500 Years of Imprisonment in America 145 (1998) (explaining that in Sing Sing, the standard bearer for the Auburn model, no reading materials of any kind, except the Bible, were allowed inside). Even as the advent of prison libraries increased prisoners’ access to reading materials, that access was universally “subject to some form of censorship,” such that “inmates of correctional institutions are denied access to books which are freely available to the rest of the community.” G. Bramley, Outreach: Library Services for the Institutionalised, the Elderly, and the Physically Handicapped 91, 93 (1978). Although Pennsylvania “is free to alter its definition of incarceration to include the retention” of unfettered access to magazines, newspapers, and photographs, it appears that the Commonwealth instead sentenced respondent against the backdrop of its traditional conception of imprisonment, which affords no such privileges. Overton, supra, at 144-145 (Thomas, J., concurring in judgment). Accordingly, respondent’s challenge to Pennsylvania’s prison regulations must fail. II This case reveals the shortcomings of the Turner framework, at least insofar as that framework is applied to prison regulations that seek to modify inmate behavior through privilege deprivation. In applying the first Turner factor, the plurality correctly observes that Pennsylvania’s policy of depriving its most incorrigible inmates of their last few remaining privileges bears a “valid, rational connection” to the “legitimate penological objectiv[e]” of “encourag[ing] progress and diseourag[ing] backsliding” of inmate compliance with prison rules. Ante, at 531 (internal quotation marks omitted). Indeed, this Court has previously determined that “ [withdrawing... privileges is a proper and even necessary management technique to induce compliance with the rules of inmate behavior, especially for high-security prisoners.” Overton, supra, at 134. Although policies, such as Pennsylvania’s, that seek to promote compliance with prison rules by withdrawing various privileges may always satisfy Turner’s first factor, they necessarily fail its second factor. Such policies, by design, do not provide an “alternative means” for inmates to exercise the rights they have been deprived. 482 U. S., at 90. The “legitimate penological objectiv[e]” of encouraging compliance with prison rules by depriving misbehaving inmates of various privileges simply cannot be accomplished if prison officials are required to provide prisoners with an alternative and equivalent set of privileges. Thus, the plurality’s observation that respondent’s privileges may be restored in response to continued, improved behavior is simply irrelevant to the second factor of Turner, which asks only “whether... alternative means of exercising the right... remain open to prison inmates.” Ibid. The answer in the context of privilege deprivation policies is always no, thus demonstrating the difficulty of analyzing such policies under the Turner framework. The third and fourth Turner factors are likewise poorly suited to determining the validity of inmate privilege deprivation policies. When the “valid penological objectiv[e]” of a prison policy is encouraging compliance with prison rules, it makes little sense to inquire into “the impact accommodation of the asserted constitutional right will have on guards and other inmates, and on the allocation of prison resources generally,” or into the availability of “ready alternatives.” Ibid. At best, such inquiries merely collapse the third and fourth factors into the first, because accommodating the exercise of the deprived right will undermine the incentive effects of the prison policy and because the unavailability of “ready alternatives” is typically (as in this case) one of the underlying rationales for the adoption of inmate privilege deprivation policies. * * * Because the prison regulations at issue today are permissible under the approach I explained in Overton, I concur in the judgment of the Court. Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Ginsburg joins, dissenting. By ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment, our society has made an unmistakable commitment to apply the rule of law in an evenhanded manner to all persons, even those who flagrantly violate their social and legal obligations. Thus, it is well settled that even the “‘worst of the worst/” ante, at 530, prisoners retain constitutional protection, specifically including their First Amendment rights. See, e. g., O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U. S. 342, 348 (1987). When a prison regulation impinges upon First Amendment freedoms, it is invalid unless “it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.” Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78, 89 (1987). Under this standard, a prison regulation cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny if “the logical connection between the regulation and the asserted goal is so remote as to render the policy arbitrary or irrational,” id., at 89-90, or if the regulation represents an “exaggerated response” to legitimate penological objectives, id., at 98. In this case, Pennsylvania prison officials have promulgated a rule that prohibits inmates in Long Term Segregation Unit, level 2 (LTSU-2), which is the most restrictive condition of confinement statewide, from possessing any secular, nonlegal newspaper, newsletter, or magazine during the indefinite duration of their solitary confinement. A prisoner in LTSU-2 may not even receive an individual article clipped from such a news publication unless the article relates to him or his family. In addition, under the challenged rule, any personal photograph, including those of spouses, children, deceased parents, or inspirational mentors, will be treated as contraband and confiscated. See App. 176. It is indisputable that this prohibition on the possession of newspapers and photographs infringes upon respondent’s First Amendment rights. “[T]he State may not, consistently with the spirit of the First Amendment, contract the spectrum of available knowledge. The right of freedom of speech and press includes not only the right to utter or to print, but the right to distribute, the right to receive, the right to read and freedom of inquiry, freedom of thought....” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 482 (1965 Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

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 Blackmun delivered the opinion of the Court. In this case we are asked to decide whether a university enjoys a special privilege, grounded in either the common law or the First Amendment, against disclosure of peer review materials that are relevant to charges of racial or sexual discrimination in tenure decisions. I The University of Pennsylvania, petitioner here, is a private institution. It currently operates 12 schools, including the Wharton School of Business, which collectively enroll approximately 18,000 full-time students. In 1985, the University denied tenure to Rosalie Tung, an associate professor on the Wharton faculty. Tung then filed a sworn charge of discrimination with respondent Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission). App. 23. As subsequently amended, the charge alleged that Tung was the victim of discrimination on the basis of race, sex, and national origin, in violation of § 703(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 255, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §2000e-2(a) (1982 ed.), which makes it unlawful “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.” In her charge, Tung stated that the department chairman had sexually harassed her and that, in her belief, after she insisted that their relationship remain professional, he had submitted a negative letter to the University’s Personnel Committee which possessed ultimate responsibility for tenure decisions. She also alleged that her qualifications were “equal to or better than” those of five named male faculty members who had received more favorable treatment. Tung noted that the majority of the members of her department had recommended her for tenure, and stated that she had been given no reason for the decision against her, but had discovered of her own efforts that the Personnel Committee had attempted to justify its decision “on the ground that the Wharton School is not interested in China-related research.” App. 29. This explanation, Tung’s charge alleged, was a pretext for discrimination: “simply their way of saying they do not want a Chinese-American, Oriental, woman in their school.” Ibid. The Commission undertook an investigation into Tung’s charge and requested a variety of relevant information from petitioner. When the University refused to provide certain of that information, the Commission’s Acting District Director issued a subpoena seeking, among other things, Tung’s tenure-review file and the tenure files of the five male faculty members identified in the charge. Id., at 21. Petitioner refused to produce a number of the tenure-file documents. It applied to the Commission for modification of the subpoena to exclude what it termed “confidential peer review information,” specifically, (1) confidential letters written by Tung’s evaluators; (2) the department chairman’s letter of evaluation; (3) documents reflecting the internal deliberations of faculty committees considering applications for tenure, including the Department Evaluation Report summarizing the deliberations relating to Tung’s application for tenure; and (4) comparable portions of the tenure-review files of the five males. The University urged the Commission to “adopt a balancing approach reflecting the constitutional and societal interest inherent in the peer review process” and to resort to “all feasible methods to minimize the intrusive effects of its investigations.” Exhibit 2 to EEOC’s Memorandum in Support of Application for Order to Show Cause 6. The Commission denied the University’s application. It concluded that the withheld documents were needed in order to determine the merit of Tung’s charges. The Commission found: “There has not been enough data supplied in order for the Commission to determine whether there is reasonable cause to believe that the allegations of sex, race and national origin discrimination is [sic] true.” App. to Pet. for Cert. A31. The Commission rejected petitioner’s contention that a letter, which set forth the Personnel Committee’s reasons for denying Tung tenure, was sufficient for disposition of the charge. “The Commission would fall short of its obligation” to investigate charges of discrimination, the EEOC’s order stated, “if it stopped its investigation once [the employer] has . . . provided the reasons for its employment decisions, without verifying whether that reason is a pretext for discrimination.” Id., at A32. The Commission also rejected petitioner’s proposed balancing test, explaining that “such an approach in the instant case . . . would impair the Commission’s ability to fully investigate this charge of discrimination.” Id., at A33. The Commission indicated that enforcement proceedings might be necessary if a response was not forthcoming within 20 days. Ibid. The University continued to withhold the tenure-review materials. The Commission then applied to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for enforcement of its subpoena. The court entered a brief enforcement order. Id., at A35. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the enforcement decision. 850 F. 2d 969 (1988). Relying upon its earlier opinion in EEOC v. Franklin and Marshall Col lege, 775 F. 2d 110 (1985), cert. denied, 476 U. S. 1163 (1986), the court rejected petitioner’s claim that policy considerations and First Amendment principles of academic freedom required the recognition of a qualified privilege or the adoption of a balancing approach that would require the Commission to demonstrate some particularized need, beyond a showing of relevance, to obtain peer review materials. Because of what might be thought of as a conflict in approach with the Seventh Circuit’s decision in EEOC v. University of Notre Dame du Lac, 715 F. 2d 331, 337 (1983), and because of the importance of the issue, we granted certiorari limited to the compelled-disclosure question. 488 U. S. 992 (1988), and amended, 490 U. S. 1015 (1989). II As it had done before the Commission, the District Court, and the Court of Appeals, the University raises here essentially two claims. First, it urges us to recognize a qualified common-law privilege against disclosure of confidential peer review materials. Second, it asserts a First Amendment right of “academic freedom” against wholesale disclosure of the contested documents. With respect to each of the two claims, the remedy petitioner seeks is the same: a requirement of a judicial finding of particularized necessity of access, beyond a showing of mere relevance, before peer review materials are disclosed to the Commission. A Petitioner’s common-law privilege claim is grounded in Federal Rule of Evidence 501. This provides in relevant part: “Except as otherwise required by the Constitution ... as provided by Act of Congress or in rules prescribed by the Supreme Court . . . , the privilege of a witness . . . shall be governed by the principles of the common law as they may be interpreted by the courts of the United States in the light of reason and experience.” The University asks us to invoke this provision to fashion a new privilege that it claims is necessary to protect the integrity of the peer review process, which in turn is central to the proper functioning of many colleges and universities. These institutions are special, observes petitioner, because they function as “centers of learning, innovation and discovery.” Brief for Petitioner filed June 23, 1989, p. 24 (hereinafter Brief for Petitioner). We do not create and apply an evidentiary privilege unless it “promotes sufficiently important interests to outweigh the need for probative evidence . . . .” Trammel v. United States, 445 U. S. 40, 51 (1980). Inasmuch as “[testimonial exclusionary rules and privileges contravene the fundamental principle that ‘the public . . . has a right to every man’s evidence,”’ id., at 50, quoting United States v. Bryan, 339 U. S. 323, 331 (1950), any such privilege must “be strictly construed.” 445 U. S., at 50. Moreover, although Rule 501 manifests a congressional desire “not to freeze the law of privilege” but rather to provide the courts with flexibility to develop rules of privilege on a case-by-case basis, id., at 47, we are disinclined to exercise this authority expansively. We are especially reluctant to recognize a privilege in an area where it appears that Congress has considered the relevant competing concerns but has not provided the privilege itself. Cf. Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U. S. 665, 706 (1972). The balancing of conflicting interests of this type is particularly a legislative function. With all this in mind, we cannot accept the University’s invitation to create a new privilege against the disclosure of peer review materials. We begin by noting that Congress, in extending Title VII to educational institutions and in providing for broad EEOC subpoena powers, did not see fit to create a privilege for peer review documents. When Title VII was enacted originally in 1964, it exempted an “educational institution with respect to the employment of individuals to perform work connected with the educational activities of such institution.” §702, 78 Stat. 255. Eight years later, Congress eliminated that specific exemption by enacting §3 of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, 86 Stat. 103. This extension of Title VII was Congress’ considered response to the widespread and compelling problem of invidious discrimination in educational institutions. The House Report focused specifically on discrimination in higher education, including the lack of access for women and minorities to higher ranking (i. e., tenured) academic positions. See H. R. Rep. No. 92-238, pp. 19-20 (1971). Significantly, opponents of the extension claimed that enforcement of Title VII would weaken institutions of higher education by interfering with decisions to hire and promote faculty members. Petitioner therefore cannot seriously contend that Congress was oblivious to concerns of academic autonomy when it abandoned the exemption for educational institutions. The effect of the elimination of this exemption was to expose tenure determinations to the same enforcement procedures applicable to other employment decisions. This Court previously has observed that Title VII “sets forth ‘an integrated, multistep enforcement procedure’ that enables the Commission to detect and remedy instances of discrimination.” EEOC v. Shell Oil Co., 466 U. S. 54, 62 (1984), quoting Occidental Life Ins. Co. v. EEOC, 432 U. S. 355, 359 (1977). The Commission’s enforcement responsibilities are triggered by the filing of a specific sworn charge of discrimination. The Act obligates the Commission to investigate a charge of discrimination to determine whether there is “reasonable cause to believe that the charge is true.” 42 U. S. C. §2000e-5(b) (1982 ed.). If it finds no such reasonable cause, the Commission is directed to dismiss the charge. If it does find reasonable cause, the Commission shall “endeavor to eliminate [the] alleged unlawful employment practice by informal methods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion.” Ibid. If attempts at voluntary resolution fail, the Commission may bring an action against the employer. §2000e-5(f)(l). To enable the Commission to make informed decisions at each stage of the enforcement process, § 2000e-8(a) confers a broad right of access to relevant evidence: “[T]he Commission or its designated representative shall at all reasonable times have access to, for the purposes of examination, and the right to copy any evidence of any person being investigated . . . that relates to unlawful employment practices covered by [the Act] and is relevant to the charge under investigation.” If an employer refuses to provide this information voluntarily, the Act authorizes the Commission to issue a subpoena and to seek an order enforcing it. § 2000e-9 (incorporating 29 U. S. C. § 161). On their face, §§2000e-8(a) and 2000e-9 do not carve out any special privilege relating to peer review materials, despite the fact that Congress undoubtedly was aware, when it extended Title VII’s coverage, of the potential burden that access to such material might create. Moreover, we have noted previously that when a court is asked to enforce a Commission subpoena, its responsibility is to “satisfy itself that the charge is valid and that the material requested is ‘relevant’ to the charge . . . and more generally to assess any contentions by the employer that the demand for information is too indefinite or has been made for an illegitimate purpose.” It is not then to determine “whether the charge of discrimination is ‘well founded’ or ‘verifiable.’” EEOC v. Shell Oil Co., 466 U. S., at 72, n. 26. The University concedes that the information sought by the Commission in this case passes the relevance test set forth in Shell Oil. Tr. of Oral Arg. 6. Petitioner argues, nevertheless, that Title VII affirmatively grants courts the discretion to require more than relevance in order to protect tenure review documents. Although petitioner recognizes that Title VII gives the Commission broad “power to seek access to all evidence that may be ‘relevant to the charge under investigation,’” Brief for Petitioner 38 (emphasis added), it contends that Title VII’s subpoena enforcement provisions do not give the Commission an unqualified right to acquire such evidence. Id., at 38-41. This interpretation simply cannot be reconciled with the plain language of the text of § 2000e-8(a), which states that the Commission “shall . . . have access” to “relevant” evidence (emphasis added). The provision can be read only as giving the Commission a right to obtain that evidence, not a mere license to seek it. Although the text of the access provisions thus provides no privilege, Congress did address situations in which an employer may have an interest in the confidentiality of its records. The same §2000e-8 which gives the Commission access to any evidence relevant to its investigation also makes it “unlawful for any officer or employee of the Commission to make public in any manner whatever any information obtained by the Commission pursuant to its authority under this section prior to the institution of any proceeding” under the Act. A violation of this provision subjects the employee to criminal penalties. Ibid. To be sure, the protection of confidentiality that §2000e-8(e) provides is less than complete. But this, if anything, weakens petitioner’s argument. Congress apparently considered the issue of confidentiality, and it provided a modicum of protection. Petitioner urges us to go further than Congress thought necessary to safeguard that value, that is, to strike the balance differently from the one Congress adopted. Petitioner, however, does not offer any persuasive justification for that suggestion. We readily agree with petitioner that universities and colleges play significant roles in American society. Nor need we question, at this point, petitioner’s assertion that confidentiality is important to the proper functioning of the peer review process under which many academic institutions operate. The costs that ensue from disclosure, however, constitute only one side of the balance. As Congress has recognized, the costs associated with racial and sexual discrimination in institutions of higher learning are very substantial. Few would deny that ferreting out this kind of invidious discrimination is a great, if not compelling, governmental interest. Often, as even petitioner seems to admit, see Reply Brief for Petitioner 15, disclosure of peer review materials will be necessary in order for. the Commission to determine whether illegal discrimination has taken place. Indeed, if there is a “smoking gun” to be found that demonstrates discrimination in tenure decisions, it is likely to be tucked away in peer review files. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit expressed, it this way: “Clearly, an alleged perpetrator of discrimination cannot be allowed to pick and choose the evidence which may be necessary for an agency investigation. There may be evidence of discriminatory intent and of pretext in the confidential notes and memorand[a] which the [college] seeks to protect. Likewise, confidential material pertaining to other candidates for tenure in a similar time frame may demonstrate that persons with lesser qualifications were granted tenure or that some pattern of discrimination appears. . . . [T]he peer review material itself must be investigated to determine whether the evaluations are based in discrimination and whether they are reflected in the tenure decision.” EEOC v. Franklin and, Marshall College, 775 F. 2d, at 116 (emphasis deleted). Moreover, we agree with the EEOC that the adoption of a requirement that the Commission demonstrate a “specific reason for disclosure,” see Brief for Petitioner 46, beyond a showing of relevance, would place a substantial litigation-producing obstacle in the way of the Commission’s efforts to investigate and remedy alleged discrimination. Cf. Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U. S., at 705-706. A university faced with a disclosure request might well utilize the privilege in a way that frustrates the EEOC’s mission. We are reluctant to “place a potent weapon in the hands of employers who have no interest in complying voluntarily with the Act, who wish instead to delay as long as possible investigations by the EEOC.” EEOC v. Shell Oil Co., 466 U. S., at 81. Acceptance of petitioner’s claim would also lead to a wave of similar privilege claims by other employers who play significant roles in furthering speech and learning in society. What of writers, publishers, musicians, lawyers? It surely is not unreasonable to believe, for example, that confidential peer reviews play an important part in partnership determinations at some law firms. We perceive no limiting principle in petitioner’s argument. Accordingly, we stand behind the breakwater Congress has established: unless specifically provided otherwise in the statute, the EEOC may obtain “relevant” evidence. Congress has made the choice. If it dislikes the result, it of course may revise the statute. Finally, we see nothing in our precedents that supports petitioner’s claim. In United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S. 683 (1974), upon which petitioner relies, we recognized a qualified privilege for Presidential communications. It is true that in fashioning this privilege we noted the importance of confidentiality in certain contexts: “Human experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decisionmaking process.” Id., at 705. But the privilege we recognized in Nixon was grounded in the separation of powers between the branches of the Federal Government. “[T]he privilege can be said to derive from the supremacy of each branch within its own assigned area of constitutional duties. Certain powers and privileges flow from the nature of enumerated powers; the protection of the confidentiality of Presidential communications has similar constitutional underpinnings.” Id., at 705-706 (footnote omitted). As we discuss below, petitioner’s claim of privilege lacks similar constitutional foundation. In Douglas Oil Co. of Cal. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U. S. 211 (1979), the Court recognized the privileged nature of grand jury proceedings. We noted there that the rule of secrecy dated back to the 17th century, was imported into our federal common law, and was eventually codified in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) as “an integral part of our criminal justice system.” 441 U. S., at 218, n. 9. Similarly, in Clark v. United States, 289 U. S. 1, 13 (1933), the Court recognized a privilege for the votes and deliberations of a petit jury, noting that references to the privilege “bear with them the implications of an immemorial tradition.” More recently, in NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U. S. 132 (1975), we construed an exception to the Freedom of Information Act in which Congress had incorporated a well-established privilege for deliberative intraagency documents. A privilege for peer review materials has no similar historical or statutory basis. B As noted above, petitioner characterizes its First Amendment claim as one of “academic freedom.” Petitioner begins its argument by focusing our attention upon language in prior cases acknowledging the crucial role universities play in the dissemination of ideas in our society and recognizing “academic freedom” as a “special concern of the First Amendment.” Keyishian v. Board of Regents of University of New York, 385 U. S. 589, 603 (1967). In that case the Court said: “Our Nation is deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom, which is of transcendent value to all of us and not merely to the teachers concerned.” See also Adler v. Board of Education of City of New York, 342 U. S. 485, 511 (1952) (academic freedom is central to “the pursuit of truth which the First Amendment was designed to protect” (Douglas, J., dissenting)). Petitioner places special reliance on Justice Frankfurter’s opinion, concurring in the result, in Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U. S. 234, 263 (1957), where the Justice recognized that one of “four essential freedoms” that a university possesses under the First Amendment is the right to “determine for itself on academic grounds who may teach” (emphasis added). Petitioner contends that it exercises this right of determining “on academic grounds who may teach” through the process of awarding tenure. A tenure system, asserts petitioner, determines what the university will look like over time. “In making tenure decisions, therefore, a university is doing nothing less than shaping its own identity.” Brief for Petitioner 19. Petitioner next maintains that the peer review process is the most important element in the effective operation of a tenure system. A properly functioning tenure system requires the faculty to obtain candid and detailed written evaluations of the candidate’s scholarship, both from the candidate’s peers at the university and from scholars at other institutions. These evaluations, says petitioner, traditionally have been provided with express or implied assurances of confidentiality. It is confidentiality that ensures candor and enables an institution to make its tenure decisions on the basis of valid academic criteria. Building from these premises, petitioner claims that requiring the disclosure of peer review evaluations on a finding of mere relevance will undermine the existing process of awarding tenure, and therefore will result in a significant infringement of petitioner’s First Amendment right of academic freedom. As more and more peer evaluations are disclosed to the EEOC and become public, a “chilling effect” on candid evaluations and discussions of candidates will result. And as the quality of peer review evaluations declines, tenure committees will no longer be able to rely on them. “This will work to the detriment of universities, as less qualified persons achieve tenure causing the quality of instruction and scholarship to decline.” Id., at 35. Compelling disclosure of materials “also will result in divisiveness and tension, placing strain on faculty relations and impairing the free interchange of ideas that is a hallmark of academic freedom.” Ibid. The prospect of these deleterious effects on American colleges and universities, concludes petitioner, compels recognition of a First Amendment privilege. In our view, petitioner’s reliance on the so-called academic-freedom cases is somewhat misplaced. In those cases government was attempting to control or direct the content of the speech engaged in by the university or those affiliated with it. In Sweezy, for example, the Court invalidated the conviction of a person found in contempt for refusing to answer questions about the content of a lecture he had delivered at a state university. Similarly, in Keyishian, the Court invalidated a network of state laws that required public employees, including teachers at state universities, to make certifications with respect to their membership in the Communist Party. When, in those cases, the Court spoke of “academic freedom” and the right to determine on “academic grounds who may teach” the Court was speaking in reaction to content-based regulation. See Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U. S., at 250 (plurality opinion discussing problems that result from imposition of a “strait jacket upon the intellectual leaders in our colleges and universities”); Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U. S., at 603 (discussing dangers that are present when a “pall of orthodoxy” is cast “over the classroom”). Fortunately, we need not define today the precise contours of any academic-freedom right against governmental attempts to influence the content of academic speech through the selection of faculty or by other means, because petitioner does not allege that the Commission’s subpoenas are intended to or will in fact direct the content of university discourse toward or away from particular subjects or points of view. Instead, as noted above, petitioner claims that the “quality of instruction and scholarship [will] decline” as a result of the burden EEOC subpoenas place on the peer review process. Also, the cases upon which petitioner places emphasis involved direct infringements on the asserted right to “determine for itself on academic grounds who may teach.” In Keyishian, for example, government was attempting to substitute its teaching employment criteria for those already in place at the academic institutions, directly and completely usurping the discretion of each institution. In contrast, the EEOC subpoena at issue here effects no such usurpation. The Commission is not providing criteria that petitioner must use in selecting teachers. Nor is it preventing the University from using any criteria it may wish to use, except those — including race, sex, and national origin — that are proscribed under Title VII. In keeping with Title VIPs preservation of employers’ remaining freedom of choice, see Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U. S. 228 (1989) (plurality opinion), courts have stressed the importance of avoiding second-guessing of legitimate academic judgments. This Court itself has cautioned that “judges . . . a§ked to review the substance of a genuinely academic decision . . . should show great respect for the faculty’s professional judgment.” Regents of University of Michigan v. Ewing, 474 U. S. 214, 225 (1985). Nothing we say today should be understood as a retreat from this principle of respect for legitimate academic decisionmaking. That the burden of which the University complains is neither content based nor direct does not necessarily mean that petitioner has no valid First Amendment claim. Rather, it means only that petitioner’s claim does not fit neatly within any right of academic freedom that could be derived from the cases on which petitioner relies. In essence, petitioner asks us to recognize an expanded right of academic freedom to protect confidential peer review materials from disclosure. Although we are sensitive to the effects that content-neutral government action may have on speech, see, e. g., Heffron v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., 452 U. S. 640, 647-648 (1981), and believe that burdens that are less than direct may sometimes pose First Amendment concerns, see, e. g., NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U. S. 449 (1958), we think the First Amendment cannot be extended to embrace petitioner’s claim. First, by comparison with the cases in which we have found a cognizable First Amendment claim, the infringement the University complains of is extremely attenuated. To repeat, it argues that the First Amendment is infringed by disclosure of peer review materials because disclosure undermines the confidentiality which is Central to the peer review process, and this in turn is central to the tenure process, which in turn is the means by which petitioner seeks to exercise its asserted academic-freedom right of choosing who will teach. To verbalize the claim is to recognize how distant the burden is from the asserted right. Indeed, if the University’s attenuated claim were accepted, many other generally applicable laws might also be said to infringe the First Amendment. In effect, petitioner says no more than that disclosure of peer review materials makes it more difficult to acquire information regarding the “academic grounds” on which petitioner wishes to base its tenure decisions. But many laws make the exercise of First Amendment rights more difficult. For example, a university cannot claim a First Amendment violation simply because it may be subject to taxation or other government regulation, even though such regulation might deprive the university of revenue it needs to bid for professors who are contemplating working for other academic institutions or in industry. We doubt that the peer review process is any more essential in effectuating the right to determine “who may teach” than is the availability of money. Cf. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 19 (1976) (discussing how money is sometimes necessary to effectuate First Amendment rights). In addition to being remote and attenuated, the injury to academic freedom claimed by petitioner is also speculative. As the EEOC points out, confidentiality is not the norm in all peer review systems. See, e. g., G. Bednash, The Relationship Between Access and Selectivity in Tenure Review Outcomes (1989) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland). Moreover, some disclosure of peer evaluations would take place even if petitioner’s “special necessity” test were adopted. Thus, the “chilling effect” petitioner fears is at most only incrementally worsened by the absence of a privilege. Finally, we are not so ready as petitioner seems to be to assume the worst about those in the academic community. Although it is possible that some evaluators may become less candid as the possibility of disclosure increases, others may simply ground their evaluations in specific exam-pies and illustrations in order to deflect potential claims of bias or unfairness. Not all academics will hesitate to stand up and be counted when they evaluate their peers. The case we decide today in many respects is similar to Bmnzburg v. Hayes, 408 U. S. 665 (1972). In Bmnzburg, the Court rejected the notion that under the First Amendment a reporter could not be required to appear or to testify as to information obtained in confidence without a special showing that the reporter’s testimony was necessary. Petitioners there, like petitioner here, claimed that requiring disclosure of information collected in confidence would inhibit the free flow of information in contravention of First Amendment principles. In the course of rejecting the First Amendment argument, this Court noted that “the First Amendment does not invalidate every incidental burdening of the press that may result from the enforcement of civil or criminal statutes of general applicability.” Id., at 682. We also indicated a reluctance to recognize a constitutional privilege where it was “unclear how often and to what extent informers are actually deterred from furnishing information when newsmen are forced to testify before a grand jury.” Id., at 693. See also Herbert v. Lando, 441 U. S. 153, 174 (1979). We were unwilling then, as we are today, “to embark the judiciary on a long and difficult journey to ... an uncertain destination.” 408 U. S., at 703. Because we conclude that the EEOC subpoena process does not infringe any First Amendment right enjoyed by petitioner, the EEOC need not demonstrate any special justification to sustain the constitutionality of Title VII as applied to tenure peer review materials in general or to the subpoena involved in this case. Accordingly, we need not address the Commission’s alternative argument that any infringement of petitioner’s First Amendment rights is permissible because of the substantial relation between the Commission’s request and the overriding and compelling state interest in eradicating invidious discrimination. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. It is so ordered. Three days before the stated 20-day period expired, petitioner brought suit against the EEOC in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and an order quashing the subpoena. App. 4. The Pennsylvania District Court declined to follow its controlling court’s announced “first-filed” rule, which counsels the stay or dismissal of an action that is duplicative of a previously filed suit in another federal court. See Crosley Corp. v. Hazeltine Corp., 122 F. 2d 925, 929 (CA3 1941), cert. denied, 315 U. S. 813 (1942); Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinea v. Insurance Co. of North America, 651 F. 2d 877, 887, n. 10 (CA3 1981), cert. denied sub nom. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinea v. Insurance Corp. of Ireland, Ltd., 457 U. S. 1105 (1982). This declination, however, was upheld by the Third Circuit. See 850 F. 2d 969, 972 (1988). Since the applicability of the “first-filed” rule to the facts of this case is not a question on which we granted certiorari, we do not address it. The Court of Appeals did not rule on the question whether the Commission’s subpoena permits petitioner to engage in any redaction of the disputed records before producing them, because the District Court had not fully considered that issue. The Third Circuit therefore ordered that the case be remanded for further consideration of possible redaction. See id., at 982. See, e. g., 118 Cong. Rec. 311 (1972) (remarks of Sen. Ervin); id., at 946 (remarks of Sen. Allen); id., at 4919 (remarks of Sen. Ervin). Similarly, the charging party may bring an action after it obtains a “right-to-sue” letter from the Commission. §2000e-5(f)(l). The prohibition on Commission disclosure does not apply, for example, to the charging party. See EEOC v. Associated Dry Goods Corp., 449 U. S. 590, 598-604 (1981). Obvious First Amendment problems would arise where government attempts to direct the content of speech at private universities. Such content-based regulation of private speech traditionally has carried with it a heavy burden of justification. See, e. g., Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U. S. 92, 95, 98-99 (1972). Where, as was the situation in the academic-freedom cases, government attempts to direct the content of speech at public educational institutions, complicated First Amendment issues are presented because government is simultaneously both speaker and regulator. Cf. Meese v. Keene, 481 U. S. 465, 484, n. 18 (1987) (citing Block v. Meese, 253 U. S. App. D. C. 317, 327-328, 793 F. 2d 1303, 1313-1314 (1986)). See generally, M. Yudof, When Government Speaks (1983). Petitioner does not argue in this case that race, sex, and national origin constitute “academic grounds” for the purposes of its claimed First Amendment right to academic freedom. Cf. Regents of University of California v. Bakke, 438 U. S. 265, 312-313 (1978) (opinion of Powell, J.). In Bmnzburg we recognized that the bad-faith exercise of grand jury powers might raise First Amendment concerns. 408 U. S., at 707. The same is true of EEOC subpoena powers. See EEOC v. Shell Oil Co., 466 U. S. 64, 72, n. 26 (1984). There is no allegation or indication of any such abuse by the Commission in this case. We also do not consider the question, not passed upon by the Court of Appeals, whether the District Court’s enforcement of the Commission’s subpoena will allow petitioner to redact information from the contested materials before disclosing them. See n. 2, supra. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

C

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr. Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the Court. The question in this case is whether § 117 (q) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, a 1956 amendment to the Code which effected retroactive changes in the tax treatment of transfers of patent rights, gives rise to a claim for refund barred by the statute of limitations generally applicable to tax refund claims. In 1952, Mrs. Zacks received royalties of about $37,000 on patents all substantial rights under which she had transferred by way of an exclusive license to a manufacturing corporation. In accordance with the then prevailing rulings of the Commissioner, the royalties were reported as ordinary income in the 1952 joint federal income tax return filed by Mrs. Zacks and her husband in 1953. The last payment of the taxes due was made in 1953. Under the statute of limitations governing a claim for refund of such taxes, the claim was barred in 1956. § 322 (b)(1), Internal Revenue Code of 1939, 26 U. S. C. (1952 ed.) § 322 (b)(1), 53 Stat. 91. By Act of June 29, 1956, 70 Stat. 404, Congress amended the provisions of the 1939 Code governing the taxability of amounts received in consideration for the transfer of patent rights. The amendment, made applicable to tax years beginning after May 31, 1950, provided that in the circumstances present here such amounts should be taxed as capital gains rather than as ordinary income. In reliance on this amendment, the taxpayers, on June 23, 1958, filed a claim for a pro tanto refund of their 1952 income taxes. No action having been taken on the claim, they then commenced a refund suit in the Court of Claims. The United States asserted as a defense that the suit was barred by limitations under § 7422 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U. S. C. § 7422 (a), 68A Stat. 876. The Court of Claims granted the taxpayers’ motion to strike this defense, 150 Ct. Cl. 814, 280 F. 2d 829, and, other issues in the case being settled by stipulation, entered judgment for the taxpayers. Because of the recurring importance of the problem in the administration of the tax laws and a conflict between the decision below and those of some of the Courts of Appeals, we granted certiorari. 371 U. S. 961. For reasons given hereafter, we hold that the taxpayers’ claim was barred by limitations and, accordingly, reverse the judgment below. Section 117 (q) here in question provides in pertinent part: “(q) Transfer of Patent Rights.— “(1) General Rule. — A transfer (other than by gift, inheritance, or devise) of property consisting of all substantial rights to a patent, or an undivided interest therein which includes a part of all such rights, by any holder shall be considered the sale or exchange of a capital asset held for more than 6 months, regardless of whether or not payments in consideration of such transfer are— “(A) payable periodically over a period generally coterminous with the transferee’s use of the patent, or “(B) contingent on the productivity, use, or disposition of the property transferred. “(4) Applicability. — This subsection shall apply with respect to any amount received, or payment made, pursuant to a transfer described in paragraph (1) in any taxable year beginning after May 31,1950, regardless of the taxable year in which such transfer occurred.” Since our sole concern is the intent of Congress in adding this section -to the Code, it is necessary to look to the administrative and legislative background of the enactment. In 1946, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue announced his acquiescence in Edward C. Myers, 6 T. C. 258, in which the Tax Court held, as to a so-called “amateur” inventor, that the transfer by exclusive license of all substantial rights under a patent was a sale or exchange of a capital asset, notwithstanding that the consideration for the license was royalties based on a percentage of the selling price of articles sold under the patent, and paid annually. 1946-1 Cum. Bull. 3. On March 20, 1950, the Commissioner reversed his position and announced the withdrawal of his acquiescence in Myers, stating that royalties measured or paid as in that case would be taxed as ordinary income. Mim. 6490, 1950-1 Cum. Bull. 9. The new ruling was declared applicable to tax years beginning after May 31, 1950. In the years following 1950, the Commissioner adhered to his new position, despite its rejection by several courts. The issue was settled for the future in 1954 by the enactment of § 1235 of the 1954 Code, 26 U. S. C. § 1235, 68A Stat. 329. Section 1235, applicable only prospectively, contains provisions identical in relevant part to those quoted above from § 117 (q) . Thus, prior to May 31,1950, with exceptions noted hereafter, and again from the beginning of 1954, the law has been that for which the taxpayers contend in their refund suit. In 1955, the Commissioner issued a further ruling declaring that he would adhere to his 1950 ruling for tax years beginning after May 31, 1950, and prior to 1954. Rev. Rule 55-58, 1955-1 Cum. Bull. 97. As a result, the Commissioner’s position was that during the period from May 31, 1950 to 1954 there was a gap in the consistent application of the law as administratively and judicially established in 1946. It is evident that Congress intended to fill this gap when it enacted § 117 (q) in 1956. But we are not able to say that Congress intended thereby to reopen for retroactive adjustment tax years with respect to which refund claims were already barred by limitations. Section 117 (q) does not in terms waive the application of the statute of limitations to refund claims then finally barred. On its face, § 117 (q) does no more than overrule the Commissioner’s position on a matter of substantive law respecting the years 1950-1954. Nor is there anything in the legislative history which suggests that such a waiver is to be implied. On the contrary, such indications as there are suggest that Congress intended only to terminate litigation then pending. Representative Cooper, then Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, stated on the floor of the House: “The relief provided by section 1235 [of the 1954 Code] is available only with respect to amounts received in any taxable year to which the 1954 Code applies. As the result of this and the announced policy of the Internal Revenue Service to continue its insistence on its position for years beginning after May 31, 1950, and prior to effective date of the 1954 Code taxpayers are still confronted with litigation for taxable years falling in this period in order to secure the rights to which the courts, with practical unanimity, have held they are entitled. “H. R. 6143 [the original version of § 117 (q)] eliminates the necessity for such litigation by making the provisions of the 1954 Code available to years beginning after May 31, 1950.” 101 Cong. Rec. 12708 (Aug. 1, 1955). There are other indications that Congress had only this limited intention. It is abundantly clear that Congress is aware of the limitations problem as it affects retroactive tax legislation. On numerous occasions, Congress has included an express provision reopening barred tax years. We need refer here to only a few examples. Section 14 of the Technical Amendments Act of 1958, 26 U. S. C. § 172 (f)(3), (4), (g)(3), 72 Stat. 1606, 1611, provided rules for computing net operating loss deductions for tax years starting in 1953 and extending into 1954 and short tax years wholly within 1954. Subsection (c), added to the House bill by the Senate, provided expressly for a six-month period during which barred claims could be made. The addition was explained in the Senate report as follows: “Your committee did amend the House provision, however, in one respect because 3 years have now elapsed since 1954 and many of the transitional years with which this provision is concerned are now closed years. To prevent relief from being denied in such cases, your committee amends this provision to provide that if a refund or credit with respect to this provision is prevented on the date of enactment of this bill or within 6 months after that time by the operation of any law or rule of law (except closing agreements or compromises) refund or credit, nevertheless, is to be allowed if the claim is filed within 6 months of the date of enactment of this bill.” S. Rep. No. 1983, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. 24. Again, by Act of August 9, 1955, 69 Stat. 607, Congress provided a one-year grace period for filing otherwise barred claims based on § 345 of the Revenue Act of 1951, 65 Stat. 452, 517, a retroactive relief measure affecting trust income accumulated for members of the Armed Services dying in active service on or after December 7, 1941, and before January 1, 1948. The House report on the bill stated: “No relief was provided in the 1961 act, however, for cases where refunds or credits were barred by the expiration of the period of limitations, by prior court decisions, or for other similar reasons. Your committee is of the opinion that this failure was an oversight, and it believes that it is only equitable to extend treatment equivalent to that provided in section 345 of the Revenue Act of 1951 to cases where refunds or credits were barred by operation of law or rule of law (other than closing agreements or compromises).” H. R. Rep. No. 1438, 84th Cong., 1st Sess. l-2. The most striking evidence of this sort, however, which we think is all but conclusive, is found in § 2 of the very Act here in dispute. That section, retroactively modifying § 106 of the 1939 Code, affected the taxation of payments received by a taxpayer from the United States with respect to a claim arising out of a construction contract for the Armed Services. Subsection (b) deals with the limitations problem as follows: “(b) The amendment made by this section shall apply with respect to taxable years ending after December 31, 1948, notwithstanding the operation of any law or rule of law (other than section 3760 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 or section 712). of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, relating to closing agreements, and other than section 3761 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 or section 7122 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, relating to compromises). Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, no claim for credit or refund of any overpayment resulting from the amendment made by this section shall be allowed or made after the period of limitation applicable to such overpayment, except that such period shall not expire before the expiration of one year after the date of the enactment of this Act.” 70 Stat. 405. Section 2 went to the Conference Committee without such a provision. The Committee added the provision but made no comparable addition to § 1, with which we are concerned, or for that matter to § 3, which also made retroactive changes in the 1939 Code. It is plain, therefore, that the Congress had the limitations problem in mind at the very time that § 117 (q) was enacted. The taxpayers offer no justification for disregarding the difference in this respect between §§ 1 and 2, disrespect for which would render the carefully drawn limitations provisions of the latter section surplusage. Both the taxpayers and the Government rely on United States v. Borden Co., 308 U. S. 188, 198, where this Court said: “It is a cardinal principle of construction that repeals by implication are not favored. When there are two acts upon the same subject, the rule is to give effect to both if possible.” The correctness of this statement is not to be doubted. But the paucity of its assistance here is illustrated by the fact that both parties rely on it. The taxpayers place the second sentence in italics, and urge that § 117 (q) and the general statute of limitations are both given effect if the limitations period is made to run from the date of enactment of § 117 (q). The Government presses the first sentence, and urges that the taxpayers’ position, in effect, repeals the statute of limitations pro tanto. There are difficulties with both of these analyses. Obviously, neither of them does more than cast a conclusion in terms of the general rules isolated from the particular circumstances of this case. Nor can the doctrine that remedial legislation is entitled to liberal construction, upon which the taxpayers also rely, be stretched to expand the reach of a statute of such evident limited purpose as this one. A more difficult question is presented by the fact that § 117 (q) goes beyond the problem created by the Commissioner’s vacillation affecting tax years between 1946 and 1954. By treating royalty payments as capital gains without regard to whether the patent rights transferred were capital assets, § 117 (q) made the favorable treatment available to professional as well as amateur inventors. In addition, all royalties are treated as long-term capital gains whether or not the rights transferred had been held for the requisite period. These provisions made clear changes in the law as it was in 1950 and subsequent years up to 1954. Insofar as they are applicable to years for which most claims for refund were barred in 1956, the Government’s position renders the provisions without effect. It is, of course, our duty to give effect to all portions of a statute if that is possible. E. g., United States v. Menasche, 348 U. S. 528, 538-539. But this general principle is meant to guide the courts in furthering the intent of the legislature, not overriding it. When rigid adherence to the general rule would require disregard of clear indications to the contrary, the rule must yield. Two considerations compel that result here. First, not only the administrative and legislative history of § 117 (q), discussed above, but also the selection of May 31, 1950, as the operative date leave no doubt that Congress was primarily concerned to settle the large volume of pending litigation arising out of the Commissioner’s 1950 position, reaffirmed in 1955. The date selected has no relevance either to the status of professional inventors or to the period for which patent rights must be held. Second, there is a ready explanation for the inclusion of the additional provisions. With irrelevant exceptions, § 117 (q) tracks the language of § 1235 of the 1954 Code. Pp. 61-62 and note 6, supra. It was wholly natural for Congress to deal with the pre-1954 period by adopting the language of the 1954 Code on the same subject. The House report on the bill leaves no doubt that this is what actually occurred. H. R. Rep. No. 1607, 84th Cong., 1st Sess. 1-2. It is a fair inference that but for the Commissioner’s obduracy respecting amateur inventors, § 117 (q) would not have been conceived. There is nothing to indicate that for some other reason Congress in 1956 had second thoughts about its failure in 1954 to make these identical provisions of § 1235 retroactive. To give the provisions in question the controlling weight that is claimed for them on the issue before us, would allow the tail to wag the dog. Of course, all of the amendatory provisions of§117(q) are fully effective with respect to years and claims not barred. Finally, the taxpayers suggest that unless the statute of limitations is deemed waived, a premium is placed on taxpayer opposition to administrative rulings, since only those taxpayers who contested the Commissioner’s position will now be able to claim a refund. But in view of the doubt surrounding the rulings involved in this case, emphasized by the cases overruling the Commissioner, this argument has less force than it might in another context. In any event, this problem always attends retroactive legislation of this sort, and acceptance of the taxpayers’ argument would lead to the automatic waiver of the statute of limitations in every case. Whether or not this should be done is a matter for Congress to decide. Where Congress has decided otherwise, this Court has but one course. Reversed. Mr. Justice Black agrees with the Court of Claims and would affirm its judgment. Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. Section 322 (b)(1) provides: “Unless a claim for credit or refund is filed by the taxpayer within three years from the time the return was filed by the taxpayer or within two years from the time the tax was paid, no credit or refund shall be allowed or made after the expiration of whichever of such periods expires the later. If no return is filed by the taxpayer, then no credit or refund shall be allowed or made after two years from the time the tax was paid, unless before the expiration of such period a claim therefor is filed by the taxpayer.” Similar provisions are contained in §6511 (a), (b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U. S. C. § 6511 (a), (b), 68A Stat. 808. Section 7422 (a) provides: “No suit or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any internal revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or of any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority, or of any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected, until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed with the Secretary or his delegate, according to the provisions of law in that regard, and the regulations of the Secretary or his delegate established in pursuance thereof.” Compare United States v. Dempster, 265 F. 2d 666 (C. A. 6th Cir.), and Tobin v. United States, 264 F. 2d 845 (C. A. 5th Cir.), with the decision in this case and Hollander v. United States, 248 F. 2d 247 (C. A. 2d Cir.), involving a. similar problem. One not engaged i'n holding patent rights “ 'primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of his trade or business,’ ” 6 T. C. 266, as distinguished from a “professional” inventor who is so engaged. See Kronner v. United States, 126 Ct. Cl. 156, 110 F. Supp. 730; Allen v. Werner, 190 F. 2d 840 (C. A. 5th Cir.). The Commissioner’s position was sustained by the Second Circuit in Bloch v. United States, 200 F. 2d 63. Prior to 1946, several courts had taken the same position. Commissioner v. Celanese Corp., 78 U. S. App. D. C. 292, 140 F. 2d 339; Commissioner v. Hopkinson, 126 F. 2d 406 (C. A. 2d Cir.). The relevant portions of § 1235 are: “A transfer (other than by gift, inheritance, or devise) of property consisting of all substantial rights to a patent, or an undivided interest therein which includes a part of all such rights, by any holder shall be considered the sale or exchange of a capital asset held for more than 6 months, regardless of whether or not payments in consideration of such transfer are— “(1) payable periodically over a period generally coterminous with the transferee’s use of the patent, or “(2) contingent on the productivity, use, or disposition of the property transferred.” Section 1235 of the 1954 Code, and § 117 (q) of the 1939 Code which follows § 1235, made changes in the prior law with respect to the status of professional inventors and the “holding period” for both amateur and professional inventors. See pp. 67-69, infra. For other examples of retroactive tax measures in which express provision was made for the limitations problem, see Technical Amendments Act of 1958, §§92, 93, 100, 72 Stat. 1606, 1667, 1668, 1673; Act of September 14, 1960, § 5, 74 Stat. 1010, 1013; Revenue Act of 1962, §§ 26, 27, 76 Stat. 960, 1067. For examples of such measures in which no provision was made to extend the period of limitations, see Act of February 11, 1958, 72 Stat. 3; Act of February 11, 1958, 72 Stat. 4; Technical Amendments Act of 1958, § 103, 72 Stat. 1606, 1675; Revenue Act of 1962, §30, 76 Stat. 960, 1069. Contrary to fears seemingly entertained by one of the amici in this case, we do not suggest that congressional practice in this regard gives rise to a presumption that where Congress has not provided expressly for a special limitations period in a retroactive tax statute, the relevant general statute of limitations was intended to apply. The significance of such congressional silence is to be judged on a case-by-case basis, as with all questions of statutory construction. Such rights would not be capital assets if the patents were held for sale in the ordinary course of business. Internal Revenue Code of 1954, § 1221, 26 U. S. C. § 1221, 68A Stat. 321. The taxpayers make much of the asserted fact that Mrs. Zacks was a professional inventor, reasoning therefrom that, as to her at least, § 117 (q) clearly established a new right. Cf. Lorenz v. United States,-Ct. Cl.-, 296 F. 2d 746. The Court of Claims made no finding as to whether Mrs. Zacks was an amateur or professional inventor. Whatever may be the validity and significance in other contexts of the distinction between creation of new rights and clarification of existing rights, we think that distinction is not controlling here, since Congress has evidenced its intent more directly. The existence of a substantial amount of such litigation is not questioned in this case. Some of it has been collected at pages 35-36 of the Government’s brief. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

L

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr. Justice Douglas delivered the opinion of the Court. The Independent Offices Appropriation Act, 1952, Tit. 5, 65 Stat. 290, 31 U. S. C. § 483a, provides in relevant part: “It is the sense of the Congress that any work, service .. . benefit, . . . license, ... or similar thing of value or utility performed, furnished, provided, granted ... by any Federal agency ... to or for any person (including . . . corporations ...)... shall be self-sustaining to the full extent possible, and the head of each Federal agency is authorized by regulation ... to prescribe therefor . . . such fee, charge, or price, if any, as he shall determine ... to be fair and equitable taking into consideration direct and indirect cost to the Government, value to the recipient, public policy or interest served, and other pertinent facts . ...” Petitioner is a trade association representing community antenna television (CATV) systems which transmit TV programs by cable. The Federal Communications Commission is authorized to regulate these CATV outlets, as the Court held in United States v. Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U. S. 157. The power to regulate, though not in the form of granting licenses, extends to the promulgation of regulations requiring the compulsory origination of programs by CATV. United States v. Midwest Video Corp., 406 U. S. 649. These CATV’s, however, are not under the exclusive oversight of the Commission. Local governments and even some States provide permits or franchises to CATV’s, including rights of way for the cables used. Some communities in return for their permits require the CATV to pay an annual percentage fee as a gross receipts tax. The Commission in 1964 established only nominal filing fees that produced revenues which approximated 25% of the Commission’s annual appropriation. See 21 F. C. C. 2d 502, 503. See also Aeronautical Radio, Inc. v. United States, 335 F. 2d 304. The Bureau of the Budget urged higher fee schedules; and so did the committees of the Congress. See H. R. Rep. No. 91-316, pp. 7-8, and H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 91-649, p. 6, where it was stated: “The committee of conference is agreed that the fee structure for the Commission should be adjusted to fully support all its activities so the taxpayers will not be required to bear any part of the load in view of the profits regulated by this agency.” The Commission, after notice and hearing, revised existing fees for licensees and for the first time imposed fees upon CATV's. It first estimated its direct and indirect costs for CATV regulation which were $1,145,400 or 4.6% of its total budget request for that year. Filing fees were retained; and there was added an annual fee for each cable television system at the rate of 30 cents for each subscriber. The Commission, finding that subscription rates clustered at about $5 a month, concluded that the 30-cent fee would typically amount to only about one-half of 1% of a CATV system’s gross revenues from subscription. The fees would produce, it said, $1,145,000 annually, and it concluded that the 30-cent fee would approximate the “value to the recipient” used in the Act, 23 F. C. C. 2d 880; 28 F. C. C. 2d 139. Petitioner obtained review of the decision in the Court of Appeals, which approved the Commission’s action, 464 F. 2d 1313. The case is here on a petition for certiorari which we granted, 411 U. S. 981, because of an apparent conflict between the decision in this case and the decision in New England Power Co. v. FPC, 151 U. S. App. D. C. 371, 467 F. 2d 425, of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Taxation is a legislative function, and Congress, which is the sole organ for levying taxes, may act arbitrarily and disregard benefits bestowed by the Government on a taxpayer and go solely on ability to pay, based on property or income. A fee, however, is incident to a voluntary act, e. g., a request that a public agency permit an applicant to practice law or medicine or construct a house or run a broadcast station. The public agency performing those services normally may exact a fee for a grant which, presumably, bestows a benefit on the applicant, not shared by other members of society. It would be such a sharp break with our traditions to conclude that Congress had bestowed on a federal agency the taxing power that we read 31 U. S. C. § 483a narrowly as authorizing not a “tax” but a “fee.” A “fee” connotes a “benefit” and the Act by its use of the standard “value to the recipient” carries that connotation. The addition of “public policy or interest served, and other pertinent facts,” ij read literally, carries an agency far from its customary orbit and puts it in search of revenue in the manner of an Appropriations Committee of the House. The lawmaker may, in light of the “public policy or interest served,” make the assessment heavy if the lawmaker wants to discourage the activity; or it may make the levy slight if a bounty is to be bestowed; or the lawmaker may make a substantial levy to keep entrepreneurs from exploiting a semipublic cause for their own personal aggrandizement. Such assessments are in the nature of “taxes” which under our constitutional regime are traditionally levied by Congress. There is no doubt that the main function of the Commission is to safeguard the public interest in the broadcasting activities of members of the industry. If assessments are made by the Commission against members of the industry which are sufficient to recoup costs to the Commission for its oversight, the CATV's and other broadcasters would be paying not only for benefits they received but for the protective services rendered the public by the Commission. The fixing of such assessments, it is argued, is the levying of taxes. The Court, speaking through Mr. Chief Justice Hughes said in Schechter Corp. v. United States, 295 U. S. 495, 529: “The Constitution provides that 'All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives/ Art. I, § 1. And the Congress is authorized 'To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution' its general powers. Art. I, § 8, par. 18. The Congress is not permitted to abdicate or to transfer to others the essential legislative functions with which it is thus vested.” Congress, of course, does delegate powers to agencies, setting standards to guide their determination. Thus, in Hampton & Co. v. United States, 276 U. S. 394, Congress enacted a flexible tariff law which authorized the imposition of customs duties on articles imported which equaled the difference between the cost of producing them in a foreign country and of selling them here and the cost of producing and selling like or similar articles in the United States. Provision was made for the investigation and determination of these differences by the Tariff Commission which reported to the President who increased or decreased the duty accordingly. The Court in sustaining that system said: “If Congress shall lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to fix such rates is directed to conform, such legislative action is not a forbidden delegation of legislative power.” Id., at 409. Whether the present Act meets the requirement of Schechter and Hampton is a question we do not reach. But the hurdles revealed in those decisions lead us to read the Act narrowly to avoid constitutional problems. The phrase “value to the recipient” is, we believe, the measure of the authorized fee. The words “public policy or interest served, and other pertinent facts” would not seem relevant to the present case, whatever may be their ultimate reach. The backbone of CATV is individual enterprise and ingenuity, not governmental largesse. The regulatory regime placed by Congress and the courts over CATV was not designed to make entrepreneurs rich but to serve the public interest by “mak[ing] available ... to all the people of the United States a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communications service.” 48 Stat. 1064, as amended, 47 U. S. C. § 151. While those who operate CATV's may receive special benefits, we cannot be sure that the Commission used the correct standard in setting the fee. It is not enough to figure the total cost (direct and indirect) to the Commission for operating a CATV unit of supervision and then to contrive a formula that reimburses the Commission for that amount. Certainly some of the costs inured to the benefit of the public, unless the entire regulatory scheme is a failure, which we refuse to assume. The philosophy of § 483a was stated by Congressman Sidney Yates of the House Committee on Appropriations. While he spoke of TV and radio broadcasters, what he said is germane to the CATV problem: “I think it is only fair that in exchange for the franchise that the Government gives the broadcasting company and the protection which the Government affords to such broadcasting company to assure its freedom from interference in the operation of its broadcasting facilities in the particular point of the spectrum which it occupies, ... it should pay some of the costs of the hearings. It is perfectly proper that the franchised company make a profit, and there has been much profit making. Such companies should assume a greater share of the costs, because regulation is necesary.” 97 Cong. Rec. 4809. That congressional aim can be achieved within the framework of “value to the recipient” as contrasted to the public policy or interest that is also served. The result is that we reverse the Court of Appeals so that the case can be remanded to the Federal Communications Commission for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Reversed and remanded. Mr. Justice Blackmun and Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the decision of this case. [For dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Marshall, see post, p. 352.] The Committee Report, H. R. Rep. No. 384, 82d Cong, 1st Sess., 2-3, makes the following comment on this measure: “The Committee is concerned that the Government is not receiving full return from many of the services which it renders to special beneficiaries. Many fees for such services are specifically fixed by law, and in some cases, it is specifically provided that no fees shall be charged. In other cases, however, no fees are charged even though the charging of fees is not prohibited; and in still others, fees are charged upon the basis of formulae prescribed in law, but the application of the formulae needs to be re-examined to bring the actual charges into line with present-day costs and other related considerations. “It is understood that other committees of the Congress have interested themselves in this matter and that studies now are under way which may result in further legislation to require that adequate consideration be received for such services. However, such studies are necessarily time-consuming and the required legislation may not be enacted for a considerable period. Accordingly, the Committee has inserted language in the bill (Title V, page 60) which would authorize and encourage the charging or increasing of fees to the extent permitted under present basic laws, but which would in no way conflict with studies now under way to effect changes in such basic laws. “It is estimated that in 1952 the Government will receive more than $300,000,000 in fees from sources of the type here under consideration. It seems entirely possible that many of these fees could be raised, and that fees could be charged for other services of similar types in cases where no charge is now made, to the extent that the Government might realize upwards of $50,000,000 additional revenue. “The bill would provide authority for Government agencies to make charges for these services in cases where no charge is made at present, and to revise charges where present charges are too low, except in cases where the charge is specifically fixed by law or the law specifically provides that no charge shall be made. It is not the Committee’s intention in including this provision to disturb existing practices with respect to charges for postal services, sales of power, or the interest on loans by the Government.” The most recent CATV rules adopted by the Commission (37 Fed. Reg. 3280) require a CATV to receive a certificate of compliance from the Commission, 47 CFR §76.11 (b), and require it to obtain from the appropriate local government authority a certificate containing prescribed recitations and provisions. 47 CFR § 76.31. The new rules also limit the franchise fees that may be imposed on CATV’s by the localities where they operate. 47 CFR § 76.31. Included in the new rules are restrictions on telephone companies on whose poles the CATV cable is usually strung. See 47 CFR §§ 63.54-63.57, 64.601-64.602. And see General Telephone Co. v. United States, 449 F. 2d 846, 851; Report of Jan. 14, 1974, Cabinet Committee on Cable Communications (known as the Whitehead Report). By Art. I, § 8, cl. 1, of the Constitution it is the Congress that has the “Power to lay and collect Taxes.” Mr. Chief Justice Marshall is credited with the statement that “the power to tax is the power to destroy,” to which Mr. Justice Holmes replied, “The power to tax is not the power to destroy while this Court sits.” Panhandle Oil Co. v. Knox, 277 U. S. 218, 223 (dissenting 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:

I

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Per Curiam. Respondent John Fulford was found guilty of murder by a Louisiana jury in 1972. His conviction was affirmed on appeal to the Louisiana Supreme Court, State v. Nix, 327 So. 2d 301 (1975), and, after exhausting state postconviction remedies, he sought federal habeas corpus relief. The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana denied relief, App. to Pet. for Cert. A-21, but the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that “we cannot, with the certitude befitting a federal court, affirm that Fulford possessed the mental competency to participate meaningfully in his trial.” 692 F. 2d 354, 361 (1982) (footnote omitted). We grant the motion of respondent for leave to proceed informa pauperis and the petition for cer-tiorari, and reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals. The bone of contention in this case was respondent’s competency to stand trial more than 11 years ago. On the morning of trial respondent’s counsel moved to appoint a commission to inquire into respondent’s competency to stand trial. At the same time counsel moved for a severance. Neither counsel nor respondent had previously broached the question of competency, and nothing appears in the record which suggests that respondent had a history of mental or emotional difficulties. The sole evidence submitted in support of respondent’s motion for appointment of a competency commission was the testimony of one Dr. McCray, a local psychiatrist. Until the morning immediately preceding trial, McCray had never seen, nor, so far as the record reveals, heard of, respondent. Based upon a prison cell interview of approximately one hour the day before trial, McCray testified in the following fashion, as summarized by the Court of Appeals: “Dr. McCray noted that an evaluation usually requires several sessions as well as a supporting evaluation from a clinical psychologist. Finding Fulford to be well oriented to time, place and person, Dr. McCray nevertheless testified that Fulford had paranoid delusions which rendered him incompetent to stand trial. Specifically, Fulford had told Dr. McCray that he was withholding the names of alibi witnesses who could prove his innocence for fear that they would be arrested and prevented from testifying in his behalf.” Id., at 360. While the Court of Appeals was less explicit than it might have been on the issue, we think a fair reading of its opinion indicates that it concluded under 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(8) that the state court’s determination that respondent was competent to stand trial was not “fairly supported by the record.” See 692 F. 2d, at 360-361; Sumner v. Mata, 449 U. S. 539 (1981). We believe that, in reaching this conclusion, the Court of Appeals erroneously substituted its own judgment as to the credibility of witnesses for that of the Louisiana courts — a prerogative which 28 U. S. C. §2254 does not allow it. Marshall v. Lonberger, 459 U. S. 422 (1983). The Louisiana trial judge explained his refusal to order a competency hearing in two per curiam opinions, which contained the following factual findings relevant to his decision. First, the trial judge was convinced that respondent was “oriented as to time, date and place and was cognizant of everything around him.” 692 F. 2d, at 360. The judge further noted that Fulford’s conduct during and after the trial “thoroughly convinced” him that respondent was competent and able to assist in his defense. The trial judge did not “deem it necessary to fill in all the other matters that appeared throughout the trial and all of the post-trial motions that have been filed because the record will adequately represent this fact.” 4 Record 953. As set out in the margin, there is substantial support for the trial judge’s statement. Third, the trial judge concluded that the only basis advanced by McCray -for his tentative conclusion that respondent suffered from paranoid delusions — respondent’s failure to inform his lawyers of the identities of two alibi witnesses — was unfounded. These two witnesses testified in respondent’s behalf less than a week after Fulford convinced McCray that he was withholding the identities of his alibi witnesses. As the Louisiana Supreme Court observed, “it is clear that Mr. Fulford did not withhold the names of his witnesses, and was able to assist his counsel in the preparation and conduct of his defense.” 327 So. 2d, at 324. Most importantly for our purposes, the trial judge concluded that respondent’s surprise, llth-hour motion for appointment of a competency commission “was just a subterfuge on the part of this defendant to attempt to keep from going to trial so that he would be tried at a different time from the other defendants.” Ibid. The trial judge explained: “During the course of the jury selection in this matter, for the two days that it took to select this jury, this Court noted that every time either counsel for defendants would approach defendant Fulford to converse with him concerning the jury selection, defendant Fulford would turn his head in the other direction. I got the distinct impression from what was going on that Mr. Fulford was attempting to play a game with the Court in order to try to get his case severed from the other defendants. I further gathered from the legal maneuverings that there was an attempt to sever Fulford from the other two defendants so that some additional legal maneuvering might be made at some later time. I might further add, that contrary to what the doctor testified at the hearing to determine whether Mr. Fulford was unable to assist counsel in his defense, that the alleged eye witnesses, which Mr. Fulford stated would prove his innocence, were called and did testify as to his alleged alibi. Throughout the entire trial Mr. Fulford was accorded a complete and full defense and I saw nothing from the beginning of the trial to the end that in any way detracted from any of Mr. Fulford’s rights. I hesitate to state but I do feel that this was a plan designed by Mr. Fulford to try to disrupt his trial and to prevent him from being tried with his co-defendants.” 5 Record 1024-1025. Based upon these observations, the trial judge concluded that there was insufficient likelihood that respondent was incompetent to warrant appointment of a commission. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed, relying on the arguments advanced by the trial judge, and noting that his “findings are amply supported by the record.” 327 So. 2d, at 324. The Supreme Court of Louisiana also observed that the trial judge had the “ability ... to observe Mr. Fulford at length during the preliminary hearings and the trial of this case.” Ibid. It also took note of the “limited time” that Dr. McCray spent with respondent. The Court of Appeals apparently found all of this unpersuasive. There is no dispute as to the proper legal standard to be applied for determining the correctness of the trial court’s actions, see Pate v. Robinson, 383 U. S. 375, 386 (1966); Drope v. Missouri, 420 U. S. 162 (1975). Thus, the three judges of the Court of Appeals appear to have differed from the Louisiana trial judge, the seven Justices of the Supreme Court of Louisiana, and the Federal District Judge, only with respect to evaluation of the evidence before the trial court. The principal explanation offered by the Court of Appeals for its refusal to accept the previous judicial assessments of this testimony are contained in the following excerpt from its opinion: “The State urges that Fulford had the capability to assist his attorney but simply refused to do so. But if this refusal was based on his paranoid delusions, it cannot be successfully urged that Fulford was actually capable of assisting counsel. “A more troubling aspect of the present issue is the trial court’s finding that Fulford was trying to delay the trial, and possibly obtain a severance. Given the timing of the motion, and a subsequent request by Fulford for a severance, we would uphold the trial court if it had been confronted by a barebones motion, with only the statement of Fulford’s attorney as support. That is not the present case. Dr. McCray’s testimony was unim-peached. His qualifications as a psychiatrist were unchallenged by the prosecution. Although his examination was brief, it was precisely because of this brevity that he suggested further evaluation was needed. On these facts, we believe that the state court committed constitutional error in not conducting further competency proceedings.” 692 F. 2d, at 361. Before a federal habeas court undertakes to overturn factual conclusions made by a state court, it must determine that these conclusions are not “fairly supported by the record.” 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(8). Under this standard we have not the slightest hesitation in saying that the trial court’s conclusion as to Fulford’s competency was “fairly supported by the record.” The trial judge’s observation of Fulford’s conduct, both prior to and during trial; his observation of the testimony of Dr. McCray and the statements of respondent’s counsel regarding his refusal to cooperate with them; his inferences regarding the fact that Fulford’s alleged refusal to disclose his alibi witnesses either never occurred, or was remedied; the weight he attributed to the unannounced, last-minute timing of the motion for appointment of a competency commission; and the inferences to be drawn from the failure of the defense to pursue psychiatric examination beyond the “tentative” stage, despite ample time and opportunity to do so, all provide ample record support for the trial judge’s conclusion that there was insufficient question as to Fulford’s competence to warrant appointment of a commission. The Court of Appeals apparently concluded that the trial judge was obligated to credit both the factual statements and the ultimate conclusions of Dr. McCray solely because he was “unimpeached.” 692 F. 2d, at 361. This is simply not the law. “ ‘Face to face with living witnesses the original trier of the facts holds a position of advantage from which appellate judges are excluded. In doubtful cases the exercise of his power of observation often proves the most accurate method of ascertaining the truth. . . . How can we say the judge is wrong? We never saw the witnesses. . . .’” United States v. Oregon Medical Society, 343 U. S. 326, 339 (1952), quoted in Marshall v. Lonberger, 459 U. S., at 434. We are convinced for the reasons stated above that the question whether the trial court’s conclusions as to respondent’s competency were “fairly supported by the record” must be answered in the affirmative. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly Reversed. Respondent’s request was apparently submitted pursuant to La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 644 (West 1981), which empowers the trial court to appoint a commission of at least two qualified physicians to “examine and report upon the mental condition of a defendant.” Likewise, Art. 648 provides that the “trial court may, in the exercise of its sound discretion, order a mental examination of the defendant when it has reasonable ground to doubt the defendant’s mental capacity to proceed.” In his motion for appointment of a competency commission, respondent’s counsel alleged: “It has further been reported to counsel that the defendant has been placed before a lunacy commission in the State of Florida in 1953, and was declared a borderline case, . . . [T]he aforesaid report is of this date unconfirmed and counsel had requested a record check in the State of Florida to determine if such a hearing had been convened and the result thereof.” 4 Record 933. The record contains no other mention of this incident, much less confirmation of the allegation. For example, two days after he moved for appointment of a competency commission, respondent informed the trial judge that “I can defend myself, and that is the point I’d like to get across.” Likewise, at a sentencing hearing in January 1974 Fulford sought permission to pursue appeal of his conviction pro se. After the presiding judge expressed reluctance at permitting this, because of Fulford’s earlier assertion of incompetence, Fulford stated: “I gave this a great deal of thought prior to coming here ... I may talk funny, think I’m from the cotton patch and perhaps I am, but as far as protecting my own appeal that is my election and I believe I can do it artfully and I believe I will have a reversal in the Supreme Court and be awarded a new trial. And I have given this a great deal of thought and I have made the election, it is my right, it is my future, and if I blow it [no one] has blowed it but me, I fully understand my rights, I hilly understand what I am doing, what I am facing and the consequences of it and with that in mind I still elect to defend my own self on appeal and I ask you to grant that motion and grant me a constitutional right to do this.” 24 Record 2798-2794. The irony of respondent’s change of heart regarding his state of mind was not lost on him. In his habeas petition in District Court respondent noted: “It is awk[w]ard for petitioner to argue in this petition that he was unable to assist in his defense during trial, as attested by Dr. McCray,” and “then seek thé right to defend pro se during the course of trial.” Pet. for Habeas Corpus in No. 76-748 (WD La.), p. 16. The “awkwardness” of respondent’s position becomes even more apparent in light of the arguments advanced in support of his claim to a right to have proceeded pro se in trial court. Respondent argued that he “was denied the right to defend pro se with-out [sic] counsel by Judge Veron after petitioner voluntarily and intelligently elected to do so.” Id., at 16. As the pleadings and briefs filed by respondent in state and federal courts indicate, his legal abilities are scarcely those of a mental incompetent. As one member of the Louisiana Supreme Court has observed, respondent “has demonstrated skill and experience in criminal law in writ applications filed in this Court.” State v. Fulford, 299 So. 2d 789 (1974) (Nixon, J., dissenting). Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy 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. At common law, the revenue rule generally barred courts from enforcing the tax laws of foreign sovereigns. The question presented in this case is whether a plot to defraud a foreign government of tax revenue violates the federal wire fraud statute, 18 U. S. C. § 1343 (2000 ed., Supp. II). Because the plain terms of § 1343 criminalize such a scheme, and because this construction of the wire fraud statute does not derogate from the common-law revenue rule, we hold that it does. I Petitioners Carl J. Pasquantino, David B. Pasquantino, and Arthur Hilts were indicted for and convicted of federal wire fraud for carrying out a scheme to smuggle large quantities of liquor into Canada from the United States. According to the evidence presented at trial, the Pasquantinos, while in New York, ordered liquor over the telephone from discount package stores in Maryland. See 336 F. 3d 321, 325 (CA4 2003) (en banc). They employed Hilts and others to drive the liquor over the Canadian border, without paying the required excise taxes. Ibid. The drivers avoided paying taxes by hiding the liquor in their vehicles and failing to declare the goods to Canadian customs officials. Id., at 333. During the time of petitioners’ smuggling operation, between 1996 and 2000, Canada heavily taxed the importation of alcoholic beverages. See 1997 S. C., ch. 36, §§ 21.1(1), 21.2(1); Excise Act Schedule 1.(1), R. S. C., ch. E-14 (1985); Excise Act 2001, Schedule 4, ch. 22, 2002 S. C. 239. Uncontested evidence at trial showed that Canadian taxes then due on alcohol purchased in the United States and transported to Canada were approximately double the liquor’s purchase. price. App. 65-66. Before trial, petitioners moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that it stated no wire fraud offense. The wire fraud statute prohibits the use of interstate wires to effect “any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.” 18 U. S. C. § 1343 (2000 ed., Supp. II). Petitioners contended that the Government lacked a sufficient interest in enforcing the revenue laws of Canada, and therefore that they had not committed wire fraud. App: 48-57. The District Court denied the motion, and the case went to trial. The jury convicted petitioners of wire fraud. Petitioners appealed their convictions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, again urging that the indictment failed to state a wire fraud offense. They argued that their prosecution contravened the common-law revenue rule, because it required the court to take cognizance of the revenue laws of Canada. Over Judge Hamilton’s dissent, the panel agreed and reversed the convictions. 305 F. 3d 291, 295 (2002). Petitioners also argued that Canada’s right to collect taxes from them was not “money or property” within the meaning of the wire fraud statute, but the panel unanimously rejected that argument. Id., at 294-295; id., at 299 (Hamilton, J., dissenting). The Court of Appeals granted rehearing en banc, vacated the panel’s decision, and affirmed petitioners’ convictions. 336 F. 3d 321 (CA4 2003). It concluded that the common-law revenue rule, rather than barring any recognition of foreign revenue law, simply allowed courts to refuse to enforce the tax judgments of foreign nations, and therefore did not preclude the Government from prosecuting petitioners. Id., at 327-329. The Court of Appeals held as well that Canada’s right to receive tax revenue was “money or property” within the meaning of the wire fraud statute. Id., at 331-332. We granted certiorari to resolve a conflict in the Courts of Appeals over whether a scheme to defraud a foreign government of tax revenue violates the wire fraud statute. 541 U. S. 972 (2004). Compare United States v. Boots, 80 F. 3d 580, 587 (CA1 1996) (holding that a scheme to defraud a foreign nation of tax revenue does not violate the wire fraud statute), with United States v. Trapilo, 130 F. 3d 547, 552-553 (CA2 1997) (holding that a scheme to defraud a foreign nation of tax revenue violates the wire fraud statute). We agree with the Court of Appeals that it does and therefore affirm the judgment below. I — I 1 — 1 We first consider whether petitioners’ conduct falls within the literal terms of the wire fraud statute. The statute prohibits using interstate wires to effect “any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.” 18 U. S. C. § 1343 (2000 ed., Supp. II). Two elements of this crime, and the only two that petitioners dispute here, are that the defendant engage in a “scheme or artifice to defraud,” ibid., and that the “object of the fraud... be ‘[money or] property’ in the victim’s hands,” Cleveland v. United States, 531 U. S. 12, 26 (2000). Petitioners’ smuggling operation satisfies both elements. Taking the latter element first, Canada’s right to uncollected excise taxes on the liquor petitioners imported into Canada is “property” in its hands. This right is an entitlement to collect money from petitioners, the possession of which is “something of value” to the Government of Canada. McNally v. United States, 483 U. S. 350, 358 (1987) (internal quotation marks omitted). Valuable entitlements like these are “property” as that term ordinarily is employed. See Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U. S. 1, 9 (2004) (“When interpreting a statute, we must give words their ordinary or natural meaning” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Black’s Law Dictionary 1382 (4th ed. 1951) (defining “property” as “extending] to every species of valuable right and interest”). Had petitioners complied with this legal obligation, they would have paid money to Canada. Petitioners’ tax evasion deprived Canada of that money, inflicting an economic injury no less than had they embezzled funds from the Canadian treasury. The object of petitioners’ scheme was to deprive Canada of money legally due, and their scheme thereby had as its object the deprivation of Canada’s “property.” The common law of fraud confirms this characterization of Canada’s right to excise taxes. The right to be paid money has long been thought to be a species of property. See 3 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 153-155 (1768) (classifying a right to sue on a debt as personal property); 2 J. Kent, Commentaries on American Law *351 (same). Consistent with that understanding, fraud at common law included a scheme to deprive a victim of his entitlement to money. For instance, a debtor who concealed his assets when settling debts with his creditors thereby committed common-law fraud. 1 J. Story, Equity Jurisprudence § 378 (I. Redfield 10th rev. ed. 1870); Chesterfield v. Janssen, 28 Eng. Rep. 82, 2 Ves. Sen. 125 (ch. 1750); 1 S. Rapalje & R. Lawrence, A Dictionary of American and English Law 546 (1883). That made sense given the economic equivalence between money in hand and money legally due. The fact that the victim of the fraud happens to be the government, rather than a private party, does not lessen the injury. Our conclusion that the right to tax revenue is property in Canada’s hands, contrary to petitioners’ contentions, is consistent with Cleveland, supra. In that case, the defendant, Cleveland, had obtained a video poker license by making false statements on his license application. Id., at 16-17. We held that a State’s interest in an unissued video poker license was not “property,” because the interest in choosing particular licensees was “‘purely regulatory’” and “[could not] be economic.” Id., at 22-23. We also noted that “the Government nowhere allege[d] that Cleveland defrauded the State of any money to which the State was entitled by law.” Ibid. Cleveland is different from this case. Unlike a State’s interest in allocating a video poker license to particular applicants, Canada’s entitlement to tax revenue is a straightforward “economic” interest. There was no suggestion in Cleveland that the defendant aimed at depriving the State of any money due under the license; quite the opposite, there was “no dispute that [the defendant’s partnership] paid the State of Louisiana its proper share of revenue” due. Id., at 22. Here, by contrast, the Government alleged and proved that petitioners’ scheme aimed at depriving Canada of money to which it was entitled by law. Canada could hardly have a more “economic” interest than in the receipt of tax revenue. Cleveland is therefore consistent with our conclusion that Canada’s entitlement is “property” as that word is used in the wire fraud statute. Turning to the second element at issue here, petitioners’ plot was a “scheme or artifice to defraud” Canada of its valuable entitlement to tax revenue. The evidence showed that petitioners routinely concealed imported liquor from Canadian officials and failed to declare those goods on customs forms. See 336 F. 3d, at 333. By this conduct, they represented to Canadian customs officials that their drivers had no goods to declare. This, then, was a scheme “designed to defraud by representations,” Durland v. United States, 161 U. S. 306, 313 (1896), and therefore a “scheme or artifice to defraud” Canada of taxes due on the smuggled goods. Neither the antismuggling statute, 18 U. S. C. § 546, nor U. S. tax treaties, see Attorney General of Canada v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., 268 F. 3d 103, 115-119 (CA2 2001), convince us that petitioners’ scheme falls outside the terms of the wire fraud statute. Unlike the treaties and the antismuggling statute, the wire fraud statute punishes fraudulent use of domestic wires, whether or not such conduct constitutes smuggling, occurs aboard a vessel, or evades foreign taxes. See post, at 380, n. 9 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting) (noting that the antismuggling statute does not apply to this prosecution). Petitioners would be equally liable if they had used interstate wires to defraud Canada not of taxes due, but of money from the Canadian treasury. The wire fraud statute “applies without differentiation” to these two categories of fraud. Clark v. Martinez, 543 U. S. 371, 378 (2005). “To give these same words a different meaning for each category would be to invent a statute rather than interpret one.” Ibid. We therefore decline to “interpret [this] criminal statute more narrowly than it is written.” Brogan v. United States, 522 U. S. 398, 406 (1998). III We next consider petitioners’ revenue rule argument. Petitioners argue that, to avoid reading § 1343 to derogate from the common-law revenue rule, we should construe the otherwise-applicable language of the wire fraud statute to except frauds directed at evading foreign taxes. Their argument relies on the canon of construction that “[statutes which invade the common law... are to be read with a presumption favoring the retention of long-established and familiar principles, except when a statutory purpose to the contrary is evident.” United States v. Texas, 507 U. S. 529, 534 (1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). This presumption is, however, no bar to a construction that conflicts with a common-law rule if the statute “ ‘speak[s] directly’ to the question addressed by the common law.” Ibid. Whether the wire fraud statute derogates from the common-law revenue rule depends, in turn, on whether reading §1343 to reach this prosecution conflicts with a well-established revenue rule principle. We clarified this constraint on the application of the nonderogation canon in United States v. Craft, 535 U. S. 274 (2002). The issue in Craft was whether the property interest of a tenant by the entirety was exempt from a federal tax lien. Id., at 276. We construed the federal tax lien statute to reach such a property interest, despite the tension between that construction and the common-law rule that entireties property enjoys immunity from liens, because this “common-law rule was not so well established with respect to the application of a federal tax lien that we must assume that Congress considered the impact of its enactment on the question now before us.” Id., at 288. So too here, before we may conclude that Congress intended to exempt the present prosecution from the broad reach of the wire fraud statute, we must find that the common-law revenue rule clearly barred such a prosecution. We examine the state of the common law as of 1952, the year Congress enacted the wire fraud statute. See Neder v. United States, 527 U. S. 1, 22-23 (1999). The wire fraud statute derogates from no well-established revenue rule principle. We are aware of no common-law revenue rule case decided as of 1952 that held or clearly implied that the revenue rule barred the United States from prosecuting a fraudulent scheme to evade foreign taxes. The traditional rationales for the revenue rule, moreover, do not plainly suggest that it swept so broadly. We consider these two points in turn. A We first consider common-law revenue rule jurisprudence as it existed in 1952, the year Congress enacted §1343. Since the late 19th and early 20th century, courts have treated the common-law revenue rule as a corollary of the rule that, as Chief Justice Marshall put it, “[t]he Courts of no country execute the penal laws of another.” The Antelope, 10 Wheat. 66, 123 (1825). The rule against the enforcement of foreign penal statutes, in turn, tracked the common-law principle that crimes could only be prosecuted in the country in which they were committed. See, e. g., J. Story, Commentaries on the Conflict of Laws § 620, p. 840 (M. Bigelow ed. 8th ed. 1883). The basis for inferring the revenue rule from the rule against foreign penal enforcement was an analogy between foreign revenue laws and penal laws. See Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U. S. 265, 290 (1888); Leflar, Extrastate Enforcement of Penal and Governmental Claims, 46 Harv. L. Rev. 193, 219 (1932) (hereinafter Leflar). Courts first drew that inference in a line of cases prohibiting the enforcement of tax liabilities of one sovereign in the courts of another sovereign, such as a suit to enforce a tax judgment. The revenue rule’s grounding in these cases shows that, at its core, it prohibited the collection of tax obligations of foreign nations. Unsurprisingly, then, the revenue rule is often stated as prohibiting the collection of foreign tax claims. See Brief for Petitioners 16 (noting that “[t]he most straightforward application of the revenue rule arises when a foreign sovereign attempts to sue directly in its own right to enforce a tax judgment in the courts of another nation”). The present prosecution is unlike these classic examples of actions traditionally barred by the revenue rule. It is not a suit that recovers a foreign tax liability, like a suit to enforce a judgment. This is a criminal prosecution brought by the United States in its sovereign capacity to punish domestic criminal conduct. Petitioners nevertheless argue that common-law. revenue rule jurisprudence as of 1952 prohibited such prosecutions. Revenue rule cases, however, do not establish that proposition, much less clearly so. 1 Petitioners first analogize the present action to several cases that have applied the revenue rule to bar indirect enforcement of foreign revenue laws, in contrast to the direct collection of a tax obligation. They cite, for example, a decision of an Irish trial court holding that a private liquidator could not recover assets unlawfully distributed and moved to Ireland by a corporate director, because the recovery would go to satisfy the company’s Scottish tax obligations. Peter Buchanan Ltd. v. McVey, 1955 A. C. 516, 529-530 (Ir. H. Ct. 1950), app. dism’d, 1955 A. C. 530 (Ir. Sup. Ct. 1951). The court found that “the sole object of the liquidation proceedings in Scotland was to collect a revenue debt,” because if the liquidator won, “every penny recovered after paying certain costs... could be claimed by the Scottish Revenue.” Id., at 530. According to the Buchanan court, “[i]n every case the substance of the claim must be scrutinized, and if it then appears that it is really a suit brought for the purpose of collecting the debts of a foreign revenue it must be rejected.” Id., at 529. Buchanan and the other cases on which petitioners rely cannot bear the weight petitioners place on them. Many of them were decided after 1952, too late for the Congress that passed the wire fraud statute to have relied on them. Others come from foreign courts. Drawing sure inferences regarding Congress’ intent from such foreign citations is perilous, as several of petitioners’ cases illustrate. More important, none of these cases clearly establishes that the revenue rule barred this prosecution. None involved a domestic sovereign acting pursuant to authority conferred by a criminal statute. The difference is significant. An action by a domestic sovereign enforces the sovereign’s own penal law. A prohibition on the enforcement of foreign penal law does not plainly prevent the Government from enforcing a domestic criminal law. Such an extension, to our knowledge, is unprecedented in the long history of either the revenue rule or the rule against enforcement of penal laws. Moreover, none of petitioners’ cases (with the arguable exception of Banco Do Brasil, S. A. v. A. C. Israel Commodity Co., 12 N. Y. 2d 371, 190 N. E. 2d 235 (App. 1963)) barred an action that had as its primary object the deterrence and punishment of fraudulent conduct — a substantial domestic regulatory interest entirely independent of foreign tax enforcement. The main object of the action in each of those cases was the collection of money that would pay foreign tax claims. The absence of such an object in this action means that the link between this prosecution and foreign tax collection is incidental and attenuated at best, making it not plainly one in which “the whole object of the suit is to collect tax for a foreign revenue.” Buchanan, supra, at 529. Even those courts that as of 1952 had extended the revenue rule beyond its core prohibition had not faced a case closely analogous to this one — and thus we cannot say with any reasonable certainty whether Congress in 1952 would have considered this prosecution within the revenue rule. Petitioners answer that the recovery of taxes is indeed the object of this suit, because restitution of the lost tax revenue to Canada is required under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. §§3663A-3664 (2000 ed. and Supp. II). We do not think it matters whether the provision of restitution is mandatory in this prosecution. Regardless, the wire fraud statute advances the Federal Government’s independent interest in punishing fraudulent domestic criminal conduct, a significant feature absent from all of petitioners’ revenue rule cases. The purpose of awarding restitution in this action is not to collect a foreign tax, but to mete out appropriate criminal punishment for that conduct. In any event, any conflict between mandatory restitution and the revenue rule would not change our holding today. If awarding restitution to foreign sovereigns were contrary to the revenue rule, the proper resolution would be to construe the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act not to allow such awards, rather than to assume that the later enacted restitution statute impliedly repealed §1343 as applied to frauds against foreign sovereigns. 2 We are no more persuaded by a second line of cases on which petitioners rely. Petitioners analogize the present case to early English common-law cases from which the revenue rule originally derived. Those early cases involved contract law, and they held that contracts executed with the purpose of evading the revenue laws of other nations were enforceable, notwithstanding the rule against enforcing contracts with illegal purposes. See Boucher v. Lawson, Cas. T. Hard. 85, 89-90, 95 Eng. Rep. 53, 55-56 (K. B. 1734); Planche v. Fletcher, 1 Dougl. 251, 99 Eng. Rep. 164 (K. B. 1779). Petitioners argue that these cases demonstrate that “indirect” enforcement of revenue laws is at the very core of the common-law revenue rule, rather than at its margins. The argument is unavailing. By the mid-20th century, the revenue rule had developed into a doctrine very different from its original form. Early revenue rule cases were driven by the interest in lessening the commercial disruption caused by the high tariffs of the day. As Lord Hardwicke explained, if contracts that aimed at circumventing foreign revenue laws were unenforceable, “it would cut off all benefit of such trade from this kingdom, which would be of very bad consequence to the principal and most beneficial branches of our trade.” Boucher, supra, at 89, 95 Eng. Rep., at 56. By the 20th century, however, that rationale for the revenue rule had been supplanted. By then, as we have explained, courts had begun to apply the revenue rule to tax obligations on the strength of the analogy between a country’s revenue laws and its penal ones, see supra, at 360-361, superseding the original promotion-of-commerce rationale for the rule. Dodge, Breaking the Public Law Taboo, 43 Harv. Int’l L. J. 161, 178 (2002); Buchanan, 1955 A. C., at 522-524, 528-529. The early English cases rest on a far different foundation from that on which the revenue rule came to rest. They thus say little about whether the wire fraud statute derogated from the revenue rule in its mid-20th-century form. 3 Granted, this criminal prosecution “enforces” Canadian revenue law in an attenuated sense, but not in a sense that clearly would contravene the revenue rule. From its earliest days, the revenue rule never proscribed all enforcement of foreign revenue law. For example, at the same time they were enforcing domestic contracts that had the purpose of violating foreign revenue law, English courts also considered void foreign contracts that lacked tax stamps required under foreign revenue law. See Alves v. Hodgson, 7 T. R. 241, 243, 101 Eng. Rep. 953, 955 (K. B. 1797); Clegg v. Levy, 3 Camp. 166, 167, 170 Eng. Rep. 1343 (N. P. 1812). Like the present prosecution, cases voiding foreign contracts under foreign law no doubt “enforced” foreign revenue law in the sense that they encouraged the payment of foreign taxes; yet they fell outside the revenue rule’s scope. The line the revenue rule draws between impermissible and permissible “enforcement” of foreign revenue law has therefore always been unclear. The uncertainty persisted in American courts that recognized the revenue rule. In one of the earliest appearances of the revenue rule in America, the Supreme Court of New Hampshire entertained an action that required extensive recognition of a sister State’s revenue laws. Henry v. Sargeant, 13 N. H. 321 (1843). There, the plaintiff sought damages, alleging that a Vermont selectman had imposed an illegal tax on him. Id., at 331. The court found that the revenue rule did not bar the action, id., at 331-332, though the suit required the court to enforce the revenue laws of Vermont, see id., at 335-338. Likewise, in In re Hollins, 79 Misc. 200, 139 N. Y. S. 713 (Sur. Ct.), aff’d, 160 App. Div. 886, 144 N. Y. S. 1121 (1913), aff’d, 212 N. Y. 567, 106 N. E. 1034 (App. 1914) (per curiam), the court held that an estate executor could satisfy foreign taxes due on a decedent’s estate out of property of the estate, notwithstanding a legatee’s argument that the revenue rule barred authorizing such payments. 79 Misc., at 207-208, 139 N. Y. S., at 716-717. The court explained: “While it is doubtless true that this court will not aid a foreign country in the enforcement of its revenue laws, it will not refuse to direct a just and equitable administration of that part of an estate within its jurisdiction merely because such direction would result in the enforcement of such revenue laws.” Id., at 208, 139 N. Y. S., at 717. These cases demonstrate that the extent to which the revenue rule barred indirect recognition of foreign revenue laws was unsettled as of 1952. Following the reasoning of In re Hollins, for instance, Congress might well have thought that courts would enforce the wire fraud statute, even if doing so might incidentally recognize Canadian revenue law. The uncertainty highlights that “[indirect enforcement is... easier to describe than to define,” and “it is sometimes difficult to draw the line between an issue involving merely recognition of a foreign law and indirect enforcement of it.” 1 A. Dicey & J. Morris, Conflict of Laws 90 (L. Collins gen. ed. 13th ed. 2000). Even if the present prosecution is analogous to the indirect enforcement cases on which petitioners rely, those cases do not yield a rule sufficiently well established to narrow the wire fraud statute in the context of this criminal prosecution. B Having concluded that revenue rule jurisprudence is no clear bar to this prosecution, we next turn to whether the purposes of the revenue rule, as articulated in the relevant authorities, suggest differently. They do not. First, this prosecution poses little risk of causing the principal evil against which the revenue rule was traditionally thought to guard: judicial evaluation of the policy-laden enactments of other sovereigns. See, e. g., Moore v. Mitchell, 30 F. 2d 600, 604 (CA2 1929) (L. Hand, J., concurring). As Judge Hand put it, allowing courts to enforce another country’s revenue laws was thought to be a delicate inquiry “when it concerns the relations between the foreign state and its own citizens.... To pass upon the provisions for the public order of another state is, or at any rate should be, beyond the powers of a court; it involves the relations between the states themselves, with which courts are incompetent to deal, and which are intrusted to other authorities.” Ibid. The present prosecution creates little risk of causing international friction through judicial evaluation of the policies of foreign sovereigns. This action was brought by the Executive to enforce a statute passed by Congress. In our system of government, the Executive is “the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations,” United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U. S. 304, 320 (1936), and has ample authority and competence to manage “the relations between the foreign state and its own citizens” and to avoid “embarass[ing] its.neighbors],” Moore, supra, at 604 (L. Hand, J., concurring); see also Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman S. S. Corp., 333 U. S. 103, 111 (1948). True, a prosecution like this one requires a court to recognize foreign law to determine whether the defendant violated U. S. law. But we may assume that by electing to bring this prosecution, the Executive has assessed this prosecution’s impact on this Nation’s relationship with Canada, and concluded that it poses little danger of causing international friction. We know of no common-law court that has applied the revenue rule to bar an action accompanied by such a safeguard, and neither petitioners nor the dissent directs us to any. The greater danger, in fact, would lie in our judging this prosecution barred based on the foreign policy concerns animating the revenue rule, concerns that we have “neither aptitude, facilities nor responsibility” to evaluate. Ibid. More broadly, petitioners argue that the revenue rule avoids giving domestic effect to politically sensitive and controversial policy decisions embodied in foreign revenue laws, regardless of whether courts need pass judgment on such laws. See Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U. S. 398, 448 (1964) (White, J., dissenting) (“[Cjourts customarily refuse to enforce the revenue and penal laws of a foreign state, since no country has an obligation to further the governmental interests of a foreign sovereign”). This worries us little here. The present prosecution, if authorized by the wire fraud statute, embodies the policy choice of the two political branches of our Government — Congress and the Executive — to free the interstate wires from fraudulent use, irrespective of the object of the fraud. Such a reading of the wire fraud statute gives effect to that considered policy choice. It therefore poses no risk of advancing the policies of Canada illegitimately. Still a final revenue rule rationale petitioners urge is the concern that courts lack the competence to examine the validity of unfamiliar foreign tax schemes. See, e. g., Leflar 218. Foreign law, of course, posed no unmanageable complexity in this case. The District Court had before it uncon-troverted testimony of a Government witness that petitioners’ scheme aimed at violating Canadian tax law. See App. 65-66. Nevertheless, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.1 addresses petitioners’ concern by setting forth a procedure for interpreting foreign law that improves on those available at common law. Specifically, it permits a court, in deciding issues of foreign law, to consider “any relevant material or source — including testimony — without regard to the Federal Rules of Evidence.” By contrast, common-law procedures for dealing with foreign law — those available to the courts that formulated the revenue rule — were more cumbersome. See Advisory Committee’s Notes on Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 26.1, 18 U. S. C. App., p. 1606 (noting that the rule improves on common-law procedures for proving foreign law). Rule 26.1 gives federal courts sufficient means to resolve the incidental foreign law issues, they may encounter in wire fraud prosecutions. IV Finally, our interpretation of the wire fraud statute does not give it “extraterritorial effect.” Post, at 378 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting). Petitioners used U. S. interstate wires to execute a scheme to defraud a foreign sovereign of tax revenue. Their offense was complete the moment they executed the scheme inside the United States; “[t]he wire fraud statute punishes the scheme, not its success.” United States v. Pierce, 224 F. 3d 158, 166 (CA2 2000) (internal quotation marks and brackets in original omitted); see Durland, 161 U. S., at 313 (“The significant fact is the intent and purpose”). This domestic element of petitioners’ conduct is what the Government is punishing in this prosecution, no less than, when it prosecutes a scheme to defraud a foreign individual or corporation, or a foreign government acting as a market participant. See post, at 379, n. 8 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting) (noting that such prosecutions of foreign individuals, corporations, and governments are domestic applications of the wire fraud statute). In any event, the wire fraud statute punishes frauds executed “in interstate or foreign commerce,” 18 U. S. C. § 1843 (2000 ed., Supp. II), so this is surely not a statute in which Congress had only “domestic concerns in mind.” Small v. United States, post, at 388. * * It may seem an odd use of the Federal Government’s resources to prosecute a U. S. citizen for smuggling cheap liquor into Canada. But the broad language of the wire fraud statute authorizes it to do so, and no canon of statutory construction permits ■ us to read the statute more narrowly. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. It is so ordered. We express no view on the related question whether a foreign government, based on wire or mail fraud predicate offenses, may bring a civil action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) for a scheme to defraud it of taxes. See Attorney General of Canada v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., 268 F. 3d 103, 106 (CA2 2001) (holding that the Government of Canada cannot bring a civil RICO. suit to recover for a scheme to defraud it of taxes); Republic of Honduras v. Philip Morris Cos., 341 F. 3d 1253, 1255 (CA11 2003) (same with respect to other foreign governments). Although Cleveland interpreted the term “property” in the mail statute, 18 U. S. C. § 1341 (2000 ed., Supp. II), we have construed identical language in the wire and mail fraud statutes in pari materia. See Neder v. United States, 527 U. S. 1, 20 (1999) (“ ‘scheme or artifice to defraud’ ”); Carpenter v. United States, 484 U. S. 19, 25, and n. 6 (1987) (“scheme or artifice to defraud”; “money or property”). Section 546 provides: “Any person owning in whole or in part any vessel of the United States who employs, or participates in, or allows the employment of, such vessel for the purpose of smuggling, or attempting to smuggle, or assisting in smuggling, any merchandise into the territoiy of any foreign government in violation of the laws there in force, if under the laws of such foreign government any penalty or forfeiture is provided for violation of the laws of the United States respecting the customs revenue, and any citizen of, or person domiciled in, or any corporation incorporated in, the United States, controlling or substantially participating in the control of any such vessel, directly or indirectly, whether through ownership of corporate shares or otherwise, and allowing the employment of said vessel for any such purpose, and any person found, or discovered to have been, on board of any such vessel so employed and participating or assisting in any such purpose, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.” Any overlap between the antismuggling statute and the wire fraud statute is beside the point. The Federal Criminal Code is replete with provisions that criminalize overlapping conduct. See Stuntz, The Pathological Politics of Criminal Law, 100 Mich. L. Rev. 505, 518, and n. 62 (2002); United States v. Wells, 519 U. S Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

A

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr. Chief Justice Vinson delivered the opinion of the Court. In this case, we are faced with the question whether a state may, after admitting a student to graduate instruction in its state university, afford him different treatment from other students solely because of his race. We decide only this issue; see Sweatt v. Painter, ante, p. 629. Appellant is a Negro citizen of Oklahoma. Possessing a Master’s Degree, he applied for admission to the University of Oklahoma in order to pursue studies and courses leading to a Doctorate in Education. At that time, his application was denied, solely because of his race. The school authorities were required to exclude him by the Oklahoma statutes, 70 Okla. Stat. (1941) §§ 455, 456, 457, which made it a misdemeanor to maintain or operate, teach or attend a school at which both whites and Negroes are enrolled or taught. Appellant filed a complaint requesting injunctive relief, alleging that the action of the school authorities and the statutes upon which their action was based were unconstitutional and deprived him of the equal protection of the laws. Citing our decisions in Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U. S. 337 (1938), and Sipuel v. Board of Regents, 332 U. S. 631 (1948), a statutory three-judge District Court held that the State had a Constitutional duty to provide him with the education he sought as soon as it provided that education for applicants of any other group. It further held that to the extent the Oklahoma statutes denied him admission they were unconstitutional and void. On the assumption, however, that the State would follow the constitutional mandate, the court refused to grant the injunction, retaining jurisdiction of the cause with full power to issue any necessary and proper orders to secure McLaurin the equal protection of the laws. 87 F. Supp. 526. Following this decision, the Oklahoma legislature amended these statutes to permit the admission of Negroes to institutions of higher learning attended by white students, in cases where such institutions offered courses not available in the Negro schools. The amendment provided, however, that in such cases the program of instruction “shall be given at such colleges or institutions of higher education upon a segregated basis.” Appellant was thereupon admitted to the University of Oklahoma Graduate School. In apparent conformity with the amendment, his admission was made subject to “such rules and regulations as to segregation as the President of the University shall consider to afford to Mr. G. W. Mc-Laurin substantially equal educational opportunities as are afforded to other persons seeking the same education in the Graduate College,” a condition which does not appear to have been withdrawn. Thus he was required to sit apart at a designated desk in an anteroom adjoining the classroom; to sit at a designated desk on the mezzanine floor of the library, but not to use the desks in the regular reading room; and to sit at a designated table and to eat at a different time from the other students in the school cafeteria. To remove these conditions, appellant filed a motion to modify the order and judgment of the District Court. That court held that such treatment did not violate the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment and denied the motion. 87 F. Supp. 528. This appeal followed. In the interval between the decision of the court below and the hearing in this Court, the treatment afforded appellant was altered. For some time, the section of the classroom in which appellant sat was surrounded by a rail on which there was a sign stating, “Reserved For Colored,” but these have been removed. He is now assigned to a seat in the classroom in a row specified for colored students; he is assigned to a table in the library on the main floor; and he is permitted to eat at the same time in the cafeteria as other students, although here again he is assigned to a special table. It is said that the separations imposed by the State in this case are in form merely nominal. McLaurin uses the same classroom, library and cafeteria as students of other races; there is no indication that the seats to which he is assigned in these rooms have any disadvantage of location. He may wait in line in the cafeteria and there stand and talk with his fellow students, but while he eats he must remain apart. These restrictions were obviously imposed in order to comply, as nearly as could be, with the statutory requirements of Oklahoma. But they signify that the State, in administering the facilities it affords for professional and graduate study, sets McLaurin apart from the other students. The result is that appellant is handicapped in his pursuit of effective graduate instruction. Such restrictions impair and inhibit his ability to study, to engage in discussions and exchange views with other students, and, in general, to learn his profession. Our society grows increasingly complex, and our need for trained leaders increases correspondingly. Appellant’s case represents, perhaps, the epitome of that need, for he is attempting to obtain an advanced degree in education, to become, by definition, a leader and trainer of others. Those who will come under his guidance and influence must be directly affected by the education he receives. Their own education and development will necessarily suffer to the extent that his training is unequal to that of his classmates. State-imposed restrictions which produce such inequalities cannot be sustained. It may be argued that appellant will be in no better position when these restrictions are removed, for he may still be set apart by his fellow students. This we think irrelevant. There is a vast difference — a Constitutional difference — between restrictions imposed by the state which prohibit the intellectual commingling of students, and the refusal of individuals to commingle where the state presents no such bar. Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U. S. 1, 13-14 (1948). The removal of the state restrictions will not necessarily abate individual and group predilections, prejudices and choices. But at the very least, the state will not be depriving appellant of the opportunity to secure acceptance by his fellow students on his own merits. We conclude that the conditions under which this appellant is required to receive his education deprive him of his personal and present right to the equal protection of the laws. See Sweatt v. Painter, ante, p. 629. We hold that under these circumstances the Fourteenth Amendment precludes differences in treatment by the state based upon race. Appellant, having been admitted to a state-supported graduate school, must receive the same treatment at the hands of the state as students of other races. The judgment is Reversed. The amendment adds the following proviso to each of the sections relating to mixed schools: “Provided, that the provisions of this Section shall not apply to programs of instruction leading to a particular degree given at State owned or operated colleges or institutions of higher education of this State established for and/or used by the white race, where such programs of instruction leading to a particular degree are not given at colleges or institutions of higher education of this State established for and/or used by the colored race; provided further, that said programs of instruction leading to a particular degree shall be given at such colleges or institutions of higher education upon a segregated basis.” 70 Okla. Stat. Ann. (1950) §§455, 456, 457. Segregated basis is defined as “classroom instruction given in separate classrooms, or at separate times.” Id. §455. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

B

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Per Curiam. Petitioners, six Negroes, were convicted of violating Louisiana’s breach-of-the-peace statute, La. Rev. Stat., 1950, § 14:103.1, and were given fines and jail terms by the state court. The Louisiana Supreme Court declined to review their convictions, and the case is here on petition for a writ of certiorari which we have granted. Four of the six petitioners went into the waiting room customarily reserved for white people at the Trailways Bus Depot in Shreveport, Louisiana, in order to take a bus to Jackson, Mississippi. The Chief of Police of Shreveport approached the four and asked them why they were in the station. They told him they were interstate passengers and wished to purchase tickets and obtain travel information. The Chief told them they could do this in the colored waiting room and ordered them to move on. When the four refused to leave, stating again that they were interstate passengers and asserting their rights under federal law, they were ordered to leave or be arrested. The spokesman of the group then said, “We have no choice; go ahead and arrest us.” The police thereupon arrested the four of them. The other two petitioners were then arrested, while sitting nearby in the automobile which had brought the six to the bus station. At the trial there was testimony that immediately upon petitioners’ entry into the waiting room many of the people therein became restless and that some onlookers climbed onto seats to get a better view. Nevertheless, respondent admits these persons moved on when ordered to do so by the police. There was no evidence of violence. The record shows that the petitioners were quiet, orderly, and polite. The trial court said, however, that the mere presence of Negroes in a white waiting room was likely to give rise to a breach of the peace. It held the mere presence of the Negroes in the waiting room, as part of a preconceived plan, was sufficient evidence of guilt. It accordingly held that the four had violated the state breach-of-the-peace statute and that the other two had counseled and procured the others to commit the crime. Here, as in Garner v. Louisiana, 368 U. S. 157, the only evidence to support the charge was that petitioners were violating a custom that segregated people in waiting rooms according to their race, a practice not allowed in interstate transportation facilities by reason of federal law. Boynton v. Virginia, 364 U. S. 454, 459-460. And see Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. Dawson, 350 U. S. 877 (public beaches); Holmes v. City of Atlanta, 350 U. S. 879 (municipal golf courses); Gayle v. Browder, 352 U. S. 903 (bus); New Orleans Park Assn. v. Detiege, 358 U. S. 54 (municipal golf course and park). The judgments of conviction must therefore be Reversed. Mr. Justice Harlan would grant certiorari and set the case for argument. Mr. Justice Frankfurter took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. In relevant part, §14:103.1 provides: "A. Whoever with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, or under circumstances such that a breach of the peace may be occasioned thereby: (1) crowds or congregates with others ... in or upon . . . any . . . public place or building . . . and who fails or refuses to disperse and move on, or disperse or move on, when ordered so to do by any law enforcement officer of any municipality ... in which such act or acts are committed, or by any law enforcement officer of the state of Louisiana . .. shall be guilty of disturbing the peace.” “That there exists a serious and difficult problem arising from a feeling of race hostility which the law is powerless to control, and to which it must give a measure of consideration, may be freely admitted. But its solution cannot be promoted by depriving citizens of their constitutional rights and privileges.” Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U. S. 60, 80-81. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy 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. The question presented is whether the federal regulations governing the collection of blood plasma from paid donors pre-empt certain local ordinances. t — I Appellee Automated Medical Laboratories, Inc., is a Florida corporation that operates, through subsidiaries, eight blood plasma centers in the United States. One of the centers, Tampa Plasma Corporation (TPC), is located in Hillsborough County, Florida. Appellee’s plasma centers collect blood plasma from donors by employing a procedure called plasmapheresis. Under this procedure, whole blood removed from the donor is separated into plasma and other components, and “at least the red blood cells are returned to the donor,” 21 CFR § 606.3(e) (1984). Appellee sells the plasma to pharmaceutical manufacturers. Vendors of blood products, such as TPC, are subject to federal supervision. Under § 351(a) of the Public Health Service Act, 58 Stat. 702, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 262(a), such vendors must be licensed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). Licenses are issued only on a showing that the vendor’s establishment and blood products meet certain safety, purity, and potency standards established by the Secretary. 42 U. S. C. § 262(d). HHS is authorized to inspect such establishments for compliance. § 262(c). Pursuant to § 351 of the Act, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), as the designee of the Secretary, has established standards for the collection of plasma. 21 CFR §§640.60-640.76 (1984). The regulations require that a licensed physician determine the suitability of a donor before the first donation and thereafter at subsequent intervals of no longer than one year. § 640.63(b)(1). A physician must also inform the donor of the hazards of the procedure and obtain the donor’s consent, §640.61, and must be on the premises when the procedure is performed, §640.62. In addition, the regulations establish minimum standards for donor eligibility, §§640.63(c)-(d), specify procedures that must be followed in performing plasmapheresis, § 640.65, and impose labeling requirements, §640.70. In 1980, Hillsborough County adopted Ordinances 80-11 and 80-12. Ordinance 80-11 imposes a $225 license fee on plasmapheresis centers within the county. It also requires such centers to allow the County Health Department “reasonable and continuing access” to their premises for inspection purposes, and to furnish information deemed relevant by the Department. See App. 21-23. Ordinance 80-12 establishes a countywide identification system, which requires all potential donors to obtain from the County Health Department an identification card, valid for six months, that may be used only at the plasmapheresis center specified on the card. The ordinance incorporates by reference the FDA’s blood plasma regulations, but also imposes donor testing and recordkeeping requirements beyond those contained in the federal regulations. Specifically, the ordinance requires that donors be tested for hepatitis prior to registration, that they donate at only one center, and that they be given a breath analysis for alcohol content before each plasma donation. See id., at 24-31. The county has promulgated regulations to implement Ordinance 80-12. The regulations set the fee for the issuance of an identification card to a blood donor at $2. They also establish that plasma centers must pay the county a fee of $1 for each plasmapheresis procedure performed. See id., at 32-34. In December 1981, appellee filed suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, challenging the constitutionality of the ordinances and their implementing regulations. Appellee argued primarily that the ordinances violated the Supremacy Clause, the Commerce Clause, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Ap-pellee sought a declaration that the ordinances were unlawful and a permanent injunction against their enforcement. Id., at 5-20. In November 1982, following a bench trial, the District Court upheld all portions of the local ordinances and regulations except the requirement that donors be subject to a breath-analysis test. Id., at 40-46. The court rejected the Supremacy Clause challenge, discerning no evidence of federal intent to pre-empt the whole field of plasmapheresis regulation and finding no conflict between the Hillsborough County ordinances and the federal regulations. In addition, the District Court rejected the claim that the ordinances violate the Equal Protection Clause because they regulate only centers that pay donors for plasma, and not centers in which volunteers donate whole blood. The court identified a rational basis for the distinction: paid donors sell plasma more frequently than volunteers donate whole blood, and paid donors have a higher rate of hepatitis than do volunteer donors. Finally, the District Court found that, with one exception, the ordinances do not impermissibly burden interstate commerce. It concluded that the breath-analysis requirement would impose a large burden on plasma centers by forcing them to purchase fairly expensive testing equipment, and was not shown to achieve any purpose not adequately served by the subjective evaluations of sobriety already required by the federal regulations. Automated Medical Laboratories appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which affirmed in part and reversed in part. 722 F. 2d 1526 (1984). The Court of Appeals held that the FDA’s blood plasma regulations pre-empt all provisions of the county’s ordinances and regulations. The court acknowledged the absence of an express indication of congressional intent to pre-empt. Relying on the pervasiveness of the FDA’s regulations and on the dominance of the federal interest in plasma regulation, however, it found an implicit intent to pre-empt state and local laws on that subject. In addition, the court found a serious danger of conflict between the FDA regulations and the Hillsborough County ordinances, reasoning that “[i]f the County scheme remains in effect, the national blood policy of promoting uniformity and guaranteeing a continued supply of healthy donors will be adversely affected.” Id., at 1533. The Court of Appeals thus affirmed, albeit on other grounds, the District Court’s invalidation of the breath-analysis requirement. It reversed the District Court’s judgment upholding the remaining requirements of the Hillsborough County ordinances and regulations. In view of its decision, the court did not reach the Commerce Clause and Equal Protection challenges to the county’s scheme. Ibid. Hillsborough County and the County Health Department appealed to this Court pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1254(2). We noted probable jurisdiction, 469 U. S. 1156 (1984), and we now reverse. I — I I — I It is a familiar and well-established principle that the Supremacy Clause, U. S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2, invalidates state laws that “interfere with, or are contrary to,” federal law. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 211 (1824) (Marshall, C. J.). Under the Supremacy Clause, federal law may supersede state law in several different ways. First, when acting within constitutional limits, Congress is empowered to pre-empt state law by so stating in express terms. Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U. S. 519, 525 (1977). In the absence of express pre-emptive language, Congress’ intent to preempt all state law in a particular area may be inferred where the scheme of federal regulation is sufficiently comprehensive to make reasonable the inference that Congress “left no room” for supplementary state regulation. Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 218, 230 (1947). Pre-emption of a whole field also will be inferred where the field is one in which “the federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject.” Ibid.; see Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52 (1941). Even where Congress has not completely displaced state regulation in a specific area, state law is nullified to the extent that it actually conflicts with federal law. Such a conflict arises when “compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility,” Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U. S. 132, 142-143 (1963), or when state law “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress,” Hines v. Davidowitz, supra, at 67. See generally Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp, 467 U. S. 691, 698-699 (1984). We have held repeatedly that state laws can be pre-empted by federal regulations as well as by federal statutes. See, e. g., Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp, supra, at 699; Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan Assn. v. De la Cuesta, 458 U. S. 141, 153-154 (1982); United States v. Shimer, 367 U. S. 374, 381-383 (1961). Also, for the purposes of the Supremacy Clause, the constitutionality of local ordinances is analyzed in the same way as that of statewide laws. See, e. g., City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal, Inc., 411 U. S. 624 (1973). I — i HH In arguing that the Hillsborough County ordinances and regulations are pre-empted, appellee faces an uphill battle. The first hurdle that appellee must overcome is the FDA’s statement, when it promulgated the plasmapheresis regulations in 1973, that it did not intend its regulations to be exclusive. In response to comments expressing concern that the regulations governing the licensing of plasmaphere-sis facilities “would pre-empt State and local laws governing plasmapheresis,” the FDA explained in a statement accompanying the regulations that “[t]hese regulations are not intended to usurp the powers of State or local authorities to regulate plasmapheresis procedures in their localities.” 38 Fed. Reg. 19365 (1973). The question whether the regulation of an entire field has been reserved by the Federal Government is, essentially, a question of ascertaining the intent underlying the federal scheme. See supra, at 712-713. In this case, appellee concedes that neither Congress nor the FDA expressly preempted state and local regulation of plasmapheresis. Thus, if the county ordinances challenged here are to fail they must do so either because Congress or the FDA implicitly pre-empted the whole field of plasmapheresis regulation, or because particular provisions in the local ordinances conflict with the federal scheme. According to appellee, two separate factors support the inference of a federal intent to pre-empt the whole field: the pervasiveness of the FDA’s regulations and the dominance of the federal interest in this area. Appellee also argues that the challenged ordinances reduce the number of plasma donors, and that this effect conflicts with the congressional goal of ensuring an adequate supply of plasma. The FDA’s statement is dispositive on the question of implicit intent to pre-empt unless either the agency’s position is inconsistent with clearly expressed congressional intent, see Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 842-845 (1984), or subsequent developments reveal a change in that position. Given appel-lee’s first argument for implicit pre-emption — that the comprehensiveness of the FDA’s regulations evinces an intent to pre-empt — any pre-emptive effect must result from the change since 1973 in the comprehensiveness of the federal regulations. To prevail on its second argument for implicit pre-emption — the dominance of the federal interest in plas-mapheresis regulation — appellee must show either that this interest became more compelling since 1973, or that, in 1973, the FDA seriously underestimated the federal interest in plasmapheresis regulation. The second obstacle in appellee’s path is the presumption that state or local regulation of matters related to health and safety is not invalidated under the Supremacy Clause. Through the challenged ordinances, Hillsborough County has attempted to protect the health of its plasma donors by preventing them from donating too frequently. See Brief for Appellants 12. It also has attempted to ensure the quality of the plasma collected so as to protect, in turn, the recipients of such plasma. “Where . . . the field that Congress is said to have pre-empted has been traditionally occupied by the States ‘we start with the assumption that the historic police powers of the States were not to be superseded by the Federal Act unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.’” Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U. S., at 525 (quoting Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S., at 230) (citations omitted). Cf. Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Corp., 450 U. S. 662, 670 (1981) (deference to state regulation of safety under the dormant Commerce Clause); id., at 681, n. 1 (Brennan, J., concurring in judgment) (same); id., at 691 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting) (same). Of course, the same principles apply where, as here, the field is said to have been pre-empted by an agency, acting pursuant to congressional delegation. Appellee must thus present a showing of implicit pre-emption of the whole field, or of a conflict between a particular local provision and the federal scheme, that is strong enough to overcome the presumption that state and local regulation of health and safety matters can constitutionally coexist with federal regulation. HH < Given the clear indication of the FDA’s intention not to preempt and the deference with which we must review the challenged ordinances, we conclude that these ordinances are not pre-empted by the federal scheme. A We reject the argument that an intent to pre-empt may be inferred from the comprehensiveness of the FDA’s regulations at issue here. As we have pointed out, given the FDA’s 1973 statement, the relevant inquiry is whether a finding of pre-emption is justified by the increase, since 1973, in the comprehensiveness of the federal regulations. Admittedly, these regulations have been broadened over the years. When they were adopted in 1973, these regulations covered only plasma to be used in injections. In 1976, the regulations were expanded to cover also plasma to be used for the manufacture of “noninjectable” products. 41 Fed. Reg. 10762 (1976). The original regulations also were amended to “clarify and strengthen the existing Source Plasma (Human) regulations in light of FDA inspectional and other regulatory experience.” Ibid.; see also 39 Fed. Reg. 26161 (1974) (first proposing the amendments). The FDA has not indicated that the new regulations affected its disavowal in 1973 of any intent to pre-empt state and local regulation, and the fact that the federal scheme was expanded to reach other uses of plasma does not cast doubt on the continued validity of that disavowal. Indeed, even in the absence of the 1973 statement, the comprehensiveness of the FDA’s regulations would not justify pre-emption. In New York Dept. of Social Services v. Dublino, 413 U. S. 405 (1973), the Court stated that “[t]he subjects of modern social and regulatory legislation often by their very nature require intricate and complex responses from the Congress, but without Congress necessarily intending its enactment as the exclusive means of meeting the problem.” Id., at 415. There, in upholding state work-incentive provisions against a pre-emption challenge, the Court noted that the federal provisions “had to be sufficiently comprehensive to authorize and govern programs in States which had no . . . requirements of their own as well as cooperatively in States with such requirements.” Ibid. But merely because the federal provisions were sufficiently comprehensive to meet the need identified by Congress did not mean that States and localities were barred from identifying additional needs or imposing further requirements in the field. See also De Canas v. Bica, 424 U. S. 351, 359-360 (1976). We are even more reluctant to infer pre-emption from the comprehensiveness of regulations than from the comprehensiveness of statutes. As a result of their specialized functions, agencies normally deal with problems in far more detail than does Congress. To infer pre-emption whenever an agency deals with a problem comprehensively is virtually tantamount to saying that whenever a federal agency decides to step into a field, its regulations will be exclusive. Such a rule, of course, would be inconsistent with the federal-state balance embodied in our Supremacy Clause jurisprudence. See Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U. S., at 525. Moreover, because agencies normally address problems in a detailed manner and can speak through a variety of means, including regulations, preambles, interpretive statements, and responses to comments, we can expect that they will make their intentions clear if they intend for their regulations to be exclusive. Thus, if an agency does not speak to the question of pre-emption, we will pause before saying that the mere volume and complexity of its regulations indicate that the agency did in fact intend to pre-empt. Given the presumption that state and local regulation related to matters of health and safety can normally coexist with federal regulations, we will seldom infer, solely from the comprehensiveness of federal regulations, an intent to pre-empt in its entirety a field related to health and safety. Appellee also relies on the promulgation of the National Blood Policy by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW), as an indication that the federal regulatory scheme is now comprehensive enough to justify complete preemption. See Brief for Appellee 25-26. Such reliance is misplaced. The National Blood Policy was established in 1974 as “a pluralistic and evolutionary approach to the solution of blood collection and distribution problems.” 39 Fed. Reg. 32702 (1974). The policy contains no regulations; instead, it is a broad statement of goals and a call for cooperation between the Federal Government and the private sector: “These policies are intended to achieve certain goals but do not detail methods of implementation. In developing the most effective and suitable means of reaching these goals, the Secretary will involve, as appropriate, all relevant public and private sectors and Federal Government agencies in a cooperative effort to provide the best attainable blood services.” Id., at 32703. The National Blood Policy indicates that federal regulation will be employed only as a last resort: “[I]f the private sector is unable to make satisfactory progress toward implementing these policies, a legislative and/or regulatory approach would have to be considered.” Ibid. The adoption of this policy simply does not support the claim that the federal regulations have grown so comprehensive since 1973 as to justify the inference of complete pre-emption. B Appellee’s second argument for pre-emption of the whole field of plasmapheresis regulation is that an intent to preempt can be inferred from the dominant federal interest in this field. We are unpersuaded by the argument. Undoubtedly, every subject that merits congressional legislation is, by definition, a subject of national concern. That cannot mean, however, that every federal statute ousts all related state law. Neither does the Supremacy Clause require us to rank congressional enactments in order of “importance” and hold that, for those at the top of the scale, federal regulation must be exclusive. Instead, we must look for special features warranting preemption. Our case law provides us with clear standards to guide our inquiry in this area. For example, in the seminal case of Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52 (1941), the Court inferred an intent to pre-empt from the dominance of the federal interest in foreign affairs because “the supremacy of the national power in the general field of foreign affairs ... is made clear by the Constitution,” id., at 62, and the regulation of that field is “intimately blended and intertwined with responsibilities of the national government,” id., at 66; see also Zschernig v. Miller, 389 U. S. 429, 440-441 (1968). Needless to say, those factors are absent here. Rather, as we have stated, the regulation of health and safety matters is primarily, and historically, a matter of local concern. See Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S., at 230. There is also no merit in appellee’s reliance on the National Blood Policy as an indication of the dominance of the federal interest in this area. Nothing in that policy takes plasma regulation out of the health-and-safety category and converts it into an area of overriding national concern. C Appellee’s final argument is that even if the regulations are not comprehensive enough and the federal interest is not dominant enough to pre-empt the entire field of plasmaphere-sis regulation, the Hillsborough County ordinances must be struck down because they conflict with the federal scheme. Appellee argues principally that the challenged ordinances impose on plasma centers and donors requirements more stringent than those imposed by the federal regulations, and therefore that they present a serious obstacle to the federal goal of ensuring an “adequate supply of plasma.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 24; see Brief for Appellee 30; 37 Fed. Reg. 17420 (1972). We find this concern too speculative to support pre-emption. Appellee claims that “[t]he evidence at trial indicated that enforcement of the County ordinances would result in an increase in direct costs of plasma production by $1.50 per litre, and a total increase in production costs (including direct and indirect costs) of $7 per litre of plasma, an increase of approximately 15% in the total cost of production.” Brief for Appellee 30. Appellee argues that these increased financial burdens would reduce the number of plasma centers. In addition, appellee claims, the county requirements would reduce the number of donors who only occasionally sell their plasma because such donors would be deterred by the identification-card requirement. Id., at 30-31. On the basis of the record before it, the District Court rejected each of appellee’s factual assertions. The District Court found that appellee’s cost-of-compliance estimates “were clouded with speculation.” App. 42. It also found that appellee had presented no facts to support its conclusion that “the vendor population would decrease by twenty-five percent.” Ibid. These findings of fact can be set aside only if they are clearly erroneous, Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 52(a); see Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U. S. 564 (1985), and hence come to us with a strong presumption of validity. More importantly, even if the Hillsborough County ordinances had, in fact, reduced the supply of plasma in that county, it would not necessarily follow that they interfere with the federal goal of maintaining an adequate supply of plasma. Undoubtedly, overly restrictive local legislation could threaten the national plasma supply. Neither Congress nor the FDA, however, has struck a particular balance between safety and quantity; as we have noted, the regulations, which contemplated additional state and local requirements, merely establish minimum safety standards. See 38 Fed. Reg. 19365 (1973); supra, at 710-711. Moreover, the record in this case does not indicate what supply the Federal Government considers “adequate,” and we have no reason to believe that any reduction in the quantity of plasma donated would make that supply “inadequate.” Finally, the FDA possesses the authority to promulgate regulations pre-empting local legislation that imperils the supply of plasma and can do so with relative ease. See swpra, at 713. Moreover, the agency can be expected to monitor, on a continuing basis, the effects on the federal program of local requirements. Thus, since the agency has not suggested that the county ordinances interfere with federal goals, we are reluctant in the absence of strong evidence to find a threat to the federal goal of ensuring sufficient plasma. Our analysis would be somewhat different had Congress not delegated to the FDA the administration of the federal program. Congress, unlike an agency, normally does not follow, years after the enactment of federal legislation, the effects of external factors on the goals that the federal legislation sought to promote. Moreover, it is more difficult for Congress to make its intentions known — for example by amending a statute — than it is for an agency to amend its regulations or to otherwise indicate its position. In summary, given the findings of the District Court, the lack of any evidence in the record of a threat to the “adequacy” of the plasma supply, and the significance that we attach to the lack of a statement by the FDA, we conclude that the Hillsborough County requirements do not imperil the federal goal of ensuring sufficient plasma. Appellee also argues that the county ordinances conflict with the federal regulations because they prevent individuals with hepatitis from donating their plasma. See supra, at 710. Such plasma is used for the production of hepatitis vaccines, and the federal regulations provide for its collection pursuant to special authorization and under carefully controlled conditions. 21 CFR § 610.41 (1984). To the extent that the Hillsborough County ordinances preclude individuals with hepatitis from donating their plasma, the ordinances are said to stand in the way of the accomplishment of the federal goal of combating hepatitis. In order to collect plasma from individuals with hepatitis, however, a plasma center must obtain from the FDA, pursuant to §640.75, an exemption from the good-health requirements of § 640.63(c). The record does not indicate that appellee has received the required exemption. As a result, appellee could not collect plasma from individuals with hepatitis even in the absence of the county ordinances. Thus, appellee lacks standing to challenge the ordinances on this ground. V We hold that Hillsborough County Ordinances 80-11 and 80-12, and their implementing regulations, are not preempted by the scheme for federal regulation of plasmaphere-sis. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. For the purposes of § 1254(2), local ordinances are treated in the same manner as state statutes. See, e. g., New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U. S. 297, 301 (1976) (per curiam); Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U. S. 922, 927, n. 2 (1975). Appellee does not argue that pre-emption can be inferred from the comprehensiveness of the federal statutes governing plasmapheresis. Nor do the amendments to the 1973 regulations indicate that the FDA was departing from its earlier statement; most of the changes are technical and provide no basis for inferring an intent that federal regulation be exclusive. It follows that the FDA’s 1973 statement did not underestimate the federal interest in plasmapheresis regulation. Two of the amici argue that the county ordinances interfere with the federal interest in uniform plasma standards. There is no merit to that argument. The federal interest at stake here is to ensure minimum standards, not uniform standards. Indeed, the FDA’s 1973 statement makes clear that additional, nonconflicting requirements do not interfere with federal goals, and we have found no reason to doubt the continued validity of that statement. See supra, at 714. Since the ordinances incorporate the FDA’s regulations, see supra, at 710, they may in fact also provide for the type of exemptions authorized by 21 CFR § 640.75 (1984). If the ordinances were interpreted that way there would be, of course, no conflict. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy 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 Clark delivered the opinion of the Court. This case concerns an alien immigrant permanently excluded from the United States on security grounds but stranded in his temporary haven on Ellis Island because other countries will not take him back. The issue is whether the Attorney General’s continued exclusion of respondent without a hearing amounts to an unlawful detention, so that courts may admit him temporarily to the United States on bond until arrangements are made for his departure abroad. After a hearing on respondent’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the District Court so held and authorized his temporary admission on $5,000 bond. The Court of Appeals affirmed that action, but directed reconsideration of the terms of the parole. Accordingly, the District Court entered a modified order reducing bond to $3,000 and permitting respondent to travel and reside in Buffalo, New York. Bond was posted and respondent released. Because of resultant serious problems in the enforcement of the immigration laws, we granted certiorari. 344 U. S. 809. Respondent’s present dilemma springs from these circumstances: Though, as the District Court observed, “[t]here is a certain vagueness about [his] history,” respondent seemingly was born in Gibraltar of Hungarian or Rumanian parents and lived in the United States from 1923 to 1948. In May of that year he sailed for Europe, apparently to visit his dying mother in Rumania. Denied entry there, he remained in Hungary for some 19 months, due to “difficulty in securing an exit permit.” Finally, armed with a quota immigration visa issued by the American Consul in Budapest, he proceeded to France and boarded the lie de France in Le Havre bound for New York. Upon arrival on February 9, 1950, he was temporarily excluded from the United States by an immigration inspector acting pursuant to the Passport Act as amended and regulations thereunder. Pending disposition of his case he was received at Ellis Island. After reviewing the evidence, the Attorney General on May 10, 1950, ordered the temporary exclusion to be made permanent without a hearing before a board of special inquiry, on the “basis of information of a confidential nature, the disclosure of which would be prejudicial to the public interest.” That determination rested on a finding that respondent’s entry would be prejudicial to the public interest for security reasons. But thus far all attempts to effect respondent’s departure have failed: Twice he shipped out to return whence he came; France and Great Britain refused him permission to land. The State Department has unsuccessfully negotiated with Hungary for his readmission. Respondent personally applied for entry to about a dozen Latin-American countries but all turned him down. So in June 1951 respondent advised the Immigration and Naturalization Service that he would exert no further efforts to depart. In short, respondent sat on Ellis Island because this country shut him out and others were unwilling to take him in. Asserting unlawful confinement on Ellis Island, he sought relief through a series of habeas corpus proceedings. After four unsuccessful efforts on respondent’s part, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on November 9, 1951, sustained the writ. The District Judge, vexed by the problem of “an alien who has no place to go,” did not question the validity of the exclusion order but deemed further “detention” after 21 months excessive and justifiable only by affirmative proof of respondent’s danger to the public safety. When the Government declined to divulge such evidence, even in camera, the District Court directed respondent’s conditional parole on bond. By a divided vote, the Court of Appeals affirmed. Postulating that the power to hold could never be broader than the power to remove or shut out and that to “continue an alien’s confinement beyond that moment when deportation becomes patently impossible is to deprive him of his liberty,” the court found respondent’s “confinement” no longer justifiable as a means of removal elsewhere, thus not authorized by statute, and in violation of due process. Judge Learned Hand, dissenting, took a different view: The Attorney General’s order was one of “exclusion” and not “deportation”; respondent’s transfer from ship to shore on Ellis Island conferred no additional rights; in fact, no alien so situated “can force us to admit him at all.” Courts have long recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control. The Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U. S. 581 (1889); Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S. 698 (1893); Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U. S. 537 (1950); Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U. S. 580 (1952). In the exercise of these powers, Congress expressly authorized the President to impose additional restrictions on aliens entering or leaving the United States during periods of international tension and strife. That authorization, originally enacted in the Passport Act of 1918, continues in effect during the present emergency. Under it, the Attorney General, acting for the President, may shut out aliens whose “entry would be prejudicial to the interests of the United States.” And he may exclude without a hearing when the exclusion is based on confidential information the disclosure of which may be prejudicial to the public interest. The Attorney General in this case proceeded in accord with these provisions; he made the necessary determinations. and barred the alien from entering the United States. It is true that aliens who have once passed through our gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness encompassed in due process of law. The Japanese Immigrant Case, 189 U. S. 86, 100-101 (1903); Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 U. S. 33, 49-50 (1950); Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U. S. 590, 598 (1953). But an alien on the threshold of initial entry stands on a different footing: “Whatever the procedure authorized by Congress is, it is due process as far as an alien denied entry is concerned.” Knauff v. Shaughnessy, supra, at 544; Ekiu v. United States, 142 U. S. 651, 660 (1892). And because the action of the executive officer under such authority is final and conclusive, the Attorney General cannot be compelled to disclose the evidence underlying his determinations in an exclusion case; “it is not within the province of any court, unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the Government.” Knauff v. Shaughnessy, supra, at 543; Ekiu v. United States, supra, at 660. In a case such as this, courts cannot retry the determination of the Attorney General. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, supra, at 546; Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U. S. 160, 171-172 (1948). Neither respondent’s harborage on Ellis Island nor his prior residence here transforms this into something other than an exclusion proceeding. Concededly, his movements are restrained by authority of the United States, and he may by habeas corpus test the validity of his exclusion. But that is true whether he enjoys temporary refuge on land, Ekiu v. United States, supra, or remains continuously aboard ship. United States v. Jung Ah Lung, 124 U. S. 621, 626 (1888); Chin Yow v. United States, 208 U. S. 8, 12 (1908). In sum, harborage at Ellis Island is not an entry into the United States. Kaplan v. Tod, 267 U. S. 228, 230 (1925); United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U. S. 253, 263 (1905); Ekiu v. United States, supra, at 661. For purposes of the immigration laws, moreover, the legal incidents of an alien’s entry remain unaltered whether he has been here once before or not. He is an entering alien just the same, and may be excluded if unqualified for admission under existing immigration laws. E. g., Lem Moon Sing v. United States, 158 U. S. 538, 547-548 (1895); Polymeris v. Trudell, 284 U. S. 279 (1932). To be sure, a lawful resident alien may not captiously be deprived of his constitutional rights to procedural due process. Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U. S. 590, 601 (1953); cf. Delgadillo v. Carmichael, 332 U. S. 388 (1947). Only the other day we held that under some circumstances temporary absence from our shores cannot constitutionally deprive a returning lawfully resident alien of his right to be heard. Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, supra. Chew, an alien seaman admitted by an Act of Congress to permanent residence in the United States, signed articles of maritime employment as chief steward on a vessel of American registry with home port in New York City. Though cleared by the Coast Guard for his voyage, on his return from four months at sea he was “excluded” without a hearing on security grounds. On the facts of that case, including reference to § 307 (d) (2) of the Nationality Act of 1940, we felt justified in “assimilating” his status for constitutional purposes to that of continuously present alien residents entitled to hearings at least before an executive or administrative tribunal. Id., at 596, 599-601. Accordingly, to escape constitutional conflict we held the administrative regulations authorizing exclusion without hearing in certain security cases inapplicable to aliens so protected by the Fifth Amendment. Id., at 600. But respondent’s history here drastically differs from that disclosed in Chew’s case. Unlike Chew who with full security clearance and documentation pursued his vocation for four months aboard an American ship, respondent, apparently without authorization or reentry papers, simply left the United States and remained behind the Iron Curtain for 19 months. Moreover, while § 307 of the 1940 Nationality Act regards maritime service such as Chew’s to be continuous residence for naturalization purposes, that section deems protracted absence such as respondent’s a clear break in an alien’s continuous residence here. In such circumstances, we have no difficulty in holding respondent an entrant alien or “assimilated to [that] status” for constitutional purposes. Id., at 599. That being so, the Attorney General may lawfully exclude respondent without a hearing as authorized by the emergency regulations promulgated pursuant to the Passport Act. Nor need he disclose the evidence upon which that determination rests. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U. S. 537 (1950). There remains the issue of respondent’s continued exclusion on Ellis Island. Aliens seeking entry from contiguous lands obviously can be turned back at the border without more. Polymeris v. Trudell, 284 U. S. 279 (1932). While the Government might keep entrants by sea aboard the vessel pending determination of their admissibility, resulting hardships to the alien and inconvenience to the carrier persuaded Congress to adopt a more generous course. By statute it authorized, in cases such as this, aliens’ temporary removal from ship to shore. But such temporary harborage, an act of legislative grace, bestows no additional rights. Congress meticulously specified that such shelter ashore “shall not be considered a landing” nor relieve the vessel of the duty to transport back the alien if ultimately excluded. And this Court has long considered such temporary arrangements as not affecting an alien’s status; he is treated as if stopped at the border. Ekiu v. United States, 142 U. S. 651, 661-662 (1892); United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U. S. 253, 263 (1905); Kaplan v. Tod, 267 U. S. 228, 230 (1925). Thus we do not think that respondent’s continued exclusion deprives him of any statutory or constitutional right. It is true that resident aliens temporarily detained pending expeditious consummation of deportation proceedings may be released on bond by the Attorney General whose discretion is subject to judicial review. Carlson v. Landon, 342 U. S. 524 (1952). By that procedure aliens uprooted from our midst may rejoin the community until the Government effects their leave. An exclusion proceeding grounded on danger to the national security, however, presents different considerations; neither the rationale nor the statutory authority for such release exists. Ordinarily to admit an alien barred from entry on security grounds nullifies the very purpose of the exclusion proceeding; Congress in 1950 declined to include such authority in the statute. That exclusion by the United States plus other nations’ inhospitality results in present hardship cannot be ignored. But, the times being what they are, Congress may well have felt that other countries ought not shift the onus to us; that an alien in respondent’s position is no more ours than theirs. Whatever our individual estimate of that policy and the fears on which it rests, respondent’s right to enter the United States depends on the congressional will, and courts cannot substitute their judgment for the legislative mandate. Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U. S. 580, 590-591 (1952). Reversed. 101 F. Supp. 66 (1951). 195 F. 2d 964 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1952). 101 F. Supp., at 67. 101 F. Supp., at 67, 70; R. 26-27. 195 F. 2d, at 967, 968. Id., at 970. Section 1 of the Act of May 22, 1918, c. 81, 40 Stat. 559, as amended by the Act of June 21, 1941, c. 210, § 1, 55 Stat. 252, 22 U. S. C. § 223, provides in pertinent part: “When the United States is at war or during the existence of the national emergency proclaimed by the President on May 27, 1941, or as to aliens whenever there exists a state of war between, or among, two or more states, and the President shall find that the interests of the United States require that restrictions and prohibitions in addition to those provided otherwise than by this Act be imposed upon the departure of persons from and their entry into the United States, and shall make public proclamation thereof, it shall, until otherwise ordered by the President or Congress, be unlawful— “(a) For any alien to depart from or enter or attempt to depart from or enter the United States except under such reasonable rules, regulations, and orders, and subject to such limitations and exceptions as the President shall prescribe; . . . That authorization has been extended to cover the dates relevant in this case. 66 Stat. 54, 96, 137, 330. Pursuant to that authority, Presidential Proclamation No. 2523, 6 Fed. Reg. 5821, as promulgated in 1941 in part provided: “No alien shall be permitted to enter the United States if it appears to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that such entry would be prejudicial to the interests of the United States as provided in the rules and regulations hereinbefore authorized to be prescribed by the Secretary of State, with the concurrence of the Attorney General.” The Secretary of State, with the concurrence of the Attorney General, issued applicable regulations codified as Part 175 of 8 CFR. Section 175.53 defines eleven categories of aliens whose entry is “deemed to be prejudicial to the interests of the United States.” That delegation of authority has been upheld. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U. S. 537 (1950). The regulations were ratified and confirmed by Presidential Proclamation No. 2850, 14 Fed. Reg. 5173, promulgated August 17, 1949. 8 CFR § 175.57 provides: “§ 175.57 Entry not permitted in special cases, (a) Any alien, even though in possession of a permit to enter, or exempted under §§175.41 to 175.62, inclusive, from obtaining a permit to enter, may be excluded temporarily if at the time he applies for admission at a port of entry it appears that he is or may be excludable under one of the categories set forth in § 175.53. The official excluding the alien shall immediately report the facts to the head of his department, who will communicate such report to the Secretary of State. Any alien so temporarily excluded by an official of the Department of Justice shall not be admitted and shall be excluded and deported unless the Attorney General, after consultation with the Secretary of State, is satisfied that the admission of the alien would not be prejudicial to the interests of the United States. Any alien so temporarily excluded by any other official shall not be admitted and shall be excluded and deported unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the admission of the alien would not be prejudicial to the interests of the United States. “(b) In the case of an alien temporarily excluded by an official of the Department of Justice on the ground that he is, or may be excludable under one or more of the categories set forth in § 175.53, no hearing by a board of special inquiry shall be held until after the casé is reported to the Attorney General and such a hearing is directed by the Attorney General or his representative. In any special case the alien may be denied a hearing before a board of special inquiry and an appeal from the decision of that board if the Attorney General determines that he is excludable under one of the categories set forth in § 175.53 on the basis of information of a confidential nature, the disclosure of which would be prejudicial to the public interest.” See 8 U. S. C. § 210. Of course, neither a reentry permit, issuable upon proof of prior lawful admission to the United States, § 210 (b), nor an immigration visa entitles an otherwise inadmissible alien to entry. §§210 (f), 202 (g). An immigrant is not unaware of this; § 202 (g) directs those facts to be “printed conspicuously upon every immigration visa.” For a recent study of entry procedures with recommendations, see Report of the President’s Commission on Immigration and Naturalization (1953), cc. 10-11. 8 U. S. C. § 707; United States v. Larsen, 165 F. 2d 433 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1947). 8 U. S. C. § 151. 8 U. S. C. §§ 151, 154. 8 U. S. C. (Supp. V) § 156. We there noted that “the problem of habeas corpus after unusual delay in deportation hearings is not involved in this case.” 342 U. S., at 546. (Emphasis added.) 8 U. S. C. § 154 permits temporary suspension of deportation of excluded aliens whose testimony is needed on behalf of the United States. Manifestly respondent does not fall within that class. While the essence of that provision is retained in § 237 (d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 66 Stat. 202, § 212 (d) (5) of that Act, 66 Stat. 188, vests new and broader discretion in the Attorney General. Cf. 8 U. S. C. §§ 136 (p) (q); 8 U. S. C. (Supp. V) § 137-5 (a) (b). Those provisions are not now here. See S. Rep. No. 1515, 81st Cong., 2d Sess. 643-644. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

D

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court. Although Medicare reimburses provider hospitals for the costs of certain educational activities, the program is forbidden by regulation from “participating] in increased costs resulting from redistribution of costs from educational institutions... to patient care institutions.” 42 CFR § 413.85(c) (1993) (emphasis added). In denying reimbursement for the disputed costs in this case, the Secretary of Health and Human Services interpreted this provision to bar reimbursement of educational costs that were borne in prior years not by the requesting hospital, but by the hospital’s affiliated medical school. The dispositive question is whether the Secretary’s interpretation is a reasonable construction of the regulatory language. We conclude that it is. I A Established in 1965 under Title XVIII of the Social Security Act, 79 Stat. 291, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1395 et seq. (1988 ed. and Supp. IV), Medicare is a federally funded health insurance program for the elderly and disabled. Subject to a few exceptions, Congress authorized the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary) to issue regulations defining reimbursable costs and otherwise giving content to the broad outlines of the Medicare statute. § 1395x(v)(l)(A). That authority encompasses the discretion to determine both the “reasonable cost” of services and the “items to be included” in the category of reimbursable services. Ibid. Acting under the statute, the Secretary, by regulation, permits reimbursement for the costs of “approved educational activities” conducted by hospitals. 42 CFR § 413.85(a)(1) (1993). The regulations define “approved educational activities” as “formally organized or planned programs of study usually engaged in by providers in order to enhance the quality of patient care.” § 413.85(b). Graduate medical education (GME) programs are one category of approved educational activities. GME programs give interns and residents clinical training in various medical specialties. Because participants learn both by treating patients and by observing other physicians do so, GME programs take place in a patient care unit (most often in a teaching hospital), rather than in a classroom. Hospitals are entitled to recover the “net cost” of GME and other approved educational activities, a figure “determined by deducting, from a provider’s total costs of these activities, revenues it receives from tuition.” § 413.85(g). A hospital may include as a reimbursable GME cost not only the costs of services it furnishes, but also the costs of services furnished by the hospital’s affiliated medical school. § 413.17(a). That brings us to the regulation here in question. Section 413.85(c) sets forth conditions governing the reimbursement of educational activities. In a sentence referred to by the parties as the “anti-redistribution” principle, the regulation provides that “[although the intent of the [Medicare] program is to share in the support of educational activities customarily or traditionally carried on by providers in conjunction with their operations, it is not intended that this program should participate in increased costs resulting from redistribution of costs from educational institutions or units to patient care institutions or units.” Ibid. In a portion of the regulation known as the “community support” principle, § 413.85(c) also states that the costs of educational activities “should be borne by the community,” but that “[u]ntil communities undertake to bear these costs, the [Medicare] program will participate appropriately in the support of these activities.” Ibid. B Thomas Jefferson University Hospital (Hospital) is a 700-bed teaching hospital in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The Hospital has been a qualified Medicare provider since the program took effect in 1966. Petitioner Thomas Jefferson University (University) is a private, not-for-profit educational institution that operates the Hospital and other entities, including the Jefferson Medical College (Medical College). As a teaching facility, the Hospital provides Medicare-approved GME programs for postgraduate interns and residents in numerous medical specialties. The programs are conducted at the Hospital by Medical College faculty. Because of their common ownership by the University, the Hospital and the Medical College are considered affiliated or “related” organizations under Medicare regulations. 42 CFR § 413.17(a) (1993). As a result, the Hospital is entitled to reimbursement for all eligible patient-care, educational, and administrative costs carried on the books of the Medical College. Ibid. Nevertheless, for reasons not clear from the record, the Hospital did not seek reimbursement for any GME costs during the first eight years of the Medicare program’s existence. During the next 10 years, however, from 1974 through 1983, the Hospital sought and received reimbursement for three categories of salary-related GME costs: (1) salaries paid by the Hospital to Medical College faculty for services rendered to the Hospital’s Medicare patients; (2) salaries paid by the Hospital to residents and interns; and (3) funds transferred internally from the Hospital to the Medical College as payment for faculty time devoted to the Hospital’s GME program. The Hospital did not seek reimbursement during that period for its other, non-salary-related GME costs (namely, the costs of administering the Hospital’s GME programs), and those costs were borne by the Medical College. In 1983, Congress adopted a more restrictive method of reimbursing hospitals for inpatient medical services, see 42 U. S. C. § 1395ww(d) (1988 ed. and Supp. IV), but it retained the more lenient method of reimbursement for medical education costs. 42 U. S. C. § 1395ww(a)(4) (1988 ed., Supp. IV). In 1984, when the new cost reimbursement regime was implemented, the Hospital reviewed its claim for costs associated with its GME programs to determine whether it was identifying all costs eligible for reimbursement. This review resulted in an increased claim reflecting clerical costs incurred by the Medical College for activities associated with its GME programs. The following year, in an effort to further refine its cost allocation techniques, the Hospital retained an accounting firm to compute the Hospital’s total GME costs for fiscal year 1985, the year here in question. Fiscal year 1985 later became especially significant because, under a new reimbursement scheme enacted in 1986, it is considered the Hospital’s base period, to which all later claims for GME cost reimbursement will be tied. See 42 U. S. C. § 1395ww(h). After completing the cost study, the accounting firm reported that the Hospital had incurred GME program costs totaling $8.8 million, a figure that included direct and indirect administrative costs not previously claimed by the Hospital. The report was submitted to petitioner’s assigned fiscal intermediary, whose function is to review petitioner’s annual cost reports and to calculate the appropriate level of reimbursement under applicable statutes and regulations. See 42 CFR §405.1803 (1993). Although petitioner sought reimbursement for the full $8.8 million, the fiscal intermediary allowed only those salary-related costs that had been reimbursed earlier (after adjustment for inflation). The fiscal intermediary disallowed reimbursement for all nonsalaryrelated GME costs that the report identified (amounting to approximately $2.9 million). App. to Pet. for Cert. 10a. Petitioner then appealed to the Provider Reimbursement Review Board, an intermediate appellate tribunal within the Department, which reversed the decision of the fiscal intermediary in part and allowed reimbursement for all of the GME costs documented in the cost study. The Secretary, acting through the Administrator of the Health Care Financing Administration, modified the Board’s decision and reinstated the fiscal intermediary’s ruling. The Secretary concluded that the anti-redistribution clause of § 413.85(c) prohibits the shift of approved educational costs from an educational unit to a patient-care unit, even if the educational activities for which reimbursement is sought are the kind of activities traditionally engaged in by Medicare providers. Id., at 35a. Since the nonsalary GME costs here in issue were borne in prior years by the Medical College, the Secretary ruled that reimbursement of these costs would constitute an impermissible “redistribution of costs” under § 413.85(c). Ibid. The Secretary also relied on the community support language in § 413.85(c) as an independent ground for denying the requested reimbursement. According to the Secretary, this language prohibits Medicare reimbursement for educational activities that “have been historically borne by the community.” Ibid. That the Hospital had failed to seek reimbursement for the disputed costs in previous years was, in the Secretary’s view, “evidence of the communit[y’s] support for these activities.” Ibid. “To allow the community to withdraw that support and pass these costs to the Medicare program” would violate the community support principle and would “encourage the community to abdicate its commitment to education to an insurance program intended to provide care for the elderly.” Ibid. Petitioner filed a petition for review in the District Court seeking reimbursement for the $2,861,247 in GME costs that the Secretary had disallowed. Id., at 10a. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court ruled in the Secretary’s favor, accepting her interpretation of the anti-redistribution and community support clauses as a reasonable construction of § 413.85(c). Thomas Jefferson Univ. v. Sullivan, CCH Medicare & Medicaid Guide ¶ 40,294, p. 30,959 (ED Pa. 1992). The Third Circuit affirmed without opinion, judgment order reported at 993 F. 2d 879 (1993), thereby creating a conflict with the decision of the Sixth Circuit in Ohio State Univ. v. Secretary, Dept. of Health and Human Services, 996 F. 2d 122 (1993), cert. pending, No. 93-696, concerning the validity of the Secretary’s interpretation of the anti-redistribution clause. We granted certiorari, 510 U. S. 1039 (1994), and now affirm. II Petitioner challenges the Secretary’s construction of § 413.85(c) under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U. S. C. § 551 et seq. The APA, which is incorporated by the Social Security Act, see 42 U. S. C. § 1395oo(f )(1), commands reviewing courts to “hold unlawful and set aside” agency action that is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U. S. C. §706(2)(A). We must give substantial deference to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations. Martin v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm’n, 499 U. S. 144, 150-151 (1991); Lyng v. Payne, 476 U. S. 926, 939 (1986); Udall v. Tallman, 380 U. S. 1, 16 (1965). Our task is not to decide which among several competing interpretations best serves the regulatory purpose. Rather, the agency’s interpretation must be given “‘controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.’” Ibid, (quoting Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U. S. 410, 414 (1945)). In other words, we must defer to the Secretary’s interpretation unless an “alternative reading is compelled by the regulation’s plain language or by other indications of the Secretary’s intent at the time of the regulation’s promulgation.” Gardebring v. Jenkins, 485 U. S. 415, 430 (1988). This broad deference is all the more warranted when, as here, the regulation concerns “a complex and highly technical regulatory program,” in which the identification and classification of relevant “criteria necessarily require significant expertise and entail the exercise of judgment grounded in policy concerns.” Pauley v. BethEnergy Mines, Inc., 501 U. S. 680, 697 (1991). Petitioner challenges the Secretary’s construction of both the anti-redistribution language and the community support language of § 413.85(c). Because we conclude that the Secretary’s interpretation of the anti-redistribution clause is neither “ ‘plainly erroneous [n]or inconsistent with the regulation,’ ” Tollman, supra, at 16-17, and because its application suffices to deny reimbursement of the disputed costs in this case, we need not pass upon the Secretary’s interpretation of the community support language. The anti-redistribution clause is contained in the final sentence of § 413.85(c), which states: “Although the intent of the [Medicare] program is to share in the support of educational activities customarily or traditionally carried on by providers in conjunction with their operations, it is not intended that this program should participate in increased costs resulting from redistribution of costs from educational institutions or units to patient care institutions or units.” (Emphasis added.) The meaning of this sentence is straightforward. Its introductory clause defines the scope of educational activities for which reimbursement may be sought: To be eligible for reimbursement, the activity must be one that is “customarily or traditionally carried on by providers in conjunction with their operations.” It is the language that follows, however, that imposes the relevant restriction on cost redistribution. The second clause provides that, notwithstanding the activity for which reimbursement is sought, the Medicare program will not participate in the “redistribution of costs from educational institutions or units to patient care institutions or units.” The Secretary’s interpretation gives full effect to both clauses of the relevant sentence. The Secretary interprets the regulation to allow reimbursement for costs of educational programs traditionally engaged in by hospitals, but, at the same time, to deny reimbursement for “cost[s] previously incurred and paid by a medical school.” Brief for Respondent 26 (emphasis deleted); see also § 413.85(b) (defining “approved educational activities” that are eligible for reimbursement as “programs of study usually engaged in by providers in order to enhance the quality of patient care”). The Secretary’s reading is not only a plausible interpretation of the regulation; it is the most sensible interpretation the language will bear. The circumstance addressed by the anti-redistribution clause is a hospital’s submission of “increased costs” arising from approved educational activities. The regulation provides, in unambiguous terms, that the “costs” of these educational activities will not be reimbursed when they are the result of a “redistribution,” or shift, of costs from an “educational” facility to a “patient care” facility, even if the activities that generated the costs are the sort “customarily or traditionally carried on by providers in conjunction with their operations.” § 413.85(c). The Secretary’s reliance on a hospital’s own historical cost allocations, along with those of an affiliated medical school, is a simple and effective way of determining whether a prohibited “redistribution of costs” has occurred. Indeed, one would be hard pressed to come up with an alternative method to identify the shifting of costs from one entity to another. Petitioner advances three separate arguments for not deferring to the Secretary’s interpretation of the anti-redistribution clause. None is persuasive. First, petitioner asserts that the “clear meaning” of the anti-redistribution clause is to allow reimbursement for the costs of activities traditionally carried on by hospitals (e. g., clinical training of residents and interns), but to deny reimbursement for costs incurred in activities traditionally carried on by educational institutions (e. g., classroom training). Pet. for Cert. 14. In other words, according to petitioner, the redistribution that is prohibited is the redistribution of activities, not the redistribution of costs. Brief for Petitioner 20. This argument is mistaken, for it ignores the second clause of the critical sentence, which refers, on its face, to the “redistribution of costs,” not the “redistribution of activities.” The term “costs,” moreover, is used without condition. Nothing in the plain language suggests that the prohibition on “redistribution of costs” is limited to the costs of certain activities (such as classroom instruction) carried on by an educational unit. The clear inference from the language is that the shift of any reimbursable costs from an “educational institutio[n] or uni[t]” to a “patient care institutio[n] or uni[t]” is prohibited. The Secretary’s interpretation of the anti-redistribution principle is thus far more consistent with the regulation’s unqualified language than the interpretation advanced by petitioner. But even if this were not so, the Secretary’s construction is, at the very least, a reasonable one, and we are required to afford it “controlling weight.” Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U. S., at 414. Second, petitioner argues that the Secretary has been inconsistent in her interpretation of the anti-redistribution provision. While it is true that an agency’s interpretation of a statute or regulation that conflicts with a prior interpretation is “ ‘entitled to considerably less deference’ than a consistently held agency view,” INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U. S. 421, 446, n. 30 (1987) (quoting Watt v. Alaska, 451 U. S. 259, 273 (1981)), that maxim does not apply here because petitioner fails to present persuasive evidence that the Secretary has interpreted the anti-redistribution provision in an inconsistent manner. In an attempt to find an inconsistency, petitioner points to a 1978 internal operating memorandum issued by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) that addressed the reimbursement of costs incurred by medical schools affiliated with providers. Intermediary Letter No. 78-7 (Feb. 1978), App. to Pet. for Cert. 64a-66a. The intermediary letter detailed various categories and amounts of educational expenses incurred by affiliated medical schools that might be allowable to providers, but did not mention the anti-redistribution limitation. Petitioner’s attempt to infer from that silence the existence of a contrary policy fails because the intermediary letter did not purport to be a comprehensive review of all conditions that might be placed on reimbursement of educational costs. By its own terms, the intermediary letter attempted to review only a “number of situations” relating to the reimbursement of educational costs — namely, “situations raising] questions about the reasonableness of [medical school faculty] costs as allowable hospital costs and the appropriateness of the bases used in allocating them to the hospital.” Id., at 64a. It is not surprising, then, that the letter did not address the anti-redistribution principle, and the mere failure to address it here hardly establishes an inconsistent policy on the part of the Secretary. Likewise, contrary to the dissent’s suggestion, post, at 520-522, the mere fact that in 1974 a fiscal intermediary may have allowed reimbursement to petitioner for GME costs that appear to have violated the anti-redistribution clause does not render the Secretary’s interpretation of that clause invalid. For even if petitioner could show that such allowance was approved by — or even brought to the attention of— the Secretary or her designate at the time, “[t]he Secretary is not estopped from changing a view she believes to have been grounded upon a mistaken legal interpretation.” Good Samaritan Hospital v. Shalala, 508 U. S. 402, 417 (1993). And under the circumstances of this case, “where the agency’s interpretation of [its regulation] is at least as plausible as competing ones, there is little, if any, reason not to defer to its construction.” Id., at 417. Finally, petitioner contends that we should ignore the Secretary’s interpretation of the anti-redistribution clause because the language of the regulation is “precatory” and “aspirational” in nature, and thus lacking in operative force. See Brief for Petitioner 31-32. We do not lightly assume that a regulation setting forth specific limitations on the reimbursement of costs under a federal program is devoid of substantive effect. That is especially so when, as here, the language in question speaks not in vague generalities but in precise terms about the conditions under which reimbursement is, and is not, available. Whatever vagueness may be found in the community support language that precedes it, the anti-redistribution clause lays down a bright line for distinguishing permissible from impermissible reimbursement: Educational costs will not be reimbursed if they are the result of a “redistribution of costs from educational institutions or units to patient care institutions or units.” § 413.85(c). The Secretary was well within her discretion to interpret this language as imposing a substantive limitation on reimbursement. In sum, the Secretary’s construction qf the anti-redistribution principle is faithful to the regulation’s plain language, and the application of this language suffices to bar reimbursement of the costs claimed in this case. For these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. It is so ordered. Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Stevens, Justice O’Connor, and Justice Ginsburg join, dissenting. The Court’s opinion reads as if this were a case of model agency action. As the Court views matters, 42 CFR § 413.85(c) (1993) is “unambiguous,” ante, at 514, and respondent Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary) has always been “faithful to the regulation’s plain language,” ante this page. That plain language, according to the Court, required the Secretary to disallow the reimbursement petitioner sought. The Court’s account is hardly an accurate portrayal of this case. When the case is properly viewed, I cannot avoid the conclusion that the Secretary’s construction of § 413.85(c) runs afoul of the plain meaning of the regulation and therefore is contrary to law, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. § 706(2)(A). I therefore respectfully dissent. I The Court holds that § 413.85(c) has substantive content, reasoning that “the language in question speaks not in vague generalities but in precise terms about the conditions under which reimbursement is, and is not, available.” Ante, at. 517. In my view, however, § 413.85(c) is cast in vague aspirational terms, and it strains credulity to read the regulation as imposing any restriction on the reimbursability of the costs of graduate medical education (GME) or other approved educational expenses. On the contrary, subsection (c) appears to be nothing more than a precatory statement of purpose that imposes no substantive restrictions. Subsection (c), in stark contrast to the remainder of §413.85, reads more like a preamble than a law. See ante, at 507-508, n. 1 (quoting § 413.85(c)). In the community support portion of § 413.85(c), the Secretary praises the benefits of approved educational programs and expresses a belief that communities “should” pay for such programs. The subsection then announces the Secretary’s intention to support such activities “appropriately,” limited only by the vague suggestion that at some point in the future a restructuring of fiscal priorities at the “community” level may obviate the need for federal support. The anti-redistribution principle is no less precatory than the community support principle. It states two “intent[ions]”: first, to pay for the “customar[y] and traditional]” educational activities of Medicare providers, and, second, to avoid reimbursing expenses that should be borne by educational institutions affiliated with teaching hospitals. I would not permit the Secretary to transform by “interpretation” what self-evidently are mere generalized expressions of intent into substantive rules of reimbursability. Cf. Stinson v. United States, 508 U. S. 36, 45 (1993) (an agency’s interpretation of its own regulation cannot be sustained if “ ‘plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation’ ”) (quoting Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U. S. 410, 414 (1945)). See also Udall v. Tallman, 380 U. S. 1, 16-17 (1965). We rejected a similar attempted transformation of precatory language in Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U. S. 1 (1981). There, we addressed a claim that the “bill of rights” of the Developmentally Disabled Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 1975, 42 U. S. C. § 6010 (1976 ed. and Supp. Ill), created substantive rights in favor of the mentally retarded. The bill of rights provided, in part, that such persons “have a right to appropriate treatment, services, and habitation” and that state governments “have an obligation to assure that public funds are not provided to any [noncomplying] institutio[n].” §§6010(1), (8). We held that the bill of rights did not have substantive effect: “§ 6010, when read in the context of other more specific provisions of the Act, does no more than express a congressional preference for certain kinds of treatment. It is simply a general statement of ‘findings’ and, as such, is too thin a reed to support the rights and obligations read into it by the court below.” 451 U. S., at 19. Even though Pennhurst did not involve an agency regulation, its textual analysis suggests that it is unreasonable to give substantive effect to precatory, aspirational language — as would the Secretary’s construction of 42 CFR § 413.85(c) (1993). Cf. EEOC v. Arabian American Oil Co., 499 U. S. 244, 260 (1991) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (explaining that “deference is not abdication, and it requires us to accept only those agency interpretations that are reasonable in light of the principles of construction courts normally employ”). Interestingly enough, for the first two decades of the Medicare program’s operation, the Secretary’s fiscal intermediaries, with her acquiescence (if not approval), gave § 413.85(c) precisely the same substantive effect as I would — none. During that entire period, the Secretary never invoked the subsection to deny reimbursement for previously unreimbursed costs, and providers were actually reimbursed for such costs despite § 413.85(c). Indeed, contrary to the Court’s baffling assertion that “petitioner fails to present persuasive evidence that the Secretary has interpreted the anti-redistribution provision in an inconsistent manner,” ante, at 515, one need look no further than petitioner’s brief, see Brief for Petitioner 21-24, to find evidence of such interpretive inconsistency as to both the anti-redistribution and community support principles. Petitioner received no Medicare reimbursement for any GME costs from 1966 to 1973. Even though the anti-redistribution and community support principles were in effect for that entire period, see ante, at 507-508, n. 1, petitioner was awarded reimbursement for the first time in 1974, for salary-related GME costs. Because those GME costs were not paid for by Thomas Jefferson University Hospital (Hospital) prior to 1974, even the Secretary’s opinion below finds, as a matter of fact, that they were borne, to a large extent, by Jefferson Medical College (Medical School) during that period. Cf. App. to Pet. for Cert. 32a (identifying public educational grants to the Medical School and Medical School tuition as sources for funding the Hospital’s pre-1974 GME activities). Also, the funding for those costs that came from sources other than the Medical School (namely, hospital fees from charges to non-Medicare beneficiaries, see ibid.) did not come from Medicare and therefore constituted “community support.” See App. to Pet. for Cert. 18a (the Secretary “views community support as any source of funding other than the Medicare program”). Yet under the Secretary’s present interpretation of § 413.85(c), petitioner should never have received any GME cost reimbursement because it had not obtained such reimbursement from the beginning of the Medicare program. To the extent the Hospital’s GME costs were previously borne by the Medical School, providing petitioner reimbursement for those costs violated the anti-redistribution principle, as presently construed. See ante, at 513 (“The Secretary interprets the regulation... to deny reimbursement for ‘costs previously incurred and paid by a medical school’”) (editorial revisions omitted). Indeed, the Provider Reimbursement Review Board (PRRB) explicitly recognized this fact, finding that, on the fiscal intermediary’s interpretation of “redistribution” (adopted by the Secretary below), “[i]n 1974, the [Hospital] commenced shifting costs... to the Medicare program” and that “[additional cost shifting occurred in 1984 when certain clerical costs of the Medical School were included in the [Hospital’s] cost report.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 50a. Similarly, reimbursing petitioner for GME costs violated the community support principle, to the extent funding for such costs had been available previously from non-Medicare sources. See ante, at 511 (where community support has been received, § 413.85(c) “prohibits Medicare reimbursement”). Thus, the Court’s statement that there is no “evidence that the Secretary has interpreted the anti-redistribution provision in an inconsistent manner,” ante, at 515, appears to be wishful thinking: Petitioner has been routinely granted reimbursement which it should have been denied under § 413.85(c), if the Secretary’s current interpretation is correct. I think it reasonable to conclude that in reimbursing petitioner since 1974 for GME costs not reimbursed from the inception of the Medicare program, the Secretary acted on the basis of an interpretation of § 413.85(c) that attached no significance to a Medicare provider’s failure in prior years to be reimbursed for, or to carry on its books, eligible educational costs. This conclusion has significant support in the Secretary’s roughly contemporaneous pronouncements. Cf. Lyng v. Payne, 476 U. S. 926, 939 (1986); M. Kraus & Bros., Inc. v. United States, 327 U. S. 614, 622 (1946) (opinion of Murphy, J.). In 1978, for example, the Secretary advised fiscal intermediaries that reasonable GME costs incurred by a related medical school are “allowable hospital costs,” Intermediary Letter No. 78-7 (Feb. 1978), without even mentioning either the community support or the anti-redistribution principle as potential limitations on its construction. App. to Pet. for Cert. 64a. The letter’s explicit statement that the Secretary therein addressed the “appropriateness” of “allocating [educational costs] to the hospital [in question],” ibid., demonstrates the inaccuracy of the Court’s suggestion that the letter addressed topics entirely unrelated to the anti-redistribution principle, ante, at 515-516; the “appropriateness” of allocating costs from a medical school to its affiliated hospital is precisely what the anti-redistribution principle governs, to the extent it has substantive effect at all. See 42 CFR § 413.85(c) (1993). Moreover, in 1982, the Secretary answered a query from a fiscal intermediary concerning the relationship between the anti-redistribution principle and Intermediary Letter 78-7 with the statement that “allocation of costs to a hospital from a related medical school is governed by Intermediary Letter 78-7.” App. 25. The Court makes much of the fact that the 1982 memorandum did not explicitly mention the anti-redistribution principle. Ante, at 516, n. 4. In so doing, however, the Court overlooks the fact that the fiscal intermediary’s inquiry presented the Secretary with a specific binary choice: Axe approved educational activities previously paid for by an affiliated educational unit either allowable (i. e., reimbursable) hospital costs (as Intermediary Letter No. 78-7 advised) or a prohibited redistribution of costs under § 413.85(c)? By answering the fiscal intermediary’s pointed query with the statement that Intermediary Letter No. 78-7 is controlling on the reimbursability of the costs associated with such activities, see App. 25, the Secretary quite clearly (albeit implicitly) afforded the anti-redistribution principle no substantive effect whatsoever. To be sure, in 1985 the Secretary issued a memorandum stating, without elaboration, that “[t]he fact that [the anti-redistribution principle] is not mentioned in the [1982] memorandum does not change the basic policy as espoused in [§ 413.85(c)].” Id., at 27. The 1985 memorandum’s bare reference to the “policy” of § 413.85(c), however, neither disavowed the Secretary’s past interpretation of the regulation nor set forth any alternative interpretation. The Court thus considerably overstates matters in its suggestion that the 1985 memorandum specifically confirmed the continued vitality of the anti-redistribution principle. Ante, at 516, n. 4. Based on a reading of the undeniably precatory language used in § 413.85(c), confirmed by two decades of consistent agency practice, I would hold that subsection (c) imposes no limit on the reimbursability of approved educational activities. Cf. M. Kraus & Bros., 327 U. S., at 622 (“Not even the Administrator’s interpretations of his own regulations can... add certainty and definiteness to otherwise vague language”). Instead, the subsection seems intended merely to explain the remainder of the regulation, which addresses the reimbursability of approved educational costs in clear, unmistakably mandatory terms. Cf. Pennhurst, 451 U. S., at 19, n. 14. By giving substantive effect to such a hopelessly vague regulation, the Court disserves the very purpose behind the delegation of lawmaking power to administrative agencies, which is to “resol[ve]... ambiguity in a statutory text.” Pauley v. BethEnergy Mines, Inc., 501 U. S. 680, 696 (1991). See generally Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 865-866 (1984). Here, far from resolving ambiguity in the Medicare program statutes, the Secretary has merely replaced statutory ambiguity with regulatory ambiguity. It is perfectly understandable, of course, for an agency to issue vague regulations, because to do so maximizes agency power and allows the agency greater latitude to make law through adjudication rather than through the more cumbersome rulemaking process. Nonetheless, agency rules should be clear and definite so that affected parties will have adequate notice concerning the agency’s understanding of the law. Cf. FTC v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 567 F. 2d 96, 103 (CADC 1977) (Wilkey, J.). Cf. generally 2 K. Davis & R. Pierce, Administrative Law §11.5, p. 204 (3d ed. 1994) (“An agency whose powers are not limited either by meaningful statutory standards or... legislative rules poses a serious potential threat to liberty and to democracy”). The aspirational terms of § 413.85(c) are woefully inadequate to impart such notice. II A In view of its unbelabored conclusion that § 413.85(c) imposes substantive limits on the reimbursability of approved educational costs, the Court’s discussion focuses primarily on what substantive import §413.85(c)’s anti-redistribution principle should be read to have. The Court finds the anti-redistribution principle “straightforward” in its meaning— any costs that, at some previous point in time, were carried on the books of an affiliated educational institution cannot subsequently be reimbursed by Medicare. Ante, at 513. For the reasons previously discussed, I would hold that § 413.85(c) cannot reasonably be construed to impose substantive restrictions on the reimbursability of approved educational costs. Nevertheless, if I had to give the principle substantive effect, I could not agree with the Court’s sweeping construction of the principle. In my view, the Court’s reading is premised on a distortion of the text of the regulation enunciating the anti-redistribution principle, and it is the text, of course, which must be given controlling effect. See Bowles, Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy 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 Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court. This ease presents the question whether a federal district court may entertain a complaint of allegedly discriminatory state taxation, framed as a request to increase a commercial competitor’s tax burden. Relevant to our inquiry is the Tax Injunction Act (TLA or Act), 28 U. S. C. § 1841, which prohibits lower federal courts from restraining “the assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law where a plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such State.” More embracive than the TIA, the comity doctrine applicable in state taxation cases restrains federal courts from entertaining claims for relief that risk disrupting state tax administration. See Fair Assessment in Real Estate Assn., Inc. v. McNary, 454 U. S. 100 (1981). The comity doctrine, we hold, requires that a claim of the kind here presented proceed originally in state court. In so ruling, we distinguish Hibbs v. Winn, 542 U. S. 88 (2004), in which the Court held that neither the TIA nor the comity doctrine barred a federal district court from adjudicating an Establishment Clause challenge to a state tax credit that allegedly funneled public funds to parochial schools. I A Historically, all natural gas consumers in Ohio purchased gas from the public utility, known as a local distribution company (LDC), serving their geographic area. In addition to selling gas as a commodity, LDCs own and operate networks of distribution pipelines to transport and deliver gas to consumers. LDCs offer customers a single, bundled product comprising both gas and delivery. Today, consumers in Ohio’s major metropolitan areas can alternatively contract with an independent marketer (IM) that competes with LDCs for retail sales of natural gas. IMs do not own or operate distribution pipelines; they use LDCs’ pipelines. When a customer goes with an IM, therefore, she purchases two “unbundled” products: gas (from the IM) and delivery (from the LDC). Ohio treats LDCs and IMs differently for tax purposes. Relevant here, Ohio affords LDCs three tax exemptions that IMs do not receive. First, LDCs’ natural gas sales are exempt from sales and use taxes. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 5739.02(B)(7) (Lexis Supp. 2010); §§ 5739.021(E), .023(G), .026(F) (Lexis 2008); §§5741.02(0, .021(A), .022(A), .023(A) (Lexis 2008). LDCs owe instead a gross receipts excise tax, § 5727.24, which is lower than the sales and use taxes IMs must collect. Second, LDCs are not subject to the commercial activities tax imposed on IMs’ taxable gross receipts. §§ 5751.01(E)(2), .02 (Lexis Supp. 2010). Finally, Ohio law excludes inter-LDC natural gas sales from the gross receipts tax, which IMs must pay when they purchase gas from LDCs. § 5727.33(B)(4) (Lexis 2008). B Plaintiffs-respondents Commerce Energy, Inc., a California corporation, and Interstate Gas Supply, Inc., an Ohio company, are IMs that market and sell natural gas to Ohio consumers. Plaintiff-respondent Gregory Slone is an Ohio citizen who has purchased natural gas from Interstate Gas Supply since 1999. Alleging discriminatory taxation of IMs and their patrons in violation of the Commerce and Equal Protection Clauses, Complaint ¶¶ 35-39, App. 11-13, respondents sued Richard A. Levin, Tax Commissioner of Ohio (Commissioner), in the U. S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Invoking that court’s federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1331, Complaint ¶ 6, App. 3, respondents sought declaratory and injunctive relief invalidating the three tax exemptions LDCs enjoy and ordering the Commissioner to stop “recognizing and/or enforcing” the exemptions. Id., at 20-21. Respondents named the Commissioner as sole defendant; they did not extend the litigation to include the LDCs whose tax burden their suit aimed to increase. The District Court granted the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The TIA did not block the suit, the District Court initially held, because respondents, like the plaintiffs in Hibbs, were “third-parties challenging the constitutionality of [another’s] tax benefit,” and their requested relief “would not disrupt the flow of tax revenue” to the State. App. to Pet. for Cert. 24a. Nevertheless, the District Court “deeline[d] to exercise jurisdiction” as a matter of comity. Id., at 32a. Ohio’s Legislature, the District Court observed, chose to provide the challenged tax exemptions to LDCs. Respondents requested relief that would “requir[e] Ohio to collect taxes which its legislature has not seen fit to impose.” Ibid, (internal quotation marks omitted). Such relief, the court said, would draw federal judges into “a particularly inappropriate involvement in a state’s management of its fiscal operations.” Ibid, (internal quotation marks omitted). A state court, the District Court recognized, could extend the exemptions to IMs, but the TIA proscribed this revenue-reducing relief in federal court. “Where there would be two possible remedies,” the Court concluded, a federal court should not “impose its own judgment on the state legislature mandating which remedy is appropriate.” Ibid. The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed. 554 F. 3d 1094 (2009). While agreeing that the TIA did not bar respondents’ suit, the Sixth Circuit rejected the District Court’s comity ruling. A footnote in Hibbs, the Court of Appeals believed, foreclosed the District Court’s “expansive reading” of this Court’s comity precedents. 554 F. 3d, at 1098. The footnote stated that the Court “has relied upon ‘principles of comity’ to preclude original federal-court jurisdiction only when plaintiffs have sought district-court aid in order to arrest or countermand state tax collection.” Hibbs, 542 U. S., at 107, n. 9 (citation omitted). A broad view of the comity cases, the Sixth Circuit feared, would render the TIA “effectively superfluous,” and would “sub silentio overrule a series of important cases” presenting challenges to state tax measures. 554 F. 3d, at 1099, 1102 (citing Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U. S. 267 (1977); Mueller v. Allen, 463 U. S. 388 (1983)); 554 F. 3d, at 1099-1100. In so ruling, the Sixth Circuit agreed with the Seventh and Ninth Circuits, which had similarly read Hibbs to rein in the comity doctrine, see Levy v. Pappas, 510 F. 3d 755 (CA7 2007); Wilbur v. Locke, 423 F. 3d 1101 (CA9 2005), and it disagreed with the Fourth Circuit, which had concluded that Hibbs left comity doctrine untouched, see DIRECTV, Inc. v. Tolson, 513 F 3d 119 (2008). Noting that respondents “challenged only a few limited exemptions,” and satisfied, therefore, that “[respondents’] success would not significantly intrude upon traditional matters of state taxation,” the Sixth Circuit remanded the case for adjudication of the merits. 554 F. 3d, at 1102. After unsuccessfully moving for rehearing en banc, App. to Pet. for Cert. la-2a, the Commissioner petitioned for certiorari. By then, the First Circuit had joined the Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits in holding that Hibbs sharply limited the scope of the comity bar. Coors Brewing Co. v. Méndez-Torres, 562 F. 3d 3 (2009). We granted the Commissioner’s petition, 558 U. S. 989 (2009), to resolve the disagreement among the Circuits. II A Comity considerations, the Commissioner dominantly urges, preclude the exercise of lower federal-court adjudicatory authority over this controversy, given that an adequate state-court forum is available to hear and decide respondents’ constitutional claims. We agree. The comity doctrine counsels lower federal courts to resist engagement in certain cases falling within their jurisdiction. The doctrine reflects “a proper respect for state functions, a recognition of the fact that the entire country is made up of a Union of separate state governments, and a continuance of the belief that the National Government will fare best if the States and their institutions are left free to perform their separate functions in separate ways.” Fair Assessment, 454 U. S., at 112 (quoting Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37, 44 (1971)). Comity’s constraint has particular force when lower federal courts are asked to pass on the constitutionality of state taxation of commercial activity. For “[i]t is upon taxation that the several States chiefly rely to obtain the means to carry on their respective governments, and it is of the utmost importance to all of them that the modes adopted to enforce the taxes levied should be interfered with as little as possible.” Dows v. Chicago, 11 Wall. 108, 110 (1871). “An examination of [our] decisions,” this Court wrote more than a century ago, “shows that a proper reluctance to interfere by prevention with the fiscal operations of the state governments has caused [us] to refrain from so doing in all cases where the Federal rights of the persons could otherwise be preserved unimpaired.” Boise Artesian Hot & Cold Water Co. v. Boise City, 213 U. S. 276, 282 (1909). Accord Matthews v. Rodgers, 284 U. S. 521, 525-526 (1932) (So long as the state remedy was “plain, adequate, and complete,” the “scrupulous regard for the rightful independence of state governments which should at all times actuate the federal courts, and a proper reluctance to interfere by injunction with their fiscal operations, require that such relief should be denied in every case where the asserted federal right may be preserved without it.”). Statutes conferring federal jurisdiction, we have repeatedly cautioned, should be read with sensitivity to “federal-state relations” and “wise judicial administration.” Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U. S. 706, 716 (1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). But by 1937, in state tax cases, the federal courts had moved in a different direction: They “had become free and easy with injunctions.” Fair Assessment, 454 U. S., at 129 (Brennan, J., concurring in judgment) (internal quotation marks omitted). Congress passed the TIA to reverse this trend. Id., at 109-110 (opinion of the Court). Our post-Act decisions, however, confirm the continuing sway of comity considerations, independent of the Act. Plaintiffs in Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Huffman, 319 U. S. 293 (1943), for example, sought a federal judgment declaring Louisiana’s unemployment compensation tax unconstitutional. Writing six years after the TIA’s passage, we emphasized the Act’s animating concerns: A “federal court of equity,” we reminded, “may in an appropriate case refuse to give its special protection to private rights when the exercise of its jurisdiction would be prejudicial to the public interest, [and] should stay its hand in the public interest when it reasonably appears that private interests will not suffer.” Id., at 297-298 (citations omitted). In enacting the TIA, we noted, “Congress recognized and gave sanction to this practice.” Id., at 298. We could not have thought Congress intended to cabin the comity doctrine, for we went on to instruct dismissal in Great Lakes on comity grounds without deciding whether the Act reached declaratory judgment actions. Id., at 299, 301-302. Decades later, in Fair Assessment, we ruled, based on comity concerns, that 42 U. S. C. § 1983 does not permit federal courts to award damages in state taxation cases when state law provides an adequate remedy. 454 U. S., at 116. We clarified in Fair Assessment that “the principle of .comity which predated the Act was not restricted by its passage.” Id., at 110. And in National Private Truck Council, Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Comm’n, 515 U. S. 582, 590 (1995), we said, explicitly, that “the [TIA] may be best understood as but a partial codification of the federal reluctance to interfere with state taxation.” B Although our precedents affirm that the comity doctrine is more embracive than the TIA, several Courts of Appeals, including the Sixth Circuit in the instant case, have comprehended Hibbs to restrict comity’s compass. See supra, at 420-421. Hibbs, however, has a more modest reach. Plaintiffs in Hibbs were Arizona taxpayers who challenged a state law authorizing tax credits for payments to organizations that disbursed scholarship grants to children attending private schools. 542 U. S., at 94-96. These organizations could fund attendance at institutions that provided religious instruction or gave admissions preference on the basis of religious affiliation. Id., at 95. Ranking the credit program as state subsidization of religion, incompatible with the Establishment Clause, plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunc-tive relief and an order requiring the organizations to pay sums still in their possession into the State’s general fimd. Id., at 96. The Director of Arizona’s Department of Revenue sought to escape suit in federal court by invoking the TIA. We held that the litigation fell outside the TIA’s governance. Our prior decisions holding suits blocked by the TIA, we noted, were tied to the Act’s “state-revenue-protective moorings.” Id., at 106. The Act, we explained, “restrain[ed] state taxpayers from instituting federal actions to contest their [own] liability for state taxes,” id., at 108, suits that, if successful, would deplete state coffers. But “third parties” like the Hibbs plaintiffs, we concluded, were not impeded by the TIA “from pursuing constitutional challenges to tax benefits in a federal forum.” Ibid. The case, we stressed, was “not rationally distinguishable” from a procession of pathmarking civil-rights controversies in which federal courts had entertained challenges to state tax credits without conceiving of the TIA as a jurisdictional barrier. Id., at 93-94, 110-112. See, e. g., Griffin v. School Bd. of Prince Edward Cty., 377 U. S. 218 (1964) (involving, inter alia, tax credits for contributions to private segregated schools). Arizona’s Revenue Director also invoked comity as cause for dismissing the action. We dispatched the Director’s comity argument in a spare footnote that moved the Sixth Circuit here to reverse the District Court’s comity-based dismissal. As earlier set out, see supra, at 420, the footnote stated: “[T]his Court has relied upon ‘principles of comity’ to preclude original federal-court jurisdiction only when plaintiffs have sought district-court aid in order to arrest or countermand state tax collection.” 542 U. S., at 107, n. 9 (citation omitted) (citing Fair Assessment, 454 U. S., at 107-108; Great Lakes, 319 U. S., at 296-299). Relying heavily on our footnote in Hibbs, respondents urge that “comity should no more bar this action than it did the action in Hibbs.” Brief for Respondents 42. As we explain below, however, the two cases differ markedly in ways bearing on the comity calculus. We have had no prior occasion to consider, under the comity doctrine, a taxpayer’s complaint about allegedly discriminatory state taxation framed as a request to increase a competitor’s tax burden. Now squarely presented with the question, we hold that comity precludes the exereise of original federal-court jurisdiction in cases of the kind presented here. Ill A Respondents complain that they are taxed unevenly in comparison to LDCs and their customers. Under either an equal protection or dormant Commerce Clause theory, respondents’ root objection is the same: State action, respondents contend, “selects [them] out for discriminatory treatment by subjecting [them] to taxes not imposed on others of the same class.” Hillsborough v. Cromwell, 326 U. S. 620, 623 (1946) (equal protection); see Dennis v. Higgins, 498 U. S. 439, 447-448 (1991) (dormant Commerce Clause). When economic legislation does not employ classifications subject to heightened scrutiny or impinge on fundamental rights, courts generally view constitutional challenges with the skepticism due respect for legislative choices demands. See, e. g., Hodel v. Indiana, 452 U. S. 314, 331-332 (1981); Williamson v. Lee Optical of Okla., Inc., 348 U. S. 483, 488-489 (1955). And “in taxation, even more than in other fields, legislatures possess the greatest freedom in classification.” Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U. S. 83, 88 (1940). Of key importance, when unlawful discrimination infects tax classifications or other legislative prescriptions, the Constitution simply calls for equal treatment. How equality is accomplished — by extension or invalidation of the unequally distributed benefit or burden, or some other measure — is a matter on which the Constitution is silent. See Heckler v. Mathews, 465 U. S. 728, 740 (1984) (“[W]hen the right invoked is that to equal treatment, the appropriate remedy is a mandate of equal treatment, a result that can be accomplished” in more than one way. (quoting Iowa-Des Moines Nat. Bank v. Bennett, 284 U. S. 239, 247 (1931); internal quotation marks omitted)). On finding unlawful discrimination, we have affirmed, courts may attempt, within the bounds of their institutional competence, to implement what the legislature would have willed had it been apprised of the constitutional infirmity. Mathews, 465 U. S., at 739, n. 5; Califano v. Westcott, 443 U. S. 76, 92-93 (1979); see Stanton v. Stanton, 421 U. S. 7, 17-18 (1975) (how State eliminates unconstitutional discrimination “plainly is an issue of state law”); cf. United States v. Booker, 543 U. S. 220, 246 (2005) (“legislative intent” determines cure for constitutional violation). The relief the complaining party requests does not circumscribe this inquiry. See Westcott, 443 U. S., at 96, n. 2 (Powell, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (“This issue should turn on the intent of [the legislature), not the interests of the parties.”). With the State’s legislative prerogative firmly in mind, this Court, upon finding impermissible discrimination in a State’s allocation of benefits or burdens, generally remands the case, leaving the remedial choice in the hands of state authorities. See, e. g., Wengler v. Druggists Mut. Ins. Co., 446 U. S. 142, 152-153 (1980); Orr v. Orr, 440 U. S. 268, 283-284 (1979); Stanton, 421 U. S., at 17-18; Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U. S. 535, 543 (1942). But see, e. g., Levy v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 68 (1968). In particular, when this Court — on review of a state high court’s decision — finds a tax measure constitutionally infirm, “it has been our practice,” for reasons of “federal-state comity,” “to abstain from deciding the remedial effects of such a holding.” American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. Smith, 496 U. S. 167, 176 (1990) (plurality opinion). 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). Our remand leaves the interim solution in state-court hands, subject to subsequent definitive disposition by the State’s legislature. If lower federal courts were to give audience to the merits of suits alleging uneven state tax burdens, however, recourse to state eourt for the interim remedial determination would be unavailable. That is so because federal tribunals lack authority to remand to the state court system an action initiated in federal court. Federal judges, moreover, are bound by the TIA; absent certain exceptions, see, e. g., Department of Employment v. United States, 385 U. S. 355, 357-358 (1966), the Act precludes relief that would diminish state revenues, even if such relief is the remedy least disruptive of the state legislature’s design. These limitations on the remedial competence of lower federal courts counsel that they refrain from taking up cases of this genre, so long as state courts are equipped fairly to adjudicate them. B Comity considerations, as the District Court determined, warrant dismissal of respondents’ suit. Assuming, arguendo, that respondents could prevail on the merits of the suit, *11the most obvious way to achieve parity would be to reduce respondents’ tax liability. Respondents did not seek such relief, for the TIA stands in the way of any decree that would "enjoin ... collection of [a] tax under State law.” 28 U. S. C. § 1341. A more ambitious solution would reshape the relevant provisions of Ohio’s tax code. Were a federal court to essay such relief, however, the court would engage in the very interference in state taxation the comity doctrine aims to avoid. Cf. State Railroad Tax Cases, 92 U. S. 575, 614-615 (1876). Respondents’ requested remedy, an order invalidating the exemptions enjoyed by LDCs, App. 20-21, may be far from what the Ohio Legislature would have willed. See supra, at 427. In short, if the Ohio scheme is indeed unconstitutional, surely the Ohio courts are better positioned to determine — unless and until the Ohio Legislature weighs in — how to comply with the mandate of equal treatment. See Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury, 489 U. S. 803, 817-818 (1989). As earlier noted, our unelaborated footnote on comity in Hibbs, see supra, at 425, led the Sixth Circuit to conclude that we had diminished the force of that doctrine and made it inapplicable here. We intended no such consequential ruling. Hibbs was hardly a run-of-the-mine tax case. It was essentially an attack on the allocation of state resources for allegedly unconstitutional purposes. In Hibbs, the charge was state aid in alleged violation of the Establishment Clause; in other cases of the same genre, the attack was on state allocations to maintain racially segregated schools. See 542 U. S., at 93-94, 110-112. The plaintiffs in Hibbs were outsiders to the tax expenditure, “third parties” whose own tax liability was not a relevant factor. In this case, by contrast, the very premise of respondents’ suit is that they are taxed differently from LDCs. Unlike the Hibbs plaintiffs, respondents do object to their own tax situation, measured by the allegedly more favorable treatment accorded LDCs. Hibbs held that the TIA did not preclude a federal challenge by a third party who objected to a tax credit received by others, but in no way objected to her own liability under any revenue-raising tax provision. In context, we clarify, the Hibbs footnote comment on comity is most sensibly read to affirm that, just as the case was a poor fit under the TIA, so it was a poor fit for comity. The Court, in other words, did not deploy the footnote to recast the comity doctrine; it intended the note to convey only that the Establishment Clause-grounded case cleared both the TIA and comity hurdles. Respondents steadfastly maintain that this case is fit for federal-court adjudication because of the simplicity of the relief they seek, i. e., invalidation of exemptions accorded the LDCs. But as we just explained, even if respondents’ Commerce Clause and equal protection claims had merit, respondents would have no entitlement to their preferred remedy. See supra, at 427. In Hibbs, however, if the District Court found the Arizona tax credit impermissible under the Establishment Clause, only one remedy would redress the plaintiffs’ grievance: invalidation of the credit, which inevitably would increase the State’s tax receipts. Notably, redress in state court similarly would be limited to an order ending the allegedly impermissible state support for parochial schools. Because state courts would have no greater leeway than federal courts to cure the alleged violation, nothing would be lost in the currency of comity or state autonomy by permitting the Hibbs suit to proceed in a federal forum. Comity, in sum, serves to ensure that “the National Government, anxious though it may be to vindicate and protect federal rights and federal interests, always endeavors to do so in ways that will not unduly interfere with the legitimate activities of the States.” Younger, 401 U. S., at 44. A confluence of factors in this case, absent in Hibbs, leads us to conclude that the comity doctrine controls here. First, respondents seek federal-court review of commercial matters over which Ohio enjoys wide regulatory latitude; their suit does not involve any fundamental right or classification that attracts heightened judicial scrutiny. Second, while respondents portray themselves as third-party challengers to an allegedly unconstitutional tax scheme, they are in fact seeking federal-court aid in an endeavor to improve their competitive position. Third, the Ohio courts are better positioned than their federal counterparts to correct any violation because they are more familiar with state legislative preferences and because the TIA does not constrain their remedial options. Individually, these considerations may not compel forbearance on the part of federal district courts; in combination, however, they demand deference to the state adjudicative process. C The Sixth Circuit expressed concern that application of the comity doctrine here would render the TIA “effectively superfluous.” 554 F. 3d, at 1099; see id., at 1102. This concern overlooks Congress' point in enacting the TIA. The Act was passed to plug two large loopholes courts had opened in applying the comity doctrine. See supra, at 423, and n. 3. By closing these loopholes, Congress secured the doctrine against diminishment. Comity, we further note, is a prudential doctrine. “If the State voluntarily chooses to submit to a federal forum, principles of comity do not demand that the federal court force the case back into the State's own system.” Ohio Bureau of Employment Servs. v. Hodory, 431 U. S. 471, 480 (1977). IV Because we conclude that the comity doctrine justifies dismissal of respondents' federal-court action, we need not decide whether the TIA would itself block the suit. See Great Lakes, 319 U. S., at 299, 301 (reserving judgment on TIA’s application where comity precluded suit). See also Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U. S. 422, 431 (2007) (federal court has flexibility to choose among threshold grounds for dismissal). * * * For the reasons stated, the Sixth Circuit’s judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent -with this opinion.' It is so ordered. In moving to dismiss the complaint, the Commissioner urged, inter alia, that the LDCs were parties necessary to a just adjudication. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 19. Ruling for the Commissioner on comity grounds, the District Court did not reach the question whether the LDCs were indispensable parties. App. to Pet. for Cert. 21a, 32a-33a. Justice Brennan cogently explained, in practical terms, “[t]he special reasons justifying the policy of federal noninterference with state tax collection”: “The procedures for mass assessment and collection of state taxes and for administration and adjudication of taxpayers’ disputes with tax officials are generally complex and necessarily designed to operate according to established rules. State tax agencies are organized to discharge their responsibilities in accordance with the state procedures. If federal declaratory relief were available to test state tax assessments, state tax administration might be thrown into disarray, and taxpayers might escape the ordinary procedural requirements imposed by state law. During the pendency of the federal suit the collection of revenue under the challenged law might be obstructed, with consequent damage to the State’s budget, and perhaps a shift to the State of the risk of taxpayer insolvency. Moreover, federal constitutional issues are likely to turn on questions of state tax law, which, like issues of state regulatory law, are more properly heard in the state courts.” Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U. S. 82, 128, n. 17 (1971) (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part). Two features of federal equity practice accounted for the courts’ willingness to grant injunctive relief. First, the Court had held that, although “equity jurisdiction does not lie where there exists an adequate legal remedyE,}... the ‘adequate legal remedy’ must be one cognizable in federal court." Fair Assessment in Real Estate Assn., Inc. v. McNary, 454 U. S. 100, 129, n. 15 (1981) (Brennan, J., concurring in judgment) (emphasis in original). Second, federal courts, “construing strictly the requirement that the remedy available at law be ‘plain, adequate and complete,’ had frequently concluded that the procedures provided by the State were not adequate.” Ibid, (citation omitted). We later held that the Act indeed does proscribe suits for declaratory relief that would thwart state tax collection. California v. Grace Brethren Church, 457 U. S. 393, 411 (1982). Cf., e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); United States v. Virginia, 518 U. S. 515 (1996). On the federal courts’ role in safeguarding human rights, see, e. g., Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U. S. 241, 245-248 (1967); McNeese v. Board of Ed. for Community Unit School Dist. 187, 373 U. S. 668, 672-674, and n. 6 (1963). See, e. g., Harper v. Virginia Dept. of Taxation, 509 U. S. 86, 100-102 (1993); McKesson Corp. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Fla. Dept. of Business Regulation, 496 U. S. 18, 51-52 (1990); Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury, 489 U. S. 803, 818 (1989); American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. Scheiner, 483 U. S. 266, 297-298 (1987); Tyler Pipe Industries, Inc. v. Washington State Dept. of Revenue, 483 U. S. 232, 252-253 (1987); Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. Dias, 468 U. S. 263, 276-277 (1984); Exxon Corp. v. Eagerton, 462 U. S. 176, 196-197 (1983); Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Lee, 288 U. S. 517, 540-541 (1933). State courts also have greater leeway to avoid constitutional holdings by adopting “narrowing constructions that might obviate the constitutional problem and intelligently mediate federal constitutional concerns and state interests.” Moore v. Sims, 442 U. S. 415, 429-430 (1979). Any substantial federal question, of course, “could be reviewed when the case [comes to this Court] through the hierarchy of state courts.” McNeese, 373 U. S., at 673. But see General Motors Corp. v. Tracy, 519 U. S. 278, 279-280 (1997) (determining, at a time IMs could not compete with LDCs for the Ohio residential “captive” market, that IMs and LDCs were not “similarly situated”; and rejecting industrial IM customer’s dormant Commerce Clause and equal protection challenges to LDCs’ exemption from sales and use taxes). Previous language restricting the district courts’ “jurisdiction” was removed in the 1948 revision of Title 28. Compare 28 U. S. C. § 41(1) (1940 ed.) with § 1341, 62 Stat. 932. This Court and others have continued to regard the Act as jurisdictional. See, e. g., post, at 433 (Thomas, J., concurring in judgment). Respondents note that “[o]nce the district court grants the minimal relief requested — to disallow the exemptions — it will be up to the Ohio General Assembly to balance its own interests and determine how best to recast the tax laws, within constitutional restraints.” Brief for Respondents 41. But the legislature may not be convened on the spot, and the blunt interim relief respondents ask the District Court to decree “may [immediately] derange the operations of government, and thereby cause serious detriment to the public.” Dows v. Chicago, 11 Wall. 108, 110 (1871). No refund suit (or other taxpayer mechanism) was open to the plaintiffs in Hibbs, who were financially disinterested “third parties”; they did not, therefore, improperly bypass any state procedure. Respondents here, however, could have asserted their federal rights by seeking a reduction in their tax bill in an Ohio refund suit. The District Court and Court of Appeals concluded that our decision in Hibbs placed the controversy outside the TIA's domain. That conclusion, we note, bears reassessment in light of this opinion’s discussion of the significant differences between Hibbs and this case. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

J

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. JUSTICE O'CoNNoR delivered the opinion of the Court. These consolidated cases require us to consider the constitutionality of a state sales tax that excludes or exempts certain segments of the media but not others. I Arkansas' Gross Receipts Act imposes a 4% tax on receipts from the sale of all tangible personal property and specified services. Ark. Code Ann. §~ 26-52-301, 26-52-302 (1987 and Supp. 1989). The Act exempts from the tax certain sales of goods and services. § 26-52-401 (Supp. 1989). Counties within Arkansas impose a 1% tax on all goods and services subject to taxation under the Gross Receipts Act, §§26-74-307, 26-74-222 (1987 and Supp. 1989), and cities may impose a further 54% or 1% tax on these items, § 26-76-307 (1987). The Gross Receipts Act expressly exempts receipts from subscription and over-the-counter newspaper sales and subscription magazine sales. See §§26-52-401(4), (14) (Supp. 1989); Revenue Policy Statement 1988-1 (Mar. 10, 1988), reprinted in CCH Ark. Tax Rep. ¶ 69-415. Before 1987, the Act did not list among those services subject to the sales tax either cable television or scrambled satellite broadcast television services to home dish-antennae owners. See §26-52-301 (1987). In 1987, Arkansas adopted Act 188, which amended the Gross Receipts Act to impose the sales tax on cable television. 1987 Ark. Gen. Acts, No. 188, § 1. Daniel L. Medlock, a cable television subscriber, Community Communications Co., a cable television operator, and the Arkansas Cable Television Association, Inc., a trade organization composed of approximately 80 cable operators with systems throughout the State (cable petitioners), brought this class action in the Arkansas Chancery Court to challenge the extension of the sales tax to cable television services. Cable petitioners contended that their expressive activities are protected by the First Amendment and are comparable to those of newspapers, magazines, and scrambled satellite broadcast television. They argued that Arkansas’ sales taxation of cable services, and exemption or exclusion from the tax of newspapers, magazines, and satellite broadcast services, violated their constitutional rights under the First Amendment and under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Chancery Court granted cable petitioners’ motion for a preliminary injunction, requiring Arkansas to place in escrow the challenged sales taxes and to keep records identifying collections of the taxes. Both sides introduced extensive testimony and documentary evidence at the hearing on this motion and at the subsequent trial. Following the trial, the Chancery Court concluded that cable television’s necessary use of public rights-of-way distinguishes it for constitutional purposes from other media. It therefore upheld the constitutionality of Act 188, dissolved its preliminary injunction, and ordered all funds collected in escrow released. In 1989, shortly after the Chancery Court issued its decision, Arkansas adopted Act 769, which extended the sales tax to “all other distribution of television, video or radio services with or without the use of wires provided to subscribers or paying customers or users.” 1989 Ark. Gen. Acts, No. 769, § 1. On appeal to the Arkansas Supreme Court, cable petitioners again challenged the State’s sales tax on the ground that, notwithstanding Act 769, it continued unconstitutionally to discriminate against cable television. The Supreme Court rejected the claim that the tax was invalid after the passage of Act 769, holding that the Constitution does not prohibit the differential taxation of different media. Medlock v. Pledger, 301 Ark. 483, 487, 785 S. W. 2d 202, 204 (1990). The court believed, however, that the First Amendment prohibits discriminatory taxation among members of the same medium. On the record before it, the court found that cable television services and satellite broadcast services to home dish-antennae owners were “substantially the same.” Ibid. The State Supreme Court rejected the Chancery Court’s conclusion that cable television’s use of public rights-of-way justified its differential sales tax treatment, explaining that cable operators already paid franchise fees for that right. Id., at 485, 785 S. W. 2d, at 203. It therefore held that Arkansas’ sales tax was unconstitutional under the First Amendment for the period during which cable television, but not satellite broadcast services, were subject to the tax. Id., at 487; 785 S. W. 2d, at 204. Both cable petitioners and the Arkansas Commissioner of Revenues petitioned this Court for certiorari. We consolidated these petitions and granted certiorari, Pledger v. Medlock, 498 U. S. 809 (1990), in order to resolve the question, left open in Arkansas Writers’ Project, Inc. v. Ragland, 481 U. S. 221, 233 (1987), whether the First Amendment prevents a State from imposing its sales tax on only selected segments of the media. II Cable television provides to its subscribers news, information, and entertainment. It is engaged in “speech” under the First Amendment, and is, in much of its operation, part of the “press.” See Los Angeles v. Preferred Communications, Inc., 476 U. S. 488, 494 (1986). That it is taxed differently from other media does not by itself, however, raise First Amendment concerns. Our cases have held that a tax that discriminates among speakers is constitutionally suspect only in certain circumstances. In Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U. S. 233 (1936), the Court considered a First Amendment challenge to a Louisiana law that singled out publications with weekly circulations above 20,000 for a 2% tax on gross receipts from advertising. The tax fell exclusively on 13 newspapers. Four other daily newspapers and 120 weekly newspapers with weekly circulations of less than 20,000 were not taxed. The Court discussed at length the pre-First Amendment English and American tradition of taxes imposed exclusively on the press. This invidious form of censorship was intended to curtail the circulation of newspapers and thereby prevent the people from acquiring knowledge of government activities. Id., at 246-251. The Court held that the tax at issue in Grosjean was of this type and was therefore unconstitutional. Id., at 250. In Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Comm’r of Revenue, 460 U. S. 575 (1983), we noted that it was unclear whether the result in Grosjean depended on our perception in that case that the State had imposed the tax with the intent to penalize a selected group of newspapers or whether the structure of the tax was sufficient to invalidate it. See 460 U. S., at 580 (citing cases and commentary). Minneapolis Star resolved any doubts about whether direct evidence of improper censorial motive is required in order to invalidate a differential tax on First Amendment grounds: “Illicit legislative intent is not the sine qua non of a violation of the First Amendment.” Id., at 592. At issue in Minneapolis Star was a Minnesota special use tax on the cost of paper and ink consumed in the production of publications. The tax exempted the first $100,000 worth of paper and ink consumed annually. Eleven publishers, producing only 14 of the State’s 388 paid circulation newspapers, incurred liability under the tax in its first year of operation. The Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. (Star Tribune) was responsible for roughly two-thirds of the total revenue raised by the tax. The following year, 13 publishers, producing only 16 of the State’s 374 paid circulation papers, paid the tax. Again, the Star Tribune bore roughly two-thirds of the tax’s burden. We found no evidence of impermissible legislative motive in the case apart from the structure of the tax itself. We nevertheless held the Minnesota tax unconstitutional for two reasons. First, the tax singled out the press for special treatment. We noted that the general applicability of any burdensome tax law helps to ensure that it will be met with widespread opposition. When such a law applies only to a single constituency, however, it is insulated from this political constraint. See id., at 585. Given “the basic assumption of our political system that the press will often serve as an important restraint on government,” we feared that the threat of exclusive taxation of the press could operate “as effectively as a censor to check critical comment.” Ibid. “Differential taxation of the press, then, places such a burden on the interests protected by the First Amendment,” that it is presumptively unconstitutional. Ibid. Beyond singling out the press, the Minnesota tax targeted a small group of newspapers — those so large that they remained subject to the tax despite its exemption for the first $100,000 of ink and paper consumed annually. The tax thus resembled a penalty for certain newspapers. Once again, the scheme appeared to have such potential for abuse that we concluded that it violated the First Amendment: “[W]hen the exemption selects such a narrowly defined group to bear the full burden of the tax, the tax begins to resemble more a penalty for a few of the largest newspapers than an attempt to favor struggling smaller enterprises.” Id., at 592. Arkansas Writers’ Project, Inc. v. Ragland, 481 U. S. 221 (1987), reaffirmed the rule that selective taxation of the press through the narrow targeting of individual members offends the First Amendment. In that case, Arkansas Writers’ Project sought a refund of state taxes it had paid on sales of the Arkansas Times, a general interest magazine, under Arkansas’ Gross Receipts Act of 1941. Exempt from the sales tax were receipts from sales of religious, professional, trade and sports magazines. See id., at 224-226. We held that Arkansas’ magazine exemption, which meant that only “a few Arkansas magazines pay any sales tax,” operated in much the same way as did the $100,000 exemption in Minneapolis Star and therefore suffered from the same type of discrimination identified in that case. Id., at 229. Moreover, the basis on which the tax differentiated among magazines depended entirely on their content. Ibid. These cases demonstrate that differential taxation of First Amendment speakers is constitutionally suspect when it threatens to suppress the expression of particular ideas or viewpoints. Absent a compelling justification, the government may not exercise its taxing power to single out the press. See Grosjean, 297 U. S., at 244-249; Minneapolis Star, 460 U. S., at 585. The press plays a unique role as a check on government abuse, and a tax limited to the press raises concerns about censorship of critical information and opinion. A tax is also suspect if it targets a small group of speakers. See id., at 575; Arkansas Writers’, 481 U. S., at 229. Again, the fear is censorship of particular ideas or viewpoints. Finally, for reasons that are obvious, a tax will trigger heightened scrutiny under the First Amendment if it discriminates on the basis of the content of taxpayer speech. See id., at 229-231. The Arkansas tax at issue here presents none of these types of discrimination. The Arkansas sales tax is a tax of general applicability. It applies to receipts from the sale of all tangible personal property and a broad range of services, unless within a group of specific exemptions. Among the services on which the tax is imposed are natural gas, electricity, water, ice, and steam utility services; telephone, telecommunications, and telegraph service; the furnishing of rooms by hotels, apartment hotels, lodging houses, and tourist camps; alteration, addition, cleaning, refinishing, replacement, and repair services; printing of all kinds; tickets for admission to places of amusement or athletic, entertainment, or recreational events; and fees for the privilege of having access to, or use of, amusement, entertainment, athletic, or recreational facilities. See Ark. Code Ann. §26-52-301 (Supp. 1989). The tax does not single out the press and does not therefore threaten to hinder the press as a watchdog of government activity. Cf. Minneapolis Star, supra, at 585. We have said repeatedly that a State may impose on the press a generally applicable tax. See Jimmy Swaggart Min istries v. Board of Equalization of Cal., 493 U. S. 378, 387-388 (1990); Arkansas Writers’, supra, at 229; Minneapolis Star, supra, at 586, and n. 9. Furthermore, there is no indication in these cases that Arkansas has targeted cable television in a purposeful attempt to interfere with its First Amendment activities. Nor is the tax one that is structured so as to raise suspicion that it was intended to do so. Unlike the taxes involved in Grosjean and Minneapolis Star, the Arkansas tax has not selected a narrow group to bear fully the burden of the tax. The tax is also structurally dissimilar to the tax involved in Arkansas Writers’. In that case, only “a few” Arkansas magazines paid the State’s sales tax. See Arkansas Writers’, 481 U. S., at 229, and n. 4. Arkansas Writers’ Project maintained before the Court that the Arkansas Times was the only Arkansas publication that paid sales tax. The Commissioner contended that two additional periodicals also paid the tax. We responded that, “[wjhether there are three Arkansas magazines paying tax or only one, the burden of the tax clearly falls on a limited group of publishers.” Id., at 229, n. 4. In contrast, Act 188 extended Arkansas’ sales tax uniformly to the approximately 100 cable systems then operating in the State. See App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 90-38, p. 12a. While none of the seven scrambled satellite broadcast services then available in Arkansas, Tr. 12 (Aug. 19, 1987), was taxed until Act 769 became effective, Arkansas’ extension of its sales tax to cable television hardly resembles a “penalty for a few.” See Minneapolis Star, supra, at 592; Arkansas Writers’, supra, at 229, and n. 4. The danger from a tax scheme that targets a small number of speakers is the danger of censorship; a tax on a small number of speakers runs the risk of affecting only a limited range of views. The risk is similar to that from content-based regulation: It will distort the market for ideas. “The constitutional right of free expression is . . . intended to remove governmental restraints from the arena of public discussion, putting the decision as to what views shall be voiced largely into the hands of each of us ... in the belief that no other approach would comport with the premise of individual dignity and choice upon which our political system rests.” Cohen v. California, 403 U. S. 15, 24 (1971). There is no comparable danger from a tax on the services provided by a large number of cable operators offering a wide variety of programming throughout the State. That the Arkansas Supreme Court found cable and satellite television to be the same medium does not change this conclusion. Even if we accept this finding, the fact remains that the tax affected approximately 100 suppliers of cable television services. This is not a tax structure that resembles a penalty for particular speakers or particular ideas. Finally, Arkansas’ sales tax is not content based. There is nothing in the language of the statute that refers to the content of mass media communications. Moreover, the record establishes that cable television offers subscribers a variety of programming that presents a mixture of news, information, and entertainment. It contains no evidence, nor is it contended, that this material differs systematically in its message from that communicated by satellite broadcast programming, newspapers, or magazines. Because the Arkansas sales tax presents none of the First Amendment difficulties that have led us to strike down differential taxation in the past, cable petitioners can prevail only if the Arkansas tax scheme presents “an additional basis” for concluding that the State has violated petitioners’ First Amendment rights. See Arkansas Writers', supra, at 233. Petitioners argue that such a basis exists here: Arkansas’ tax discriminates among media and, if the Arkansas Supreme Court’s conclusion regarding cable and satellite television is accepted, discriminated for a time within a medium. Petitioners argue that such intermedia and intramedia discrimination, even in the absence of any evidence of intent to suppress speech or of any effect on the expression of particular ideas, violates the First Amendment. Our cases do not support such a rule. Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Wash., 461 U. S. 540 (1983), stands for the proposition that a tax scheme that discriminates among speakers does not implicate the First Amendment unless it discriminates on the basis of ideas. In that case, we considered provisions of the Internal Revenue Code that discriminated between contributions to lobbying organizations. One section of the Code conferred tax-exempt status on certain nonprofit organizations that did not engage in lobbying activities. Contributions to those organizations were deductible. Another section of the Code conferred tax-exempt status on certain other nonprofit organizations that did lobby, but contributions to them were not deductible. Taxpayers contributing to veterans’ organizations were, however, permitted to deduct their contributions regardless of those organizations’ lobbying activities. The tax distinction between these lobbying organizations did not trigger heightened scrutiny under the First Amendment. Id., at 546-551. We explained that a legislature is not required to subsidize First Amendment rights through a tax exemption or tax deduction. Id., at 546. For this proposition, we relied on Cammarano v. United States, 358 U. S. 498 (1959). In Cammarano, the Court considered an Internal Revenue regulation that denied a tax deduction for money spent by businesses on publicity programs directed at pending state legislation. The Court held that the regulation did not violate the First Amendment because it did not discriminate on the basis of who was spending the money on publicity or what the person or business was advocating. The regulation was therefore “plainly not ‘ “aimed at the suppression of dangerous ideas.’”” Id., at 513, quoting Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513, 519 (1958). Regan, while similar to Cammarano, presented the additional fact that Congress had chosen to exempt from taxes contributions to veterans’ organizations, while not exempting other contributions. This did not change the analysis. Inherent in the power to tax is the power to discriminate in taxation. “Legislatures have especially broad latitude in creating classifications and distinctions in tax statutes.” Regan, supra, at 547. See also Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U. S. 83, 87-88 (1940); New York Rapid Transit Corp. v. City of New York, 303 U. S. 573, 578 (1938); Magoun v. Illinois Trust & Savings Bank, 170 U. S. 283, 294 (1898). Cammarano established that the government need not exempt speech from a generally applicable tax. Regan established that a tax scheme does not become suspect simply because it exempts only some speech. Regan reiterated in the First Amendment context the strong presumption in favor of duly enacted taxation schemes. In so doing, the Court quoted the rule announced more than 40 years earlier in Madden, an equal protection case: “‘The broad discretion as to classification possessed by a legislature in the field of taxation has long been recognized. . . . [T]he passage of time has only served to underscore the wisdom of that recognition of the large area of discretion which is needed by a legislature in formulating sound tax policies. Traditionally classification has been a device for fitting tax programs to local needs and usages in order to achieve an equitable distribution of the tax burden. It has, because of this, been pointed out that in taxation, even more than in other fields, legislatures possess the greatest freedom in classification. Since the members of a legislature necessarily enjoy a familiarity with local conditions which this Court cannot have, the presumption of constitutionality can be overcome only by the most explicit demonstration that a classification is a hostile and oppressive discrimination against particular persons and classes.’” Madden, supra, at 87-88 (footnotes omitted), quoted in Regan, 461 U. S., at 547-548. On the record in Regan, there appeared no such “hostile and oppressive discrimination.” We explained that “[t]he case would be different if Congress were to discriminate invidiously in its subsidies in such a way as to aim at the suppression of dangerous ideas.” Id., at 548 (internal quotation marks omitted). But that was not the case. The exemption for contributions to veterans’ organizations applied without reference to the content of the speech involved; it was not intended to suppress any ideas; and there was no demonstration that it had that effect. Ibid. Under these circumstances, the selection of the veterans’ organizations for a tax preference was “obviously a matter of policy and discretion.” Id., at 549 (internal quotation marks omitted). That a differential burden on speakers is insufficient by itself to raise First Amendment concerns is evident as well from Mabee v. White Plains Publishing Co., 327 U. S. 178 (1946), and Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Walling, 327 U. S. 186 (1946). Those cases do not involve taxation, but they do involve government action that places differential burdens on members of the press. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 52 Stat. 1060, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 201 et seq., applies generally to newspapers as to other businesses, but it exempts from its requirements certain small papers. § 213(a)(8). Publishers of larger daily newspapers argued that the differential burden thereby placed on them violates the First Amendment. The Court upheld the exemption because there was no indication that the government had singled out the press for special treatment, Walling, supra, at 194, or that the exemption was a “ ‘deliberate and calculated device’ ” to penalize a certain group of newspapers, Mabee, supra, at 184, quoting Grosjean, 297 U. S., at 250. Taken together, Regan, Mabee, and Oklahoma Press establish that differential taxation of speakers, even members of the press, does not implicate the First Amendment unless the tax is directed at, or presents the danger of suppressing, particular ideas. That was the case in Grosjean, Minneapolis Star, and Arkansas Writers’, but it is not the case here. The Arkansas Legislature has chosen simply to exclude or exempt certain media from a generally applicable tax. Nothing about that choice has ever suggested an interest in censoring the expressive activities of cable television. Nor does anything in this record indicate that Arkansas’ broad-based, content-neutral sales tax is likely to stifle the free exchange of ideas. We conclude that the State’s extension of its generally applicable sales tax to cable television services alone, or to cable and satellite services, while exempting the print media, does not violate the First Amendment. Before the Arkansas Chancery Court, cable petitioners contended that the State’s tax distinction between cable and other media violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the First Amendment. App. to Pet. for Cert, in No. 90-38, p. 21a. The Chancery Court rejected both claims, and cable petitioners challenged these holdings before the Arkansas Supreme Court. That court did not reach the equal protection question as to the State’s temporary tax distinction between cable and satellite services because it disallowed that distinction on First Amendment grounds. We leave it to the Arkansas Supreme Court to address this question on remand. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Arkansas Supreme Court is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. Cable systems receive television, radio, or other signals through antennae located at their so-called “headends.” Information gathered in this way, as well as any other material that the system operator wishes to transmit, is then conducted through cables strung over utility poles and through underground conduits to subscribers. See generally D. Brenner, M. Price, & M. Meyerson, Cable Television and Other Nonbroadcast Video: Law and Policy § 1.03 (1989). Satellite television broadcast services transmit over-the-air “scrambled” signals directly to the satellite dishes of subscribers, who must pay for the right to view the signals. See generally A. Easton & S. Easton, The Complete Sourcebook of Home Satellite TV 57-66 (1988). Certain amici in support of cable petitioners argue that Regan is distinguishable from these cases because the petitioners in Regan were complaining that their contributions to lobbying organizations should be tax deductible, while cable petitioners complain that sales of their services should be tax exempt. This is a distinction without a difference. As we explained in Regan, “[b]oth tax exemptions and tax deductibility are a form of subsidy that is administered through the tax system." 461 U. S., at 544. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

C

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Justice O’Connor delivered the opinion of the Court. In Bullington v. Missouri, 451 U. S. 430 (1981), we held that a defendant sentenced to life imprisonment following a trial-like capital sentencing proceeding is protected by the Double Jeopardy Clause against imposition of the death penalty if he obtains reversal of his conviction and is retried and reconvicted. In this case we are asked to decide whether the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits a State from twice subjecting a defendant to a noncapital sentence enhancement proceeding. I Respondent and others entered a jewelry store in St. Louis County, Missouri, on April 17, 1981. Holding store employees and customers at gunpoint, they stole money and jewelry. After a jury trial, respondent was convicted on threé counts of first-degree robbery. See Mo. Rev. Stat. §569.020 (1978). The authorized punishment for that offense, a class A felony, is “a term of years not less than ten years and not to exceed thirty years, or life imprisonment.” Mo. Rev. Stat. §558.011.1(1) (Supp. 1982). Under Missouri law, the jury is to “assess and declare the punishment as a part of [the] verdict.” §557.036.2. The judge is then to determine the punishment “having regard to the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and character of the defendant,” §557.036.1, although the sentence imposed by the judge generally cannot be more severe than the advisory sentence recommended by the jury. § 557.036.3. If the trial judge finds the defendant to be a “persistent offender,” however, the judge sets the punishment without seeking an advisory sentence from the jury. §§ 557.036.4, 557.036.5. A persistent offender is any person “who has pleaded guilty to or has been found guilty of two or more felonies committed at different times.” §558.016.3. The judge must find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is a persistent offender. § 558.021. For a defendant who has committed a class A felony, a finding of persistent-offender status shifts the sentencing decision from the jury to the judge but does not alter the authorized sentencing range. §§557.036.4(2), 558.016.6(1). The trial judge in this case sentenced respondent as a persistent offender to three consecutive terms of 15 years in prison. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed respondent’s convictions. State v. Bohlen, 670 S. W. 2d 119 (1984). The state court reversed respondent’s sentence, however, because “although [respondent] was sentenced by the judge as a persistent offender no proof was made of the prior convictions.” Id., at 123. Following Missouri practice, see State v. Holt, 660 S. W. 2d 735, 738-739 (Mo. App. 1983), the court remanded for proof of those convictions and resentencing. On remand, the State introduced evidence of four prior felony convictions. Rejecting respondent’s contention that allowing the State another opportunity to prove his prior convictions violated the Double Jeopardy Clause, the trial judge found respondent to be a persistent offender and again sentenced him to three consecutive 15-year terms. App. A-29, A-35. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed: “The question of double jeopardy was not involved because those provisions of the Fifth Amendment have been held not to apply to sentencing.” State v. Bohlen, 698 S. W. 2d 577, 578 (1985), citing State v. Lee, 660 S. W. 2d 394, 399 (Mo. App. 1983). The Missouri Court of Appeals subsequently affirmed the trial court’s denial of respondent’s motion for postconviction relief. Bohlen v. State, 743 S. W. 2d 425 (1987). In 1989, respondent filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The District Court, adopting the report and recommendation of a Magistrate, denied the petition. App. to Pet. for Cert. A25-A26. The court rejected respondent’s contention that the Double Jeopardy Clause barred the State from introducing evidence of respondent’s prior convictions at the second sentencing hearing. Id., at A37-A49. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed. 979 F. 2d 109 (1992). Based on its conclusion that “[t]he persistent offender sentence] enhancement procedure in Missouri has protections similar to those in the capital sentencing hearing in Bullington” id., at 112, the court stated that “it is a short step to apply the same double jeopardy protection to a non-capital sentencing hearing as the Supreme Court applied to a capital sentencing]... hearing.” Id., at 113. The court held that taking that step did not require the announcement of a “new rule” of constitutional law, and thus that granting habeas relief to respondent would not violate the nonretroactivity principle of Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288 (1989) (plurality opinion). The Court of Appeals accordingly directed the District Court to grant respondent a writ of habeas corpus. 979 F. 2d, at 115. We granted certiorari, 508 U. S. 971 (1993), and now reverse. II We have consistently declined to consider issues not raised in the petition for a writ of certiorari. See this Court’s Rule 14.1(a) (“Only the questions set forth in the petition, or fairly included therein, will be considered by the Court”). In Yee v. Escondido, 503 U. S. 519 (1992), for example, the question presented was whether certain governmental action had effected a physical taking of the petitioner’s property; we held that the question whether the same action had effected a regulatory taking, while “related” and “complementary” to the question presented, was not fairly included therein. Id., at 537. In Izumi Seimitsu Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha v. U. S. Philips Corp., 510 U. S. 27 (1993) (per curiam), the question presented in the petition was whether the courts of appeals should routinely vacate district court judgments when cases are settled while on appeal; we held that the “analytically and factually” distinct issue whether the petitioner was improperly denied leave to intervene in the court below was not fairly included in the question presented. Id., at 32. See also American Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago v. Haroco, Inc., 473 U. S. 606, 608 (1985) (per curiam). The primary question presented in the petition for a writ of certiorari in this case was “[w]hether the Double Jeopardy Clause . . . should apply to successive non-capital sentence enhancement proceedings.” Pet. for Cert. 1. The State argues that answering that question in the affirmative would require the announcement of a new rule of constitutional law in violation of Teague and subsequent cases. We conclude that this issue is a subsidiary question fairly included in the question presented. The nonretroactivity principle prevents a federal court from granting habeas corpus relief to a state prisoner based on a rule announced after his conviction and sentence became final. See, e. g., Stringer v. Black, 503 U. S. 222, 227 (1992). A threshold question in every habeas case, therefore, is whether the court is obligated to apply the Teague rule to the defendant’s claim. We have recognized that the nonretroactivity principle “is not ‘jurisdictional’ in the sense that [federal courts]. . . must raise and decide the issue sua sponte.” Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U. S. 37, 41 (1990) (emphasis omitted). Thus, a federal court may, but need not, decline to apply Teague if the State does not argue it. See Schiro v. Farley, 510 U. S. 222, 228-229 (1994). But if the State does argue that the defendant seeks the benefit of a new rule of constitutional law, the court must apply Teague before considering the merits of the claim. See Graham v. Collins, 506 U. S. 461, 466-467 (1993). In this case, the State argued in the petition, as it had in the courts below and as it does in its brief on the merits, that the nonretroactivity principle barred the relief sought by respondent. In contrast to Yee, which involved a claim that was related but not subsidiary, and Izumi, in which the intervention question was a procedural one wholly divorced from the question on which we granted review, the Teague issue raised by the State in this case is a necessary predicate to the resolution of the question presented in the petition. Cf. Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U. S. 335, 342-343, n. 6 (1980). We therefore proceed to consider it. III. [A] case announces a new rule if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant’s conviction became final.” Teague v. Lane, supra, at 301. In determining whether a state prisoner is entitled to habeas relief, a federal court should apply Teague by proceeding in three steps. First, the court must ascertain the date on which the defendant’s conviction and sentence became final for Teague purposes. Second, the court must “[s]urve[y] the legal landscape as it then existed,” Graham v. Collins, supra, at 468, and “determine whether a state court considering [the defendant’s] claim at the time his conviction became final would have felt compelled by existing precedent to conclude that the rule [he] seeks was required by the Constitution,” Saffie v. Parks, 494 U. S. 484,488 (1990). Finally, even if the court determines that the defendant seeks the benefit of a new rule, the court must decide whether that rule falls within one of the two narrow exceptions to the nonretroactivity principle. See Gilmore v. Taylor, 508 U. S. 333, 345 (1993). A A state conviction and sentence become final for purposes of retroactivity analysis when the availability of direct appeal to the state courts has been exhausted and the time for filing a petition for a writ of certiorari has elapsed or a timely filed petition has been finally denied. See Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U. S. 314, 321, n. 6 (1987). The Missouri Court of Appeals denied respondent’s petition for rehearing on October 3,1985, and respondent did not file a petition for a writ of certiorari. Respondent’s conviction and sentence therefore became final on January 2, 1986 — 91 days (January 1 was a legal holiday) later. 28 U. S. C. § 2101(c); see this Court’s Rules 13.4 and 30.1. B In reviewing the state of the law on that date, we note that it was well established that there is no double jeopardy bar to the use of prior convictions in sentencing a persistent offender. Spencer v. Texas, 385 U. S. 554, 560 (1967). Cf. Moore v. Missouri, 159 U. S. 673, 678 (1895). Respondent’s claim, however, is that the State’s failure to prove his persistent-offender status at his first sentencing hearing operated as an “acquittal” of that status, so that he cannot be again subjected to a persistent-offender determination. See United States v. Wilson, 420 U. S. 332, 343 (1975) (“When a defendant has been acquitted of an offense, the Clause guarantees that the State shall not be permitted to make repeated attempts to convict him”). At first blush, respondent’s argument would appear to be foreclosed by the fact that “[hjistorically, the pronouncement of sentence has never carried the finality that attaches to an acquittal.” United States v. DiFrancesco, 449 U. S. 117, 133 (1980). In that case, we upheld the constitutionality of 18 U. S. C. §3576, a pre-Guidelines statute that allowed the United States to appeal the sentence imposed on a defendant adjudged to be a “dangerous special offender,” and allowed the court of appeals to affirm the sentence, impose a different sentence, or remand to the district court for further sentencing proceedings. A review of our prior cases led us to the conclusion that “[t]his Court’s decisions in the sentencing area clearly establish that a sentence does not have the qualities of constitutional finality that attend an acquittal.” 449 U. S., at 134; see also id., at 135, citing Chaffin v. Stynchcombe, 412 U. S. 17 (1973); North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U. S. 711 (1969); Bozza v. United States, 330 U. S. 160 (1947); and Stroud v. United States, 251 U. S. 15 (1919). Respondent acknowledges our traditional refusal to extend the Double Jeopardy Clause to sentencing, but contends that a different result is compelled in this case by Bullington v. Missouri, 451 U. S. 430 (1981), and Arizona v. Rumsey, 467 U. S. 203 (1984). In Bullington, the defendant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. After he obtained a reversal of his conviction on appeal and was reconvicted, the State again sought the death penalty. We recognized the general principle that “[t]he imposition of a particular sentence usually is not regarded as an ‘acquittal’ of any more severe sentence that could have been imposed.” 451 U. S., at 438. We nonetheless held that because Missouri’s “presentence hearing resembled and, indeed, in all relevant respects was like the immediately preceding trial on the issue of guilt or innocence,” ibid., the first jury’s refusal to impose the death penalty operated as an acquittal of that punishment. In Rumsey, we extended the rationale of Bullington to a capital sentencing scheme in which the judge, as opposed to a jury, had initially determined that a life sentence was appropriate. 467 U. S., at 212. Both Bullington and Rumsey were capital cases, and our reasoning in those cases was based largely on the unique circumstances of a capital sentencing proceeding. In Bullington itself we distinguished our contrary precedents, particularly DiFrancesco, on the ground that “[t]he history of sentencing practices is of little assistance to Missouri in this case, since the sentencing procedures for capital cases instituted after the decision in Furman [v. Georgia, 408 U. S. 238 (1972),] are unique.” 451 U. S., at 441-442, n. 15 (internal quotation marks omitted). We recognized as much in Pennsylvania v. Goldhammer, 474 U. S. 28 (1985) (per curiam): “[T]he decisions of this Court ‘clearly establish that a sentenc[ing in a noncapital case] does not have the qualities of constitutional finality that attend an acquittal.’” Id., at 30, quoting DiFrancesco, supra, at 134 (bracketed phrase added by the Goldhammer Court; emphasis added). In Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (1984), we held that the same standard for evaluating claims of ineffective assistance of counsel applies to trials and to capital sentencing proceedings because “[a] capital sentencing proceeding ... is sufficiently like a trial in its adversarial format and in the existence of standards for decision, see [Bullington], that counsel’s role in the proceeding is comparable to counsel’s role at trial.” Id., at 686-687. Because Strickland involved a capital sentencing proceeding, we left open the question whether the same test would apply to noncapital cases: “We need not consider the role of counsel in an ordinary sentencing, which may involve informal proceedings and standardless discretion in the sentencer, and hence may require a different approach to the definition of constitutionally effective assistance.” Id., at 686; see also id., at 704-705 (Brennan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (“ 'Time and again the Court has condemned procedures in capital cases that might be completely acceptable in an ordinary case. See, e. g., [Bullington]’ ”) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U. S. 880, 913-914 (1983) (Marshall, J., dissenting)). See also Spaziano v. Florida, 468 U. S. 447, 458 (1984). While our cases may not have foreclosed the application of the Double Jeopardy Clause to noncapital sentencing, neither did any of them apply the Clause in that context. On the contrary, Goldhammer and Strickland strongly suggested that Bullington was limited to capital sentencing. We therefore conclude that a reasonable jurist reviewing our precedents at the time respondent’s conviction and sentence became final would not have considered the application of the Double Jeopardy Clause to a noncapital sentencing proceeding to be dictated by our precedents. Cf. Stringer v. Black, 503 U. S., at 236-237. This analysis is confirmed by the experience of the lower courts. Prior to the time respondent’s conviction and sentence became final, one Federal Court of Appeals and two state courts of last resort had held that the Double Jeopardy Clause did not bar the introduction of evidence of prior convictions at resentencing in noncapital cases, Linam v. Griffin, 685 F. 2d 369, 374-376 (CA10 1982); Durham v. State, 464 N. E. 2d 321, 323-326 (Ind. 1984); People v. Sailor, 65 N. Y. 2d 224, 231-236, 480 N. E. 2d 701, 706-710 (1985), while another Federal Court of Appeals and two other state courts of last resort had held to the contrary, Briggs v. Procunier, 764 F. 2d 368, 371 (CA5 1985); State v. Hennings, 100 Wash. 2d 379, 386-390, 670 P. 2d 256, 259-262 (1983); Cooper v. State, 631 S. W. 2d 508, 513-514 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982). Moreover, the Missouri Court of Appeals had previously rejected precisely the same claim raised by respondent. State v. Lee, 660 S. W. 2d, at 399-400. In its retroactivity analysis, the Court of Appeals dismissed the Tenth Circuit’s decision in Linam as “ultimately based on trial error,” 979 F. 2d, at 114, failing to recognize that the Linam court offered two “alternative bas[e]s for decision,” 685 F. 2d, at 374 — the second being that the “uniqueness of the death penalty unquestionably serves to distinguish DiFrancesco from Bullington,” id., at 375. Nor did the Court of Appeals acknowledge the relevant portion of the Lee decision, in which a Missouri court held that “the death penalty second stage trial in a capital murder case bears no similarity to a determination of persistent offender status by a judge upon the basis of largely formal evidence.” 660 S. W. 2d, at 400. Instead, the court focused on whether there was any “federal holding resting squarely on the proposition that Bullington does not apply to non-capital sentence] enhancement proceedings.” 979 F. 2d, at 114 (emphasis added). At oral argument in this Court, counsel for respondent candidly admitted that he did not know “exactly what State courts had decided or when” with respect to the applicability of the Double Jeopardy Clause to noncapital sentencing. Tr. of Oral Arg. 31. In fact, two state courts had held the Double Jeopardy Clause inapplicable to noncapital sentencing prior to 1986. Durham v. State, supra; People v. Sailor, supra. Constitutional law is not the exclusive province of the federal courts, and in the Teague analysis the reasonable views of state courts are entitled to consideration along with those of federal courts. See Butler v. McKellar, 494 U. S. 407, 414 (1990). In sum, at the time respondent’s conviction and sentence became final this Court had not applied the Double Jeopardy Clause to noncapital sentencing, and indeed several of our cases pointed in the opposite direction. Two Federal Courts of Appeals and several state courts had reached conflicting holdings on the issue. Because that conflict concerned a “development] in the law over which reasonable jurists [could] disagree,” Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U. S. 227, 234 (1990), the Court of Appeals erred in resolving it in respondent’s favor. Finally, to the limited extent our cases decided subsequent to the time respondent’s conviction and sentence became final have any relevance to the Teague analysis, cf. Graham v. Collins, 506 U. S., at 472, 477, they are entirely consistent with our conclusion that the Court of Appeals announced a new rule in this case. See Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U. S. 33, 37-38, n. 6 (1988) (reserving question whether Double Jeopardy Clause applies to noncapital sentencing); see also Poland v. Arizona, 476 U. S. 147, 155 (1986) (“Bullington indicates that the proper inquiry is whether the sentencer or reviewing court has ‘decided that the prosecution has not proved its case’ that the death penalty is appropriate”) (emphasis in original); Hunt v. New York, 502 U. S. 964 (1991) (White, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (noting conflict on the question “whether the Double Jeopardy Clause applies to trial-like sentence enhancement proceedings in noncapital cases”). Because “[t]he ‘new rule’ principle . . . validates reasonable, good-faith interpretations of existing precedents made by state courts even though they are shown to be contrary to later decisions,” Butler v. McKellar, supra, at 414, a fortiori it should protect a reasonable interpretation that is entirely consistent with subsequent cases. C Neither of the two narrow exceptions to the nonretroactivity principle applies to this case. The first exception is for new rules that place “certain kinds of primary, private individual conduct beyond the power of the criminal law-making authority to proscribe.” Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S., at 307 (internal quotation marks omitted). Imposing a double j eopardy bar in this case would have no such effect. Respondent is subject to imprisonment on each of his three convictions, regardless of whether he is sentenced as a persistent offender. The second exception is for “ ‘watershed rules of criminal procedure’ implicating the fundamental fairness and accuracy of the criminal proceeding.” Saffle v. Parks, 494 U. S., at 495. Applying the Double Jeopardy Clause to successive noncapital sentencing is not such a groundbreaking occurrence. Persistent-offender status is a fact objectively ascertainable on the basis of readily available evidence. Either a defendant has the requisite number of prior convictions, or he does not. Subjecting him to a second proceeding at which the State has the opportunity to show those convictions is not unfair and will enhance the accuracy of the proceeding by ensuring that the determination is made on the basis of competent evidence. IV The Court of Appeals recognized that it was a “stretch” to apply the Double Jeopardy Clause to a noncapital sentencing proceeding, 979 F. 2d, at 115, one that required “[extending” the rationale of Bullington, 979 F. 2d, at 115, but held that because it was only a “short step,” id., at 113, the nonretroactivity principle was not violated. We disagree. The Court of Appeals erred in directing the District Court to grant respondent a writ of habeas corpus because doing so required the announcement and application of a new rule of constitutional law. Because of our resolution of this case on Teague grounds, we have no occasion to decide whether the Double Jeopardy Clause applies to noncapital sentencing, or whether Missouri’s persistent-offender scheme is sufficiently trial-like to invoke double jeopardy protections; nor need we consider the State’s contention that Bullington should be overruled. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is Reversed. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

A

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. MR. Justice Frankfurter delivered the opinion of the Court. This is a proceeding under § 22-a of the New York Code of Criminal Procedure (L. 1941, c. 925), as amended in 1954 (L. 1954, c. 702). This section supplements the existing conventional criminal provision dealing with pornography by authorizing the chief executive, or legal officer, of a municipality to invoke a “limited injunctive remedy,” under closely defined, procedural safeguards, against the sale and distribution of written and printed matter found after due trial to be obscene, and to obtain an order for the seizure, in default of surrender, of the condemned publications. A complaint dated September 10, 1954, charged appellants with displaying for sale paper-covered obscene booklets, fourteen of which were annexed, under the general title of “Nights of Horror.” The complaint prayed that appellants be enjoined from further distribution of the booklets, that they be required to surrender to the sheriff for destruction all copies in their possession, and, upon failure to do so, that the sheriff be commanded to seize and destroy those copies. The same day the appellants were ordered to show cause within four days why they should not be enjoined pendente lite from distributing the booklets. Appellants consented to the granting of an injunction pendente lite and did not bring the matter to issue promptly, as was their right under subdivision 2 of the challenged section, which provides that the persons sought to be enjoined “shall be entitled to a trial of the issues within one day after joinder of issue and a decision shall be rendered by the court within two days of the conclusion of the trial.” After the case came to trial, the judge, sitting in equity, found that the booklets annexed to the complaint and introduced in evidence were clearly obscene — were “dirt for dirt’s sake”; he enjoined their further distribution and ordered their destruction. He refused to enjoin “the sale and distribution of later issues” on the ground that “to rule against a volume not offered in evidence would . . . impose an unreasonable prior restraint upon freedom of the press.” 208 Misc. 150, 167, 142 N. Y. S. 2d 735, 750. Not challenging the construction of the statute or the finding of obscenity, appellants took a direct appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, a proceeding in which the constitutionality of the statute was the sole question open to them. That court (one judge not sitting) found no constitutional infirmity: three judges supported the unanimous conclusion by detailed discussion, the other three deemed a brief disposition justified by “ample authority.” 1 N. Y. 2d 177, 189, 134 N. E. 2d 461, 468. A claim under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment made throughout the state litigation brought the case here on appeal. 352 U. S. 962. Neither in the New York Court of Appeals, nor here, did appellants assail the legislation insofar as it outlaws obscenity. The claim they make lies within a very narrow compass. Their attack is upon the power of New York to employ the remedial scheme of § 22-a. Authorization of an injunction pendente lite, as part of this scheme, during the period within which the issue of obscenity must be promptly tried and adjudicated in an adversary proceeding for which “[a]dequate notice, judicial hearing, [and] fair determination” are assured, 208 Misc. 150, 164, 142 N. Y. S. 2d 735, 747, is a safeguard against frustration of the public interest in effectuating judicial condemnation of obscene matter. It is a brake on the temptation to exploit a filthy business offered by the limited hazards of piecemeal prosecutions, sale by sale, of a publication already condemned as obscene. New York enacted this procedure on the basis of study by a joint legislative committee. Resort to this injunctive remedy, it is claimed, is beyond the constitutional power of New York in that it amounts to a prior censorship of literary product and as such is violative of that “freedom of thought, and speech” which has been “withdrawn by the Fourteenth Amendment from encroachment by the states.” Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U. S. 319, 326-327. Reliance is particularly placed upon Near v. Minnesota, 283 U. S. 697. In an unbroken series of cases extending over a long stretch of this Court’s history, it has been accepted as a postulate that “the primary requirements of decency may be enforced against obscene publications.” Id., at 716. And so our starting point is that New York can constitutionally convict appellants of keeping for sale the booklets incontestably found to be obscene. Alberts v. California, post, p. 476, decided this day. The immediate problem then is whether New York can adopt as an auxiliary means of dealing with such obscene merchandising the procedure of § 22-a. We need not linger over the suggestion that something can be drawn out of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment that restricts New York to the criminal process in seeking to protect its people against the dissemination of pornography. It is not for this Court thus to limit the State in resorting to various weapons in the armory of the law. Whether proscribed conduct is to be visited by a criminal prosecution or by a gui tarn action or by an injunction or by some or all of these remedies in combination, is a matter within the legislature’s range of choice. See Tigner v. Texas, 310 U. S. 141, 148. If New York chooses to subject persons who disseminate obscene "literature” to criminal prosecution and also to deal with such books as deodands of old, or both, with due regard, of course, to appropriate opportunities for the trial of the underlying issue, it is not for us to gainsay its selection of remedies. Just as Near v. Minnesota, supra, one of the landmark opinions in shaping the constitutional protection of freedom of speech and of the press, left no doubts that “Liberty of speech, and of the press, is also not an absolute right,” 283 U. S., at 708, it likewise made clear that “the protection even as to previous restraint is not absolutely unlimited.” Id., at 716. To be sure, the limitation is the exception; it is to be closely confined so as to preclude what may fairly be deemed licensing or censorship. The judicial angle of vision in testing the validity of a statute like § 22-a is “the operation and effect of the statute in substance.” Id., at 713. The phrase “prior restraint” is not a self-wielding sword. Nor can it serve as a talismanic test. The duty of closer analysis and critical judgment in applying the thought behind the phrase has thus been authoritatively put by one who brings weighty learning to his support of constitutionally protected liberties: “What is needed,” writes Professor Paul A. Freund, “is a pragmatic assessment of its operation in the particular circumstances. The generalization that prior restraint is particularly obnoxious in civil liberties cases must yield to more particularistic analysis.” The Supreme Court and Civil Liberties, 4 Vand. L. Rev. 533, 539. Wherein does § 22-a differ in its effective operation from the type of statute upheld in Alberts? Section 311 of California’s Penal Code provides that “Every person who wilfully and lewdly . . . keeps for sale . . . any obscene . . . book ... is guilty of a misdemeanor . . . .” Section 1141 of New York’s Penal Law is similar. One would be bold to assert that the in terrorem effect of such statutes less restrains booksellers in the period before the law strikes than does § 22-a. Instead of requiring the bookseller to dread that the offer for sale of a book may, without prior warning, subject him to a criminal prosecution with the hazard of imprisonment, the civil procedure assures him that such consequences cannot follow unless he ignores a court order specifically directed to him for a prompt and carefully circumscribed determination of the issue of obscenity. Until then, he may keep the book for sale and sell it on his' own judgment rather than steer “nervously among the treacherous shoals.” Warburg, Onward And Upward With The Arts, The New Yorker, April 20, 1957, 98, 101, in connection with R. v. Martin Seeker Warburg, Ltd., [1954] 2 All Eng. 683 (C. C. C.). Criminal enforcement and the proceeding under § 22-a interfere with a book’s solicitation of the public precisely at the same stage. In each situation the law moves after publication; the book need not in either case have yet passed into the hands of the public. The Alberts record does not show that the matter there found to be obscene had reached the public at the time that the criminal charge of keeping such matter for sale was lodged, while here as a matter of fact copies of the booklets whose distribution was enjoined had been on sale for several weeks when process was served. In each case the bookseller is put on notice by the complaint that sale of the publication charged with obscenity in the period before trial may subject him to penal consequences. In the one case he may suffer fine and imprisonment for violation of the criminal statute, in the other, for disobedience of the temporary injunction. The bookseller may of course stand his ground and confidently believe that in any judicial proceeding the book could not be condemned as obscene, but both modes of procedure provide an effective deterrent against distribution prior to adjudication of the book’s content — the threat of subsequent penalization. The method devised by New York in § 22-a for determining whether a publication is obscene does not differ in essential procedural safeguards from that provided under many state statutes making the distribution of obscene publications a misdemeanor. For example, while the New York criminal provision brings the State’s criminal procedure into operation, a defendant is not thereby entitled to a jury trial. In each case a judge is the conventional trier of fact; in each, a jury may as a matter of discretion be summoned. Compare N. Y. City Criminal Courts Act, § 31, Sub. 1 (c) and Sub. 4, with N. Y. Civil Practice Act, § 430. (Appellants, as a matter of fact, did not request a jury trial, they did not attack the statute in the courts below for failure to require a jury, and they did not bring that issue to this Court.) Of course, the Due Process Clause does not subject the States •to the necessity of having trial by jury in misdemeanor prosecutions. Nor are the consequences of a judicial condemnation for obscenity under § 22-a more restrictive of freedom of expression than the result of conviction for a misdemeanor. In Alberts, the defendant was fined $500, sentenced to sixty days in prison, and put on probation for two years on condition that he not violate the obscenity statute. Not only was he completely separated from society for two months but he was also seriously restrained from trafficking in all obscene publications for a considerable time. Appellants, on the other hand, were enjoined from displaying for sale or distributing only the particular booklets theretofore published and adjudged to be obscene. Thus, the restraint upon appellants as merchants in obscenity was narrower than that imposed on Alberts. Section 22-a’s provision for the seizure and destruction of the instruments of ascertained wrongdoing expresses resort to a legal remedy sanctioned by the long history of Anglo-American law. See Holmes, The Common Law, 24-26; Van Oster v. Kansas, 272 U. S. 465; Goldsmith-Grant Co. v. United States, 254 U. S. 505, 510-511; Lawton v. Steele, 152 U. S. 133; and see United States v. Urbuteit, 335 U. S. 355, dealing with misbranded articles under § 304 (a) of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 52 Stat. 1044. It is worth noting that although the Alberts record does not reveal whether the publications found to be obscene were destroyed, provision is made for that by §§ 313 and 314 of the California Penal Code. Similarly, § 1144 of New York’s Penal Law provides for destruction of obscene matter following conviction for its dissemination. It only remains to say that the difference between Near v. Minnesota, supra, and this case is glaring in fact. The two cases are no less glaringly different when judged by the appropriate criteria of constitutional law. Minnesota empowered its courts to enjoin the dissemination of future issues of a publication because its past issues had been found offensive. In the language of Mr. Chief Justice Hughes, “This is of the essence of censorship.” 283 U. S., at 713. As such, it was found unconstitutional. This was enough to condemn the statute wholly apart from the fact that the proceeding in Near involved not obscenity but matters deemed to be derogatory to a public officer. Unlike Near, § 22-a is concerned solely with obscenity and, as authoritatively construed, it studiously withholds restraint upon matters not already published and not yet found to be offensive. The judgment is Affirmed. “§22-a. Obscene prints and articles; jurisdiction. The supreme court has jurisdiction to enjoin the sale or distribution of obscene prints and articles, as hereinafter specified: “1. The chief executive officer of any city, town or village or the corporation counsel, or if there be none, the chief legal officer of any city, town, or village, in which a person, firm or corporation sells or distributes or is about to sell or distribute or has in his possession with intent to sell or distribute or is about to acquire possession with intent to sell or distribute any book, magazine, pamphlet, comic book, story paper, writing, paper, picture, drawing, photograph, figure, image or any written or printed matter of an indecent character, which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, indecent or disgusting, or which contains an article or instrument of indecent or immoral use or purports to be for indecent or immoral use or purpose; or in any other respect defined in section eleven hundred forty-one of the penal law, may maintain an action for an injunction against such person, firm or corporation in the supreme court to prevent the sale or further sale or the distribution or further distribution or the acquisition or possession of any book, magazine, pamphlet, comic book, story paper, writing, paper, picture, drawing, photograph figure or image or any written or printed matter of an indecent character, herein described or described in section eleven hundred forty-one of the penal law. “2. The person, firm or corporation sought to be enjoined shall be entitled to a trial of the issues within one day after joinder of issue and a decision shall be rendered by the court within two days of the conclusion of the trial. “3. In the event that a final order or judgment of injunction be entered in favor of such officer of the city, town or village and against the person, firm or corporation sought to be enjoined, such final order of judgment shall contain a provision directing the person, firm or corporation to surrender to the sheriff of the county in which the action was brought any of the matter described in paragraph one hereof and such sheriff shall be directed to seize and destroy the same. “4. In any action brought as herein provided such officer of the city, town or village shall not be required to file any undertaking before the issuance of an injunction order provided for in paragraph two hereof, shall not be liable for costs and shall not be liable for damages sustained by reason of the injunction order in cases where judgment is rendered in favor of the person, firm or corporation sought to be enjoined. “5. Every person, firm or corporation who sells, distributes, or acquires possession with intent to sell or distribute any of the matter described in paragraph one hereof, after the service upon him of a summons and complaint in an action brought by such officer of any city, town or village pursuant to this section is chargeable with knowledge of the contents thereof." This comparison of remedies takes note of the fact that we do not have before us a ease where, although the issue of obscenity is ultimately decided in favor of the bookseller, the State nevertheless attempts to punish him for disobedience of the interim injunction. For all we know, New York may impliedly condition the temporary injunction so as not to subject the bookseller to a charge of contempt if he prevails on the issue of obscenity. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy 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 Brennan delivered the opinion of the Court. This case presents the question whether identifiable applicants who were denied employment because of race after the effective date and in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e et seq. (1970 ed. and Supp. IV), may be awarded seniority status retroactive to the dates of their employment applications. Petitioner Franks brought this class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against his former employer, respondent Bowman Transportation Co., and his unions, the International Union of District 50, Allied and Technical Workers of the United States and Canada, and its local, No. 13600, alleging various racially discriminatory employment practices in violation of Title VII. Petitioner Lee intervened on behalf of himself and others similarly situated alleging racially discriminatory hiring and discharge policies limited to Bowman’s employment of over-the-road (OTR) truck drivers. Following trial, the District Court found that Bowman had engaged in a pattern of racial discrimination in various company policies, including the hiring, transfer, and discharge of employees, and found further that the discriminatory practices were perpetrated in Bowman’s collective-bargaining agreement with the unions. The District Court certified the action as a proper class action under Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23 (b) (2) and, of import to the issues before this Court, found that petitioner Lee represented all black applicants who sought to be hired or to transfer to OTR driving positions prior to January 1, 1972.. In its final order and decree, the District Court subdivided the class represented by petitioner Lee into a class of black nonemployee applicants for OTR positions prior to January 1, 1972 (class 3), and a class of black employees who applied for transfer to OTR positions prior to the same date (class 4). In its final judgment entered July 14, 1972, the District Court permanently enjoined the respondents from perpetuating the discriminatory practices found to exist, and, in regard to the black applicants for OTR positions, ordered Bowman to notify the members of both subclasses within 30 days of their right to priority consideration for such jobs. The District Court declined, however, to grant to the unnamed members of classes 3 and 4 any other specific relief sought, which included an award of backpay and seniority status retroactive to the date of individual application for an OTR. position. On petitioners’ appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, raising for the most part claimed inadequacy of the relief ordered respecting unnamed members of the various subclasses involved, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part. 495 F. 2d 398 (1974). The Court of Appeals held that the District Court had exercised its discretion under an erroneous view of law insofar as it failed to award backpay to the unnamed class members of both classes 3 and 4, and vacated the judgment in that respect. The judgment was reversed insofar as it failed to award any seniority remedy to the members of class 4 who after the judgment of the District Court sought and obtained priority consideration for transfer to OTR positions. As respects unnamed members of class 3 — nonemployee black applicants who applied for and were denied OTR positions prior to January 1, 1972 — the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s denial of any form of seniority relief. Only this last aspect of the Court of Appeals’ judgment is before us for review under our grant of the petition for certiorari. 420 U. S. 989 (1975). I Respondent Bowman raises a threshold issue of mootness. The District Court found that Bowman had hired petitioner Lee, the sole-named representative of class 3, and had subsequently properly discharged him for cause, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Bowman argues that since Lee will not in any event be eligible for any hiring relief in favor of OTR nonemployee dis-criminatees, he has no personal stake in the outcome and therefore the question whether nonemployee discrimi-natees are entitled to an award of seniority when hired in compliance with the District Court order is moot. Bowman relies on Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393 (1975), and Board of School Comm’rs v. Jacobs, 420 U. S. 128 (1975). That reliance is misplaced. Sosna involved a challenge to a one-year residency requirement in a. state divorce statute. The District Court properly certified the action as a class action. However, before the case reached this Court, the named representative satisfied the state residency requirement (and had in fact obtained a divorce in another State). 419 U. S., at 398, and n. 7. Although the named representative no longer had a personal stake in the outcome, we held that “[w]hen the District Court certified the propriety of the class action, the class of unnamed persons described in the certification acquired a legal status separate from the interest asserted by [the named representative]," id., at 399, and, accordingly the “cases or controversies” requirement of Art. III of the Constitution was satisfied. Id., at 402. It is true as Bowman emphasizes that Sosna was an instance of the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” aspect of the law of mootness. Id., at 399-401. And that aspect of Sosna was remarked in Board of School Comm’rs v. Jacobs, supra, a case which was held to be moot. But nothing in our Sosna or Board of School Comm’rs opinions holds or even intimates that the fact that the named plaintiff no longer has a personal stake in the outcome of a certified class action renders the class action moot unless there remains an issue “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” Insofar as the concept of mootness defines constitutionally minimal conditions for the invocation of federal judicial power, its meaning and scope, as with all concepts of justiciability, must be derived from the fundamental policies informing the “cases or controversies” limitation imposed by Art. III. “As is so often the situation in constitutional adjudication, those two words have an iceberg quality, containing beneath their surface simplicity submerged complexities which go to the very heart of our constitutional form of government. Embodied in the words ‘cases’ and ‘controversies’ are two complementary but somewhat different limitations. In part those words limit the business of federal courts to questions presented in an adversary context and in a form historically viewed as capable of resolution through the judicial process. And in part those words define the role assigned to the judiciary in a tripartite allocation of power to assure that the federal courts will not intrude into areas committed to the other branches of government.” Flast v. Cohen, 392 U. S. 83, 9A-95 (1968). There can be no question that this certified class action “clearly presented” the District Court and the Court of Appeals “with a case or controversy in every sense contemplated by Art. III of the Constitution.” Sosna, supra, at 398. Those courts were presented with the seniority question “in an adversary context and in a form historically viewed as capable of resolution through the judicial process.” Flast, supra, at 95. The only constitutional mootness question is therefore whether, with regard to the seniority issues presented, “a live controversy [remains] at the time this Court reviews the case.” Sosna, supra, at 402. The unnamed members of the class are entitled to the relief already afforded Lee, hiring and backpay, and thus to that extent have “such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy [whether they are also entitled to seniority relief] as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult... questions.” Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 204 (1962). Given a properly certified class action, Sosna contemplates that mootness turns on whether, in the specific circumstances of the given case at the time it is before this Court, an adversary relationship sufficient to fulfill this function exists. In this case, that adversary-relationship obviously obtained as to unnamed class members with respect to the underlying cause of action and also continues to obtain as respects their assertion that the relief they have received in entitlement to consideration for hiring and backpay is inadequate without further award of entitlement to seniority benefits. This becomes crystal clear upon examination of the circumstances and the record of this case. The unnamed members of the class involved are identifiable individuals, individually named in the record. Some have already availed themselves of the hiring relief ordered by the District Court and are presently employed as OTR drivers by Bowman. Tr. of Oral Arg. 23. The conditions of that employment are now and so far as can be foreseen will continue to be partially a function of their status in the seniority system. The rights of other members of the class to employment under the District Court’s orders are currently the subject of further litigation in that court. Id., at 15. No questions are raised concerning the continuing desire of any of these class members for the seniority relief presently in issue. No questions are raised concerning the tenacity and competence of their counsel in pursuing that mode of legal relief before this Court. It follows that there is no meaningful sense in which a “live controversy” reflecting the issues "before the Court could be found to be absent. Accordingly, Bowman’s mootness argument has no merit. II In affirming the District Court’s denial of seniority relief to the class 3 group of discriminatees, the Court of Appeals held that the relief was barred by § 703 (h) of Title VII, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-2 (h). We disagree. Section 703 (h) provides in pertinent part: “Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to apply different standards of compensation, or different terms, conditions, or privileges of employment pursuant to a bona fide seniority or merit system... provided that such differences are not the result of an intention to discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin....” The Court of Appeals reasoned that a discriminatory refusal to hire “does not affect the bona fides of the seniority system. Thus, the differences in the benefits and conditions of employment which a seniority system accords to older and newer employees is protected [by § 703 (h)] as ‘not an unlawful employment practice.’” 495 F. 2d, at 417. Significantly, neither Bowman nor the unions undertake to defend the Court of Appeals’ judgment on that ground. It is clearly erroneous. The black applicants for OTR positions composing class 3 are limited to those whose applications were put in evidence at the trial. The underlying legal wrong affecting them is not the alleged operation of a racially discriminatory seniority system but of a racially discriminatory hiring system. Petitioners do not ask for modification or elimination of the existing seniority system, but only for an award of the seniority status they would have individually enjoyed under the present system but for the illegal discriminatory refusal to hire. It is this context that must shape our determination as to the meaning and effect of § 703 (h). On its face, § 703 (h) appears to be only a definitional provision; as with the other provisions of § 703, subsection (h) delineates which employment practices are illegal and thereby prohibited and which are not. Section 703 (h) certainly does not expressly purport to qualify or proscribe relief otherwise appropriate under the remedial provisions of Title VII, § 706 (g), 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5 (g), in circumstances where an illegal discriminatory act or practice is found. Further, the legislative history of § 703 (h) plainly negates its reading as limiting or qualifying the relief authorized under § 706 (g). The initial bill reported by the House Judiciary Committee as H. R. 7152 and passed by the full House on February 10, 1964, did not contain § 703 (h). Neither the House bill nor the majority Judiciary Committee Report even mentioned the problem of seniority. That subject thereafter surfaced during the debate of the bill in the Senate. This debate prompted Senators Clark and Case to respond to criticism that Title VII would destroy existing seniority systems by placing an interpretive memorandum in the Congressional Record. The memorandum stated: “Title VII would have no effect on established seniority rights. Its effect is prospective and not retrospective.” 110 Cong. Rec. 7213 (1964). Senator Clark also placed in the Congressional Record a Justice Department statement concerning Title VII which stated: “[I]t has been asserted that Title VII would undermine vested rights of seniority. This is not correct. Title VII would have no effect on. seniority-rights existing at the time it takes effect.” Id., at 7207. Several weeks thereafter, following several informal conferences among the Senate leadership, the House leadership, the Attorney General and others, see Vaas, Title VII: Legislative History, 7 B. C. Ind. & Com. L. Rev. 431, 445 (1966), a compromise substitute bill prepared by Senators Mansfield and Dirksen, Senate majority and minority leaders respectively, containing § 703 (h) was introduced on the Senate floor. Although the Mansfield-Dirksen substitute bill, and hence § 703 (h), was not the subject of a committee report, see generally Vaas, supra, Senator Humphrey, one of the informal conferees, later stated during debate on the substitute that § 703 (h) was not designed to alter the meaning of Title VII generally but rather “merely clarifies its present intent and effect.” 110 Cong. Rec. 12723 (1964). Accordingly, whatever the exact meaning and scope of § 703 (h) in light of its unusual legislative history and the absence of the usual legislative materials, see Vaas, supra, at 457-458, it is apparent that the thrust of the section is directed toward defining what is and what is not an illegal discriminatory practice in instances in which the post-Act operation of a seniority system is challenged as perpetuating the effects of discrimination occurring prior to the effective date of the Act. There is no indication in the legislative materials that § 703 (h) was intended to modify or restrict relief otherwise appropriate once an illegal discriminatory practice occurring after the effective date of the Act is proved — as in the instant case, a discriminatory refusal to hire. This accords with the apparently unanimous view of commentators, see Cooper & Sobol, Seniority and Testing Under Fair Employment Laws: A General Approach to Objective Criteria of Hiring and Promotion, 82 Harv. L. Rev. 1598, 1632 (1969); Stacy, Title VII Seniority Remedies in a Time of Economic Downturn, 28 Vand. L. Rev. 487, 506 (1975). We therefore hold that the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that, as a matter of law, § 703 (h) barred the award of seniority relief to the unnamed class 3 members. Ill There remains the question whether an award of seniority relief is appropriate under the remedial provisions of Title VII, specifically, § 706 (g). We begin by repeating the observation of earlier decisions that in enacting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Congress intended to prohibit all practices in whatever form which create inequality in employment opportunity due to discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex, or national origin, Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U. S. 36, 44 (1974); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792, 800 (1973); Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U. S. 424, 429-430 (1971), and ordained that its policy of outlawing such discrimination should have the “highest priority,” Alexander, supra, at 47; Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U. S. 400, 402 (1968). Last Term’s Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U. S. 405 (1975), consistently with the congressional plan, held that one of the central purposes of Title VII is “to make persons whole for injuries suffered on account of unlawful employment discrimination.” Id., at 418. To effectuate this “make whole” objective, Congress in § 706 (g) vested broad equitable discretion in the federal courts to “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.” The legislative history supporting the 1972 amendments of § 706 (g) of Title VII affirms the breadth of this discretion. “The provisions of [§ 706 (g)] are intended to give the courts wide discretion exercising their equitable powers to fashion the most complete relief possible.... [T]he Act is intended to make the victims of unlawful employment discrimination whole, and... the attainment of this objective... requires that persons aggrieved by the consequences and effects of the unlawful employment practice be, so far as possible, restored to a position where they would have been were it not for the unlawful discrimination.” Seetion-by-Section Analysis of H. R. 1746, accompanying the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972—Conference Report, 118 Cong. Rec. 7166, 7168 (1972). This is emphatic confirmation that federal courts are empowered to fashion such relief as the particular circumstances of a case may require to effect restitution, making whole insofar as possible the victims of racial discrimination in hiring. Adequate relief may well be denied in the absence of a seniority remedy slotting the victim in that position in the seniority system that would have been his had he been hired at the time of his application. It can hardly be questioned that ordinarily such relief will be necessary to achieve the “make-whole” purposes of the Act. Seniority systems and the entitlements conferred by credits earned thereunder are of vast and increasing importance in the.economic employment system of this Nation. S. Slichter, J. Healy, & E. Livernash, The Impact of Collective Bargaining on Management 104-115 (1960). Seniority principles are increasingly used to allocate entitlements to scarce benefits among competing employees (“competitive status” seniority) and to compute noncompetitive benefits earned under the contract of employment (“benefit” seniority). Ibid. We have already said about “competitive status” seniority that it “has become of overriding importance, and one of its major functions is to determine who gets or who keeps an available job.” Humphrey v. Moore, 375 U. S. 335, 346-347 (1964). “More than any other provision of the collective [-bargaining] agreement... seniority affects the economic security of the individual employee covered by its terms.” Aaron, Reflections on the Legal Nature and Enforceability of Seniority Rights, 75 Harv. L. Rev. 1532, 1535 (1962). “Competitive status” seniority also often plays a broader role in modern employment systems, particularly systems operated under collective-bargaining agreements: “Included among the benefits, options, and safeguards affected by competitive status seniority, are not only promotion and layoff, but also transfer, demotion, rest days, shift assignments, prerogative in scheduling vacation, order of layoff, possibilities of lateral transfer to avoid layoff, 'bumping’ possibilities in the face of layoff, order of recall, training opportunities, working conditions, length of layoff endured without reducing seniority, length of layoff recall rights will withstand, overtime opportunities, parking privileges, and, in one plant, a preferred place in the punch-out line.” Stacy, 28 Vand. L. Rev., supra, at 490 (footnotes omitted). Seniority standing in employment with respondent Bowman, computed from the departmental date of hire, determines the order of layoff and recall, of employees. Further, job assignments for OTR drivers are posted for competitive bidding and seniority is used to determine the highest bidder. As OTR drivers are paid on a per-mile basis, earnings are therefore to some extent a function of seniority. Additionally, seniority computed from the company date of hire determines the length of an employee’s vacation and pension benefits. Obviously merely to require Bowman to hire the class 3 victim of discrimination falls far short of a “make whole” remedy. A concomitant award of the seniority credit he presumptively would have earned but for the wrongful treatment would, also seem necessary in the absence of justification for denying that relief. Without an award of seniority dating from the time when he was discriminatorily refused employment, an individual who applies for and obtains employment as an OTR driver pursuant to the District Court’s order will never obtain his rightful place in the hierarchy of seniority according to which these various employment benefits are distributed. He will perpetually remain subordinate to persons who, but for the illegal discrimination, would have been in respect to entitlement to these benefits his inferiors. The Court of Appeals apparently followed this reasoning in holding that the District Court erred in not granting seniority relief to class 4 Bowman employees who were discriminatorily refused transfer to OTR positions. Yet the class 3 discriminatees in the absence of a comparable seniority award would also remain subordinated in the seniority system to the class 4 discrimi-natees. The distinction plainly finds no support anywhere in Title VII or its legislative history. Settled law dealing with the related “twin” areas of discriminatory hiring and discharges violative of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 151 et seg., provides a persuasive analogy. “[I]t would indeed be surprising if Congress gave a remedy for the one which it denied for the other.” Phelps Dodge Corp. v. NLRB, 313 U. S. 177, 187 (1941). For courts to differentiate without justification between the classes of discriminatees “would be a differentiation not only without substance but in defiance of that against which the prohibition of discrimination is directed.” Id., at 188. Similarly, decisions construing the remedial section of the National Labor Relations Act, § 10 (c), 29 U. S. C. § 160 (c)—the model for § 706 (g), Albemarle Paper, 422 U. S., at 419 — make clear that remedies constituting authorized “affirmative action” include an award of seniority status, for the thrust of “affirmative action” redressing the wrong incurred by an unfair labor practice is to make “the employees whole, and thus restor[e] the economic status quo that would have obtained but for the company’s wrongful [act].” NLRB v. Rutter-Rex Mfg. Co., 396 U. S. 258, 263 (1969). The task of the NLRB in applying § 10 (c) is “to take measures designed to recreate the conditions and relationships that would have been had there been no unfair labor practice.” Carpenters v. NLRB, 365 U. S. 651, 657 (1961) (Harlan, J., concurring). And the NLRB has often required that the hiring of employees who have been discriminatorily refused employment be accompanied by an award of seniority equivalent to that which they would have enjoyed but for the illegal conduct. See, e. g., In re Phelps Dodge Corp., 19 N. L. R. B. 547, 600, and n. 39, 603-604 (1940), modified on other grounds, 313 U. S. 177 (1941) (ordering persons discriminatorily refused employment hired “without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges”); In re Nevada Consolidated Copper Corp., 26 N. L. R. B. 1182, 1235 (1940), enforced, 316 U. S. 105 (1942) (ordering persons discriminatorily refused employment hired with “any seniority or other rights and privileges they would have acquired, had the respondent not unlawfully discriminated against them”). Plainly the “affirmative action” injunction of § 706 (g) has no lesser reach in the district courts. “Where racial discrimination is concerned, 'the [district] court has not merely the power but the duty to render a decree which will so far as possible eliminate the' discriminatory effects of the past as well as bar like discrimination in the future.’ ” Albemarle Paper, supra, at 418. IV We are not to be understood as holding that an award of seniority status is requisite in all circumstances. The fashioning of appropriate remedies invokes the sound equitable discretion of the district courts. Respondent Bowman attempts to justify the District Court’s denial of seniority relief for petitioners as an exercise of equitable discretion, but the record is its own refutation of the argument. Albemarle Paper, supra, at 416, made clear that discretion imports not the court’s “ ‘inclination, but... its judgment; and its judgment is to be guided by sound legal principles.’ ” Discretion is vested not for purposes of “limit[ing] appellate review of trial courts, or... invit[ing] inconsistency and caprice,” but rather to allow the most complete achievement of the objectives of Title VII that is attainable under the facts and circumstances of the specific case. 422 U. S., at 421. Accordingly the District Court’s denial of any form of seniority remedy must be reviewed in terms of its effect on the attainment of the Act’s objectives under the circumstances presented by this record. No less than with the denial of the remedy of backpay, the denial of seniority relief to victims of illegal racial discrimination in hiring is permissible “only for reasons which, if applied generally, would not frustrate the central statutory purposes of eradicating discrimination throughout the economy and making persons whole for injuries suffered through past discrimination.” Ibid. The District Court stated two reasons for its denial of seniority relief for the unnamed class members. The first was that those individuals had not filed administrative charges under the provisions of Title VII with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and therefore class relief of this sort was not appropriate. We rejected this justification for denial of class-based relief in the context of backpay awards in Albemarle Paper, and for the same reasons reject it here. This justification for denying class-based relief in Title VII suits has been unanimously rejected, by the courts of appeals, and Congress ratified that construction by the 1972 amendments. Albemarle Paper, supra, at 414 n. 8. The second reason stated by the District Court was that such claims “presuppose a vacancy, qualification, and performance by every member. There is no evidence on which to base these multiple conclusions.” Pet. for Cert. A54. The Court of Appeals rejected this reason insofar as it was the basis of the District Court’s denial of backpay, and of its denial of retroactive seniority relief to the unnamed members of class 4. We hold that it is also an improper reason for denying seniority relief to the unnamed members of class 3. We read the District Court’s reference to the lack of evidence regarding a “vacancy, qualification, and performance” for every individual member o.f the class as an expression of concern that some of the unnamed class members (unhired black applicants whose employment applications were summarized in the record) may not in fact have been actual victims of racial discrimination. That factor will become material however only when those persons reapply for OTR positions pursuant to the hiring relief ordered by the District Court. Generalizations concerning such individually applicable evidence cannot serve as a justification for the denial of relief to the entire class. Rather, at such time as individual class members seek positions as OTR drivers, positions for which they are presumptively entitled to priority hiring consideration under the District Court’s order, evidence that particular individuals were not in fact victims of racial discrimination will be material. But petitioners here have carried their burden of demonstrating the existence of a discriminatory hiring pattern and practice by the respondents and, therefore, the burden will be upon respondents to prove that individuals who reapply were not in fact victims of previous hiring discrimination. Cf. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792, 802 (1973); Baxter v. Savannah Sugar Rfg. Corp., 495 F. 2d 437, 443-444 (CA5), cert. denied, 419 U. S. 1033 (1974). Only if this burden is met may retroactive seniority — if otherwise determined to be an appropriate form of relief under the circumstances of the particular case — be denied individual class members. Respondent Bowman raises an alternative theory of justification. Bowman argues that an award of retroactive seniority to the class of discriminatees will conflict with the economic interests of other Bowman employees. Accordingly, it is argued, the District Court acted within its discretion in denying this form of relief as an attempt to accommodate the competing interests of the various groups of employees. We reject this argument for two reasons. First, the District Court made no mention of such considerations in its order denying the seniority relief. As we noted in Albemarle Paper, 422 U. S., at 421 n. 14, if the district court declines, due to the peculiar circumstances of the particular case, to award relief generally appropriate under Title VII, “[i]t is necessary... that... it carefully articulate its reasons” for so doing. Second, and more fundamentally, it is apparent that denial of seniority relief to identifiable victims of racial discrimination on the sole ground that such relief diminishes the expectations of other, arguably innocent, employees would if applied generally frustrate the central “make whole” objective of Title VII. These conflicting interests of other employees will, of course, always be present in instances where some scarce employment benefit is distributed among employees on the basis of their status in the seniority hierarchy. But, as we have said, there is nothing in the language of Title VII, or in its legislative history, to show that Congress intended generally to bar this form of relief to victims of illegal discrimination, and the experience under its remedial model in the National Labor Relations Act points to the contrary. Accordingly, we find untenable the conclusion that this form of relief may be denied merely because the interests of other employees may thereby be affected. “If relief under Title VII can be denied merely because the majority group of employees, who have not suffered discrimination, will be unhappy about it, there will be little hope of correcting the wrongs to which the Act is directed." United States v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 446 F. 2d 652, 663 (CA2 1971). With reference to the problems of fairness or equity respecting the conflicting interests of the various groups of employees, the relief which petitioners seek is only seniority status retroactive to the date of individual application, rather than some form of arguably more complete relief. No claim is asserted that nondis-criminatee employees holding OTR positions they would not have obtained but for the illegal discrimination should be deprived of the seniority status they have earned. It is therefore clear that even if the seniority relief petitioners seek is awarded, most if not all dis-criminatees who actually obtain OTR jobs under the court order will not truly be restored to the actual seniority that would have existed in the absence of the illegal discrimination. Rather, most discriminatees even under an award of retroactive seniority status will still remain subordinated in the hierarchy to a position inferior to that of a greater total number of employees than would have been the case in the absence of discrimination. Therefore, the relief which petitioners seek, while a more complete form of relief than that which the District Court accorded, in no sense constitutes “complete relief.” Rather, the burden of the past discrimination in hiring is with respect to competitive status benefits divided among discriminatee and nondiscriminatee employees under the form of relief sought. The dissent criticizes the Court’s result as not sufficiently cognizant that it will “directly implicate the rights and expectations of perfectly innocent employees.” Post, at 788. We are of the view, however, that the result which we reach today — which, standing alone, establishes that a sharing of the burden of the past discrimination is presumptively necessary — is entirely consistent with any fair characterization of equity jurisdiction, particularly when considered in light of our traditional view that “ [attainment of a great national policy... must not be confined within narrow canons for equitable relief deemed suitable by chancellors in ordinary private controversies.” Phelps Dodge Corp. v. NLRB, 313 U. S., at 188. Certainly there is no argument that the award of retroactive seniority to the victims of hiring discrimination in any way deprives other employees of indefeasibly vested rights conferred by the employment contract. This Court has long held that employee expectations arising from a seniority system agreement may be modified by statutes furthering a strong public policy interest. Tilton v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 376 U. S. 169 (1964) (construing §§ 9 (c)(1) and 9 (c)(2) of the Universal Military Training and Service Act, 1948, 50 U. S. C. App. §§ 459 (e)(1) and (2), which provided that a re-employed returning veteran should enjoy the seniority status he would have acquired but for his absence in military service); Fishgold v. Sullivan Drydock & Repair Corp., 328 U. S. 275 (1946) (construing the comparable provision of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940). The Court has also held that a collective-bargaining agreement may go further, enhancing the seniority status of certain employees for purposes of furthering public policy interests beyond what is required by statute, even though this will to some extent be detrimental to the expectations acquired by other employees under the previous seniority agreement. Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U. S. 330 (1953): And the ability of the union and employer voluntarily to modify the seniority system to the end of ameliorating the effects of past racial discrimination, a national policy objective of the “highest priority,” is certainly no less than in other areas of public policy interests. Pellicer v. Brotherhood of Ry. & S. S. Clerks, 217 F. 2d 205 (CA5 1954), cert. denied, 349 U. S. 912 (1955). See also Cooper & Sobol, 82 Harv. L. Rev., at 1605. V In holding that class-based seniority relief for identifiable victims of illegal hiring discrimination is a form of relief generally appropriate under § 706 (g), we do not in any way modify our previously expressed view that the statutory scheme of Title VII “implicitly recognizes that there may be cases calling for one remedy but not another, and — owing to the structure of the federal judiciary — these choices are, of course, left in the first instance to the district courts.” Albemarle Paper, 422 U. S., at 416. Circumstances peculiar to the individual case may, of course, justify the modification or withholding of seniority relief for reasons that would not if applied generally undermine the purposes of Title VII. In the instant case it appears that all new hirees establish seniority only upon completion of a 45-day probationary period, although upon completion seniority is retroactive to the date of hire. Certainly any seniority relief ultimately awarded by the District Court could properly be cognizant of this fact. Amici and the respondent union point out that there may be circumstances where an award of full seniority should be deferred Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy 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 Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court. This case presents the question whether respondent Lori Williams, who paid a tax under protest to remove a lien on her property, has standing to bring a refund action under 28 U. S. C. § 1346(a)(1), even though the tax she paid was assessed against a third party. We hold that respondent has standing to sue for a refund. Respondent’s suit falls within the broad language of § 1346(a)(1), which gives federal courts jurisdiction to hear “[a]ny civil action against the United States for the recovery of any internal-revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected,” and only a strained reading of other relevant provisions would bar her suit. She had no realistic alternative to payment of a tax she did not owe, and we do not believe Congress intended to leave parties in respondent’s position without a remedy. I Before this litigation commenced, respondent Lori Williams and her then-husband Jerrold Rabin jointly owned their home. As part owner of a restaurant, Rabin personally incurred certain tax liabilities, which he failed to satisfy. In June 1987 and March 1988, the Government assessed Rabin close to $15,000 for these liabilities, and thereby placed a lien in the assessed amount on all his property, including his interest in the house. See 26 U. S. C. § 6321 (“If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same after demand, the amount . . . 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.”). The Government has not alleged that Williams is personally liable for these or any subsequent assessments. Meanwhile, Rabin and Williams divided their marital property in contemplation of divorce. Williams did not have notice of the lien when Rabin deeded his interest in the house to her on October 25, 1988, for the Government did not file its tax lien until November 10, 1988. As consideration for the house, Williams assumed three liabilities for Rabin (none of them tax liabilities) totaling almost $650,000. App. 7-8 (Statement of Uncontroverted Facts presented by attorneys for United States). In the ensuing months, the Government made further assessments on Rabin in excess of $26,000, but did not file notice of them until June 22,1989. Williams entered a contract on May 9, 1989, to sell the house, and agreed to a closing date of July 3. Id., at 8. One week before the closing, the Government gave actual notice to Williams and the purchaser of over $41,000 in tax liens which, it claimed, were valid against the property or proceeds of the sale. The purchaser threatened to sue Williams if the sale did not go through on schedule. Believing she had no realistic alternative — none having been suggested by the Government — Williams, under protest, authorized disbursement of $41,937 from the sale proceeds directly to the Internal Revenue Service so that she could convey clear title. After the Government denied Williams’ claim for an administrative refund, she filed suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, claiming she had taken the property free of the Government’s lien under 26 U. S. C. § 6323(a) (absent proper notice, tax lien not valid against purchaser). To enforce her rights, she invoked 28 U. S. C. § 1346(a)(1), which waives the Government’s sovereign immunity from suit by authorizing federal courts to adjudicate “[a]ny civil action against the United States for the recovery of any internal-revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected.” In a trial on stipulated facts, the Government maintained that it was irrelevant whether the Government had a right to Williams’ money; her plea could not be entertained, the Government insisted, because she lacked standing to seek a refund under § 1346(a)(1). According to the Government, that provision authorizes actions only by the assessed party, i. e., Rabin. The District Court accepted this jurisdictional argument, relying on precedent set in the Fifth and Seventh Circuits. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, 24 F. 3d 1143, 1145 (1994), guided by Fourth Circuit precedent. To resolve this conflict among the Courts of Appeals, we granted certiorari, 513 U. S. 959 (1994), and now affirm. II The question before us is whether the waiver of sovereign immunity in § 1346(a)(1) authorizes a refund suit by a party who, though not assessed a tax, paid the tax under protest to remove a federal tax lien from her property. In resolving this question, we may not enlarge the waiver beyond the purview of the statutory language. Department of Energy v. Ohio, 503 U. S. 607, 614-616 (1992). Our task is to discern the “unequivocally expressed” intent of Congress, construing ambiguities in favor of immunity. United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U. S. 30, 33 (1992) (internal quotation marks omitted). To fathom the congressional instruction, we turn first to the language of § 1346(a). This provision does not say that only the person assessed may sue. Instead, the statute uses broad language: “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, concurrent with the United States Court of Federal Claims, of: “(1) Any civil action against the United States for the recovery of any internal-revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority or any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected under the internal-revenue laws.” 28 U. S. C. § 1346(a) (1988 ed. and Supp. V) (emphasis added). Williams’ plea to recover a tax “erroneously . . . collected” falls squarely within this language. The broad language of § 1346(a)(1) mirrors the broad common-law remedy the statute displaced: actions of assumpsit for money had and received, once brought against the tax collector personally rather than against the United States. See Ferguson, Jurisdictional Problems in Federal Tax Controversies, 48 Iowa L. Rev. 312, 327 (1963). Assumpsit afforded a remedy to those who, like Williams, had paid money they did not owe — typically as a result of fraud, duress, or mistake. See H. Ballantine, Shipman on Common-Law Pleading 163-164 (3d ed. 1923). Assumpsit refund actions were unavailable to volunteers, a limit that would not have barred Williams because she paid under protest. See Philadelphia v. Collector, 5 Wall. 720, 731-732 (1867) (“Where the party voluntarily pays the money, he is without remedy; but if he pays it by compulsion of law, or under protest, or with notice that he intends to bring suit to test the validity of the claim, he may recover it back ....”). Ill Acknowledging the evident breadth of § 1346(a)(1), the Government relies on the interaction of three other provisions to narrow the waiver of sovereign immunity. The Government argues: Under 26 U. S. C. § 7422, a party may not bring a refund action without first exhausting administrative remedies; under 26 U. S. C. § 6511, only a “taxpayer” may exhaust; under 26 U. S. C. § 7701(a)(14), Williams is not a taxpayer. It is undisputed that §7422 requires administrative exhaustion. If Williams is eligible to exhaust, she did so by filing an administrative claim. But to show that Williams is not eligible to exhaust, the Government relies first on 26 U. S. C. § 6511(a), which provides in part: “(a) Period of limitation on filing claim “Claim for credit or refund of an overpayment of any tax imposed by this title in respect of which tax the taxpayer is required to file a return shall be filed by the taxpayer within 3 years from the time the return was filed or 2 years from the time the tax was paid, whichever of such periods expires the later, or if no return was filed by the taxpayer, within 2 years from the time the tax was paid.” (Emphasis added.) From the statute’s use of the term “taxpayer,” rather than “person who paid the tax,” the Government concludes that only a “taxpayer” may file for administrative relief under §7422, and thereafter pursue a refund action under 28 U. S. C. § 1346(a)(1). Then, to show that Williams is not a “taxpayer,” the Government relies on 26 U. S. C. § 7701 (a)(14), which defines “taxpayer” as “any person subject to any internal revenue tax.” According to the Government, a party who pays a tax is not “subject to” it unless she is the one assessed. The Government’s argument fails at both statutory junctures. First, the word “taxpayer” in §6511(a) — the provision governing administrative claims — cannot bear the weight the Government puts on it. This provision’s plain terms provide only a deadline for filing for administrative relief, not a limit on who may file. To read the term “taxpayer” as implicitly limiting administrative relief to the party assessed is inconsistent with other provisions of the refund scheme, which expressly contemplate refunds to parties other than the one assessed. Thus, in authorizing the Secretary to award a credit or refund “[i]n the case of any overpayment,” 26 U. S. C. § 6402(a) describes the recipient not as the “taxpayer,” but as “the person who made the overpayment.” Similarly, in providing for credits and refunds for sales taxes and taxes on tobacco and alcohol, 26 U. S. C. § 6416(a) and 26 U. S. C. § 6419(a) describe the recipient as “the person who paid the tax.” Further, even if, as the Government contends, only “taxpayers” could seek administrative relief under §6511, the Government’s claim that Williams is not at this point a “taxpayer” is unpersuasive. Section 7701(a)(14), defining “taxpayer,” informs us that “[w]hen used in [the Internal Revenue Code], where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof, . . . [t]he term ‘taxpayer’ means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.” That definition does not exclude Williams. The Government reads the definition as if it said “any person who is assessed any internal revenue tax,” but these are not Congress’ words. The general phrase “subject to” is broader than the specific phrase “assessed” and, in the tax collection context before us, we think it is broad enough to include Williams. In placing a lien on her home and then accepting her tax payment under protest, the Government surely subjected Williams to a tax, even though she was not the assessed party. In support of its reading of “taxpayer,” the Government cites our observation in Colorado Nat. Bank of Denver v. Bedford, 310 U. S. 41, 52 (1940), that “[t]he taxpayer is the person ultimately liable for the tax itself.” The Government takes this language out of context. We were not interpreting the term “taxpayer” in the Internal Revenue Code, but deciding whether a state tax scheme was consistent with federal law. In particular, we were determining whether Colorado had imposed its service tax on a bank’s customers (which was consistent with federal law) or on the bank itself (which was not). Though the bank collected and paid the tax, its incidence fell on the customers. Favoring substance over form, we said: “The person liable for the tax [the bank], primarily, cannot always be said to be the real taxpayer. The taxpayer is the person ultimately liable for the tax itself.” Ibid. As a result, we determined that the tax had been imposed on the customers rather than the bank. If Colorado Nat. Bank is relevant at all, it shows our preference for commonsense inquiries over formalism — a preference that works against the Government’s technical argument in this case. IV As we have just developed, 28 U. S. C. § 1346(a)(1) clearly allows one from whom taxes are erroneously or illegally collected to sue for a refund of those taxes. And 26 U. S. C. § 6402(a), with similar clarity, authorizes the Secretary to pay out a refund to “the person who made the overpayment.” The Government's strained reading of § 1346(a)(1), we note, would leave people in Williams’ position without a remedy. See supra, at 529, n. 1. This consequence reinforces our conclusion that Congress did not intend refund actions under § 1346(a)(1) to be unavailable to persons situated as Lori Williams is. Though the Government points to three other remedies, none was realistically open to Williams. Nor would any of the vaunted remedies be available to others in her situation. See, e. g., Martin v. United States, 895 F. 2d 992 (CA4 1990); Barris v. United States, 851 F. Supp. 696 (WD Pa. 1994); Brodey v. United States, 788 F. Supp. 44 (Mass. 1991) (all ordering refunds of amounts erroneously collected to the people who paid those amounts). If the Government has not levied on property — as it has not levied on Williams’ home — the owner cannot challenge such a levy under 26 U. S. C. § 7426. Nor would an action under 28 U. S. C. § 2410(a)(1) to quiet title afford meaningful relief to someone in Williams’ position. The first lien on her property, for nearly $15,000, was filed just six months before the closing; and liens in larger sum — over $26,000, out of $41,937 — were filed only 11 days before the closing. (Williams did not receive actual notice of any of the liens until barely a week before the closing.) She simply did not have time to bring a quiet title action. She urgently sought to sell the property, but a sale would have been difficult before a final judgment in such litigation, which could have been protracted. In contrast, a refund suit would allow her to sell the property and simultaneously pay off the lien, leaving her free to litigate with the Government without tying up her real property, whose worth far exceeded the value of the Government’s liens. Nor may Williams and persons similarly situated rely on § 6325(b)(3) for such an arrangement. This provision permits the Government to discharge a lien on property if the owner sets aside a fund that becomes subject to a new lien; the parties then can litigate the propriety of the new lien after the property is sold. However, § 6325(b)(3) and its implementing regulation render this remedy doubtful indeed, for it is available only at the Government’s discretion. See § 6325(b)(3) (“[T]he Secretary may issue a certificate of discharge [of a federal tax lien] of any part of the property subject to the lien if such part of the property is sold and, pursuant to an agreement with the Secretary, the proceeds of such sale are to be held, as a fund subject to the liens and claims of the United States, in the same manner and with the same priority as such liens and claims had with respect to the discharged property.”) (emphasis added); 26 CFR § 301.6325-1(b)(3) (1994) (“A district director [of the Internal Revenue Service] may, in his discretion, issue a certificate of discharge of any part of the property subject to a [tax lien] if such part of the property is sold and, pursuant to a written agreement with the district director, the proceeds of the sale are held, as a fund subject to the liens and claims of the United States, in the same manner and with the same priority as the lien or claim had with respect to the discharged property.”) (emphasis added). So far as the record shows, the Government did not afford Williams an opportunity to substitute a fund pursuant to § 6325(b)(3). This omission is not surprising, for on the Government’s theory of who may sue under § 1346(a)(1), the Government had scant incentive to agree to such an arrangement with people caught in Williams’ bind. Under § 6325(b)(3), the Government does not receive cash, but another lien (albeit one on a fund). In contrast, if the Government resists a § 6325(b)(3) agreement, it is likely to get cash immediately: property owners eager to remove a tax lien will have to pay, as did Williams. If they may not sue under § 1346(a)(1), their payment is nonrefundable. An agreement pursuant to § 6325(b)(3) thus dependent on the district director’s grace cannot sensibly be described as available to Williams. We do not agree with the Government that, if § 1346(a)(1) authorizes some third-party suits, the levy, quiet title, and separate-fund remedies become superfluous. Section 1346(a)(1) is a postdeprivation remedy, available only if the taxpayer has paid the Government in full. Flora v. United States, 362 U. S. 145 (1960). The other remedies offer predeprivation relief. The levy provision in 26 U. S. C. § 7426(a)(1) is available “without regard to whether such property has been surrendered to or sold by the Secretary.” Likewise, 28 U. S. C. § 2410 allows a property owner to have a lien discharged without ever paying the tax. Under 26 U. S. C. § 6325(b)(3), the lien on the property is removed in exchange for a new lien, rather than a cash payment. V Finally, the Government urges that allowing Williams to sue will violate the principle that parties may not challenge the tax liabilities of others. According to the Government, undermining this principle will lead to widespread abuse: In particular, parties will volunteer to pay the tax liabilities of others, only to seek a refund once the Government has ceased collecting from the real taxpayer. Although parties generally may not challenge the tax liabilities of others, this rule is not unyielding. A taxpayer’s fiduciary may litigate the taxpayer’s liability, even though the fiduciary is not herself liable. See 26 CFR §301.6903-1(a) (1994) (the fiduciary must “assume the powers, rights, duties, and privileges of the taxpayer with respect to the taxes imposed by the Code”); ibid. (“The amount of the tax or liability is ordinarily not collectible from the personal estate of the fiduciary but is collectible from the estate of the taxpayer....”); 15 J. Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation § 58.08 (1994) (refund claims for decedents filed by executor, administrator, or other fiduciary of estate). Similarly, certain transferees may litigate the tax liabilities of the transferor; if the transfer qualifies as a fraudulent conveyance under state law, the Code treats the transferee as the taxpayer, see 26 U. S. C. § 6901(a)(1)(A); 5 J. Rabkin & M. Johnson, Federal Income, Gift and Estate Taxation § 73.10, pp. 73-82 to 73-87 (1992), so the transferee may contest the transferor’s liability either in tax court, see 14 Mertens, supra, § 53.50, or in a refund suit under § 1346(a)(1). See id., §53.55. Furthermore, the Court has allowed a refund action by parties who were not assessed, albeit under a different statute. See Stahmann v. Vidal, 305 U. S. 61 (1938) (cotton producers could bring a refund action for a federal cotton ginning tax if they had paid the tax, even though the tax was assessed against ginners rather than producers). The burden on the principle that a party may not challenge the tax liability of another is mitigated, moreover, because Williams’ main challenge is to the existence of a lien against her property, rather than to the underlying assessment on her husband. That is, her primary claim is not that her husband never owed the tax — a matter that, had she not paid these taxes herself under the duress of a lien, would not normally be her concern. Rather, she asserts that the Government has attached a lien on the wrong property, because the house belongs to her rather than to him — a scenario which leaves her “subject to” the tax in a meaningful and immediate way. We do not find disarming the Government’s forecast that allowing Williams to sue will lead to rampant abuse. The Government’s posited scenario seems implausible; it is not clear what incentive a volunteer has to pay someone else’s taxes as a way to help that person evade them. Nor does the Government report that such schemes are commonplace among the millions of taxpayers in the Fourth and Ninth Circuits, Circuits that permit persons in Williams’ position to bring refund suits. Furthermore, our holding does not authorize the host of third-party challenges the Government fears. Williams paid under protest, solely to gain release of the Government’s lien on her property — a lien she attacked as erroneously maintained. We do not decide the circumstances, if any, under which a party who volunteers to pay a tax assessed against someone else may seek a refund under § 1346(a). * * * The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is Affirmed. Peeking summary disposition in the District Court, the Government did not contend otherwise or question the District Court’s understanding that “the plaintiff here is left without a remedy.” App. 22. The dissent, perhaps finding unappealing the Government’s defense of unjustified taking, tenders factual inferences, post, at 545-546, both unfavorable to Williams and beyond the parties’ stipulation of uncontroverted facts. The sole issue in this case, however, is whether one in Williams’ situation has standing to sue for a refund, and to that issue the strength of Williams’ case on the merits is not relevant. See Snodgrass v. United States, 834 F. 2d 537, 540 (CA5 1987); Busse v. United States, 542 F. 2d 421, 425 (CA7 1976). See Martin v. United States, 895 F. 2d 992 (1990). Section 7422(a) provides in relevant part: “No suit or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any internal revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or of any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority, or of any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected, until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed with the Secretary, according to the provisions of law in that regard, and the regulations of the Secretary established in pursuance thereof.” Title 26 U. S. C. § 6532(a)(1), governing the time to file a refund suit in court, reads in part: “No suit or proceeding under section 7422(a) for the recovery of any internal revenue tax, penalty, or other sum, shall be begun before the expiration of 6 months from the date of filing the claim required under such section unless the Secretary renders a decision thereon within that time, nor after the expiration of 2 years from the date of mailing by certified mail or registered mail by the Secretary to the taxpayer of a notice of the disallowance of the part of the claim to which the suit or proceeding relates.” As a statute of limitations, § 6511(a) does narrow the waiver of sovereign immunity in § 1346(a)(1) by barring the tardy. See United States v. Dalm, 494 U. S. 596, 602 (1990) (“Read together, the import of these sections [§§ 1346(a)(1), 7422(a), 6511(a)] is clear: unless a claim for refund of a tax has been filed within the time limits imposed by § 6511(a), a suit for refund, regardless of whether the tax is alleged to have been ‘erroneously,’ ‘illegally,’ or ‘wrongfully collected,’ §§ 1346(a)(1), 7422(a), may not be maintained in any court.”). The Treasury’s regulation, 26 CFR § 301.7701-16 (1994), adds nothing to the statute; in particular, the regulation does not ascribe any special or limiting meaning to the statute’s “subject to” terminology. The dissent asserts, regarding § 6325(b)(3), that Williams cannot complain in court without exhausting her administrative remedy. Post, at 547-548. But § 6325(b)(3) presents no question of administrative exhaustion as a prelude to judicial review, for that “remedy” lies entirely within the Government’s discretion. On motion for summary judgment in District Court, Williams did challenge her husband’s liability as well. See Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment 13. However, counsel retreated from this claim at oral argument. Tr. of Oral Arg. 36 (“We’re not arguing that she’s going to go into court and litigate the liability of her ex-husband.”); id., at 37 (“[W]e’re not saying that she wa[nts] [to] go into court and litigate his tax liability. That’s his problem, not hers.”). Moreover, to affirm the Ninth Circuit’s judgment, we can rely solely on Williams’ standing to challenge the lien, regardless of whether she has standing to challenge the underlying assessment on her husband. Accordingly, we need not resolve whether Williams is still asserting her challenge to the underlying assessment, let alone whether she has standing to do so. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

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. Certiorari was granted to consider the question presented: whether, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, a Mississippi public school board may terminate the employment of teachers sending their children not to public schools, but to a private racially segregated school. However, since the grant of certiorari, Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U. S. 160 (1976), held that 42 U. S. C. § 1981 prohibits private, commercially operated, nonseetarian schools from denying admission to prospective students because they are Negroes. Moreover, a Mississippi statute, Miss. Code Ann. § 37-9-59 (Supp., 1976), enacted in 1974 after the school board action here complained of, prohibits school boards “from denying employment or reemployment to any person . . . for the single reason that any eligible child of such person does not attend the school system in which such [person] is employed.” Though § 37-9-59 was cited in the record at the time of granting the writ, examination of the merits on oral argument in light of Runyon v. McCrary and § 37-9-59 satisfies us that the grant was improvident. Accordingly, the writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted. Cf. Rice v. Sioux City Cemetery, 349 U. S. 70 (1955). Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

I

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Per Curiam. Petitioners seek to challenge a consent decree approving an agreement settling a Title VII lawsuit against the City of New York. After the results of a police sergeant’s examination revealed that blacks and Hispanics had passed the examination at disproportionately low rates, groups representing these minority members of the New York City Police Department sued the Department under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e et seq. Three other groups were permitted to intervene as codefendants: “the Sergeants Benevolent Association (‘SBA’), representing over 500 officers on the eligible list who had obtained provisional appointments as sergeants; the Sergeants Eligibles Association (‘SEA’), representing officers who were on the eligible list but had not received provisional appointments; and various white ethnic societies and other individual officers (the ‘Schneider Intervenors’).” Hispanic Society of New York City Police Dept. v. New York City Police Dept., 806 F. 2d 1147, 1151 (CA2 1986) (Costello case below). The parties reached settlement, which was first approved by the District Court on an interim basis, and finally, after a hearing, by consent decree. The settlement provided that black and Hispanic candidates who had failed to make the eligible list would be promoted until the racial/ethnic composition of the new sergeants was approximately the same as the racial/ethnic composition of the group of candidates taking the test. The SBA and the SEA signed the agreement; the Schneider Intervenors, although opposing the settlement, chose not to appeal. Petitioners are a group of white police officers who claim that they were not placed on the eligible list even though they had scored at least as high on the examination as the lowest scoring minority officer promoted under the interim order. Although they presented their objections to the District Court at the hearing, they chose not to move to intervene pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24, either initially as codefendants or later to replace the Schneider Intervenors for purposes of appeal. See United Airlines, Inc. v. McDonald, 432 U. S. 385, 395 (1977). Instead, they filed suit during the period between the interim approval of the settlement and the final consent decree, claiming a violation of their Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights. In 806 F. 2d 1144 (CA2 1986) (Marino case below), the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of petitioners’ suit, deeming it an impermissible collateral attack on a consent decree by persons who could have intervened in the underlying litigation. Petitioners also attempted to appeal from the consent decree. In Costello, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal because petitioners were not parties to the litigation giving rise to the consent decree. 806 F. 2d 1147 (CA2 1986). We granted certiorari to consider these judgments, 481 U. S. 1047 (1987). As to the issue raised in Marino, namely, whether a district court may dismiss as an impermissible collateral attack a lawsuit challenging a consent decree by nonparties to the underlying litigation, we are equally divided, and therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. As to the issue raised in Costello, we hold that because petitioners were not parties to the underlying lawsuit, and because they failed to intervene for purposes of appeal, they may not appeal from the consent decree approving that lawsuit’s settlement; therefore, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. The rule that only parties to a lawsuit, or those that properly become parties, may appeal an adverse judgment, is well settled. See, e. g., United States ex rel. Louisiana v. Jack, 244 U. S. 397, 402 (1917); Fed. Rule App. Proc. 3(c) (“The notice of appeal shall specify the party or parties taking the appeal”). The Court of Appeals suggested that there may be exceptions to this general rule, primarily “when the nonparty has an interest that is affected by the trial court’s judgment.” 806 F. 2d, at 1152. We think the better practice is for such a nonparty to seek intervention for purposes of appeal; denials of such motions are, of course, appealable. See United Airlines, Inc., supra. Accordingly, the judgments of the Court of Appeals are Affirmed. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

I

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Per Curiam. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case remanded for further consideration in the light of Chapman v. California, ante, p. 18. Mr. Justice Stewart would grant certiorari and reverse the judgment for the reasons stated in his opinion concurring in the result in Chapman v. California, ante, at 42. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy 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 the constitutionality of a federal “rails-to-trails” statute under which unused railroad rights-of-way are converted into recreational trails notwithstanding whatever reversionary property interests may exist under state law. Petitioners contend that the statute violates both the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause and the Commerce Clause, Art. I, §8. We find it unnecessary to evaluate the merits of the takings claim because we hold that even if the rails-to-trails statute gives rise to a taking, compensation is available to petitioners under the Tucker Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1491(a)(1) (1982 ed.), and the requirements of the Fifth Amendment are satisfied. We also hold that the statute is a valid exercise of congressional power under the Commerce Clause. I A The statute at issue in this case, the National Trails System Act Amendments of 1983 (Amendments), Pub. L. 98-11, 97 Stat. 48, to the National Trails System Act (Trails Act), Pub. L. 90-543, 82 Stat. 919 (codified, as amended, at 16 U. S. C. § 1241 et seq.), is the culmination of congressional efforts to preserve shrinking rail trackage by converting unused rights-of-way to recreational trails. In 1920, the Nation’s railway system reached its peak of 272,000 miles; today only about 141,000 miles are in use, and experts predict that 3,000 miles will be abandoned every year through the end of this century. Concerned about the loss of trackage, Congress included in the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (4-R Act), Pub. L. 94-210, 90 Stat. 144, as amended, 49 U. S. C. §10906 (1982 ed.), several provisions aimed at promoting the conversion of abandoned lines to trails. Section 809(a) of the 4-R Act required the Secretary of Transportation to prepare a report on alternative uses for abandoned railroad rights-of-way. Section 809(b) authorized the Secretary of the Interior to encourage conversion of abandoned rights-of-way to recreational and conservational uses through financial, educational, and technical assistance to local, state, and federal agencies. See note following 49 U. S. C. §10906 (1982 ed.). Section 809(c) authorized the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC or Commission) to delay the disposition of rail property for up to 180 days after the effective date of an order permitting abandonment, unless the property had first been offered for sale on reasonable terms for public purposes including recreational use. See 49 U. S. C. §10906 (1982 ed.). By 1983, Congress recognized that these measures “ha[d] not been successful in establishing a process through which railroad rights-of-way which are not immediately necessary for active service can be utilized for trail purposes.” H. R. Rep. No. 98-28, p. 8 (1983) (H. R. Rep.); S. Rep. No. 98-1, p. 9 (1983) (S. Rep.) (same). Congress enacted the Amendments to the Trails Act, which authorize the ICC to preserve for possible future railroad use rights-of-way not currently in service and to allow interim use of the land as recreational trails. Section 8(d) provides that a railroad wishing to cease operations along a particular route may negotiate with a State, municipality, or private group that is prepared to assume financial and managerial responsibility for the right-of-way. If the parties reach agreement, the land may be transferred to the trail operator for interim trail use, subject to ICC-imposed terms and conditions; if no agreement is reached, the railroad may abandon the line entirely and liquidate its interest. Section 8(d) of the amended Trails Act provides that interim trail use “shall not be treated, for any purposes of any law or rule of law, as an abandonment of the use of such rights-of-way for railroad purposes.” 16 U. S. C. § 1247(d). This language gives rise to a takings question in the typical rails-to-trails case because many railroads do not own their rights-of-way outright but rather hold them under easements or similar property interests. While the terms of these easements and applicable state law vary, frequently the easements provide that the property reverts to the abutting landowner upon abandonment of rail operations. State law generally governs the disposition of reversionary interests, subject of course to the ICC’s “exclusive and plenary” jurisdiction to regulate abandonments, Chicago & North Western Transp. Co. v. Kalo Brick & Tile Co., 450 U. S. 311, 321 (1981), and to impose conditions affecting postabandonment use of the property. See Hayfield Northern R. Co. v. Chicago & North Western Transp. Co., 467 U. S. 622, 633 (1984). By deeming interim trail use to be like discontinuance rather than abandonment, see n. 3, supra, Congress prevented property interests from reverting under state law: “The key finding of this amendment is that interim use of a railroad right-of-way for trail use, when the route itself remains intact for future railroad purposes, shall not constitute an abandonment of such rights-of-way for railroad purposes. This finding alone should eliminate many of the problems with this program. The concept of attempting to establish trails only after the formal abandonment of a railroad right-of-way is self-defeating; once a right-of-way is abandoned for railroad purposes there may be nothing left for trail use. This amendment would ensure that potential interim trail use will be considered prior to abandonment.” H. R. Rep., at 8-9. See S. Rep., at 9 (same). The primary issue in this case is whether Congress has violated the Fifth Amendment by precluding reversion of state property interests. B Petitioners claim a reversionary interest in a railroad right-of-way adjacent to their land in Vermont. In 1962, the State of Vermont acquired the Rutland Railway Corporation’s interest in the right-of-way and then leased the right-of-way to Vermont Railway, Inc. Vermont Railway stopped using the route more than a decade ago and has since removed all railroad equipment, including switches, bridges, and track, from the portion of the right-of-way claimed by petitioners. In 1981, petitioners brought a quiet title action in the Superior Court of Chittenden County, alleging that the easement had been abandoned and was thus extinguished, and that the right-of-way had reverted to them by operation of state property law. In August 1983, the Superior Court dismissed the action, holding that it lacked jurisdiction because the ICC had not authorized abandonment of the route and therefore still exercised exclusive jurisdiction over it. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed. Trustees of Diocese of Vermont v. State, 145 Vt. 510, 496 A. 2d 151 (1985). Petitioners then sought a certificate of abandonment of the rail line from the ICC. The State of Vermont intervened, claiming title in fee simple to the right-of-way and arguing in the alternative that, even if the State’s interest were an easement, the land could not revert while it was still being used for a public purpose. Vermont Railway and the State then petitioned the ICC to permit the railroad to discontinue rail service and transfer the right-of-way to the city of Burlington for interim use as a public trail under § 8(d) of the Trails Act. By a Notice of Exemption decided January 2, 1986, the ICC allowed the railroad to discontinue service and approved the agreement between the State and the city for interim trail use. See 51 Fed. Reg. 454-455. On February 4, 1986, the ICC Chairman denied petitioners’ application for a stay pending administrative review, and the decision became effective on February 5, 1986. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration and/or clarification was denied on July 17, 1987. The Commission noted that “[i]nevitably, interim trail use will conflict with the reversionary rights of adjacent land owners, but that is the very purpose of the Trails Act.” State of Vermont & Vermont Railway, Inc. — Discontinuance of Service Exemption in Chittenden County, 3 I. C. C. 2d 903, 908. Petitioners sought review of the ICC’s order in the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, arguing that § 8(d) of the Trails Act is unconstitutional on its face because it takes private property without just compensation and because it is not a valid exercise of Congress’ Commerce Clause power. The Court of Appeals rejected both arguments. 853 F. 2d 145 (1988). It reasoned that the ICC has “plenary and exclusive authority” over abandonments, id., at 151, and that federal law must be considered in determining the property right held by petitioners. “For as long as it determines that the land will serve a ‘railroad purpose,’ the ICC retains jurisdiction over railroad rights-of-way; it does not matter whether that purpose is immediate or in the future.” Ibid. Because the court believed that no reversionary interest could vest until the ICC determined that abandonment was appropriate, the court concluded that the Trails Act did not result in a taking. Next, the court found that the Trails Act was reasonably adapted to two legitimate congressional purposes under the Commerce Clause: “preserving rail corridors for future railroad use” and “permitting public recreational use of trails.” Id., at 150. The Court of Appeals therefore dismissed petitioners’ Commerce Clause challenge. We granted certiorari. 490 U. S. 1034 (1989). II The Fifth Amendment provides in relevant part that “private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The Amendment “does not prohibit the taking of private property, but instead places a condition on the exercise of that power.” First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U. S. 304, 314 (1987). It is designed “not to limit the governmental interference with property rights per se, but rather to secure compensation in the event of otherwise proper interference amounting to a taking.” Id., at 315 (emphasis in original). Furthermore, the Fifth Amendment does not require that just compensation be paid in advance of or even contemporaneously with the taking. See Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U. S. 172, 194 (1985). All that is required is the existence of a “ ‘reasonable, certain and adequate provision for obtaining compensation’ ” 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)). “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.” Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n, supra, at 194-195 (quoting Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U. S. 986, 1013, 1018, n. 21 (1984)). For this reason, “taking claims against the Federal Government are premature until the property owner has availed itself of the process provided by the Tucker Act.” Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n, supra, at 195; see also United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., 474 U. S. 121, 127-128 (1985); Monsanto, supra, at 1016; Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc., 438 U. S. 59, 94, n. 39 (1978). The Tucker Act provides juriscliction in the United States Claims Court for any claim against the Federal Government to recover damages founded on the Constitution, a statute, a regulation, or an express or implied-in-fact contract. See 28 U. S. C. § 1491(a)(1) (1982 ed.); see also § 1346(a)(2) (Little Tucker Act, which creates concurrent jurisdiction in the district courts for such claims not exceeding $10,000 in amount). “If there is a taking, the claim is ‘founded upon the Constitution’ and within the jurisdiction of the [Claims Court] to hear and determine.” United States v. Causby, 328 U. S. 256, 267 (1946). The critical question in this case, therefore, is whether a Tucker Act remedy is available for claims arising out of takings pursuant to the Amendments. The proper inquiry is not whether the statute “expresses an affirmative showing of congressional intent to permit recourse to a Tucker Act remedy,” but rather “whether Congress has in the [statute] withdrawn the Tucker Act grant of jurisdiction to the [Claims Court] to hear a suit involving the [statute] ‘founded... upon the Constitution.’” Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases, supra, at 126 (emphasis in original). Under this standard, we conclude that the Amendments did not withdraw the Tucker Act remedy. Congress did not exhibit the type of “unambiguous intention to withdraw the Tucker Act remedy,” Monsanto, supra, at 1019, that is necessary to preclude a Tucker Act claim. See Glosemeyer v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co., 685 F. Supp. 1108, 1120-1121 (ED Mo. 1988), aff’d, 879 F. 2d 316, 324-325 (CA8 1989). Neither the statute nor its legislative history mentions the Tucker Act. As indirect evidence of Congress’ intent to prevent recourse to the Tucker Act, petitioners point to § 101 of the Amendments which, although it was not codified into law, provides in relevant part that: “Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, authority to enter into contracts, and to make payments, under this Act shall be effective only to such extent or in such amounts as are provided in advance in appropriation Acts.” 97 Stat. 42, note following 16 U. S. C. § 1249. Petitioners contend that this section limits the ICC’s authority for conversions to those not requiring the expenditure of any funds and to those others for which funds had been appropriated in advance. Thus, any conversion that could result in Claims Court litigation was not authorized by Congress, since payment for such an acquisition would not have been approved by Congress in advance. Petitioners insist that such unauthorized Government actions cannot create Tucker Act liability, citing Hooe v. United States, 218 U. S. 322, 335 (1910), and Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases, supra, at 127, n. 16. We need not decide what types of official authorization, if any, are necessary to create federal liability under the Fifth Amendment, because we find that rail-to-trail conversions giving rise to just compensation claims are clearly authorized by § 8(d). That section speaks in capacious terms of “interim use of any established railroad rights-of-way” (emphasis added) and does not support petitioners’ proposed distinction between conversions that might result in a taking and those that do not. Although Congress did not explicitly promise to pay for any takings, we have always assumed that the Tucker Act is an “implie[d] promis[e]” to pay just compensation which individual laws need not reiterate. Yearsley v. W. A. Ross Construction Co., 309 U. S. 18, 21 (1940)..Petitioners’ argument that specific congressional authorization is required for those conversions that might result in takings is a thinly veiled attempt to circumvent the established method for determining whether Tucker Act relief is available for claims arising out of takings pursuant to a federal statute. We reaffirm that a Tucker Act remedy exists unless there are unambiguous indications to the contrary. Section 101, moreover, speaks only to appropriations under the Amendments themselves and not to relief available under the Tucker Act, as evidenced by §101’s opening clause — “[notwithstanding any other provision of this Act” (emphasis added) — which refers to the 1983 Amendments. The section means simply that payments made pursuant to the Amendments, such as funding for scenic trails, markers, and similar purposes, see Amendments §209(5)(C), 97 Stat. 49 (codified at 16 U. S. C. § 1249(c)(2)) (authorizing appropriations for the development and administration of certain National Scenic and National Historic Trails), are effective only “in such amounts as are provided in advance in appropriation Acts,” a concept that mirrors Art. I, §9, of the Constitution (“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law”). Payments for takings claims are not affected by this language, because such claims “arise” under the Fifth Amendment, see First English Evangelical Lutheran Church, 482 U. S., at 315-316. Payments for takings would be made “under” the Tucker Act, not the Trails Act, and would be drawn from the Judgment Fund, which is a separate appropriated account, see 31 U. S. C. § 1304(a) (1982 ed.). Section 101 does not manifest the type of clear and unmistakable congressional intent necessary to withdraw Tucker Act coverage. Petitioners next assert that Congress’ desire that the Amendments operate at “low cost,” H. R. Rep., at 3, somehow indicates that Congress withdrew the Tucker Act remedy. There is no doubt that Congress meant to keep the costs of the Amendments to a minimum. This intent, however, has little bearing on the Tucker Act question. We have previously rejected the argument that a generalized desire to protect the public fisc is sufficient to withdraw relief under the Tucker Act. In the Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases, we recognized that the Rail Act established “[mjaximum” funding authorizations, 419 U. S., at 127-128, but we nevertheless held that those limits were not an unambiguous repeal of the Tucker Act remedy. We reasoned that the maximum limits might “support the inference that Congress was so convinced that the huge sums provided would surely equal or exceed the required constitutional minimum that it never focused upon the possible need for a suit in the Court of Claims.” Id., at 128. In Monsanto, we stated that: “Congress in [the statute] did not address the liability of the Government to pay just compensation should a taking occur. Congress’ failure specifically to mention or provide for recourse against the Government may reflect a congressional belief that use of data by [the Government] in the ways authorized by [the statute] effects no Fifth Amendment taking or it may reflect Congress’ assumption that the general grant of jurisdiction under the Tucker Act would provide the necessary remedy for any taking that may occur. In any event, the failure cannot be construed to reflect an unambiguous intention to withdraw the Tucker Act remedy.” 467 U. S., at 1018-1019. Similar logic applies to the instant case. The statements made in Congress during the passage of the Trails Act Amendments might reflect merely the decision not to create a program of direct federal purchase, construction, and maintenance of trails, and instead to allow state and local governments and private groups to establish and manage trails. The alternative chosen by Congress is less costly than a program of direct federal trail acquisition because, under any view of takings law, only some rail-to-trail conversions will amount to takings. Some rights-of-way are held in fee simple. See National Wildlife Federation v. ICC, 271 U. S. App. D. C. 1, 10, 850 F. 2d 694, 703 (1988). Others are held as easements that do not even as a matter of state law revert upon interim use as nature trails. In addition, under § 8(d) the Federal Government neither incurs the costs of constructing and maintaining the trails nor assumes legal liability for the transfer or use of the right-of-way. In contrast, the costs of acquiring and administering national scenic and national historic trails are borne directly by the Federal Government. See n. 1, supra. Thus, the “low cost” language might reflect Congress’ rejection of a more ambitious program of federally owned and managed trails, rather than withdrawal of a Tucker Act remedy. The language does not amount to the “unambiguous intention” required by our prior cases. In sum, petitioners’ failure to make use of the available Tucker Act remedy renders their takings challenge to the ICG’s order premature. We need not decide whether a taking occurred in this case. Ill Petitioners also contend that the Amendments are not a valid exercise of congressional power under the Commerce Clause, Art. I, §8, because the true purpose of § 8(d) is to prevent reversion of railroad rights-of-way to property owners after abandonment and to create recreational trails, rather than to preserve rail corridors for future railroad use. We evaluate this claim under the traditional rationality standard of review: we must defer to a congressional finding that a regulated activity affects interstate commerce “if there is any rational basis for such a finding,” Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc., 452 U. S. 264, 276 (1981), and we must ensure only that the means selected by Congress are “ ‘reasonably adapted to the end permitted by the Constitution.’” Ibid, (quoting Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U. S. 241, 262 (1964)); see also Hodel v. Indiana, 452 U. S. 314, 323-324 (1981). The Amendments clearly pass muster. Two congressional purposes are evident. First, Congress intended to “encourage the development of additional trails” and to “assist recreation[al] users by providing opportunities for trail use on an interim basis.” H. R. Rep., at 8, 9; S. Rep., at 9, 10 (same); see also 16 U. S. C. § 1241(a) (Trails Act “promote[s] the preservation of, public access to, travel within, and enjoyment and appreciation of the open-air, outdoor areas and historic resources of the Nation”). Second, Congress intended “to preserve established railroad rights-of-way for future reactivation of rail service, to protect rail transportation corridors, and to encourage energy efficient transportation use.” H. R. Rep., at 8; S. Rep., at 9; see also 16 U. S. C. § 1247(d). These are valid congressional objectives to which the Amendments are reasonably adapted. Petitioners contend that the Amendments do not reasonably promote the latter purpose because the ICC cannot authorize trail use until it has found that the right-of-way at issue is not necessary for “present or future public convenience and necessity.” 49 U. S. C. § 10903(a) (1982 ed.) (emphasis added). The ICC has explained that: “In every Trails Act case, we will already have found that the public convenience and necessity permit abandonment (or that regulatory approval is not required under 49 U. S. C. [§]10505).” 54 Fed. Reg. 8012, n. 3 (1989). Thus, trail conversion is permitted only after the Commission determines that rail service will not be not needed in the foreseeable future. This, according to petitioners, reveals that the rail banking rationale is a sham. If Congress really wished to address the problem of shrinking trackage, it would not have left conversions to voluntary agreements between railroads and state and local agencies or private groups. Rather, petitioners suggest, Congress would have created a mandatory program administered directly by the ICC. We note at the outset that even under petitioners’ reading, the Amendments would still be a valid exercise of congressional power under the Commerce Clause because they are reasonably adapted to the goal of encouraging the development of additional recreational trails. There is no requirement that a law serve more than one legitimate purpose. Moreover, we are not at liberty under the rational basis standard of review to hold the Amendments invalid merely because more Draconian measures — such as a program of mandatory conversions or a prohibition of all abandonments —might advance more completely the rail banking purpose. The process of legislating often involves tradeoffs, compromises, and imperfect solutions, and our ability to imagine ways of redesigning the statute to advance one of Congress’ ends does not render it irrational. See, e. g., Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., 449 U. S. 456, 469 (1981). The history of congressional attempts to address the problem of rail abandonments, see supra, at 5-6, provides sufficient reason to defer to the legislative judgment that § 8(d) is an appropriate answer. Here, as in Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc., “Congress considered the effectiveness of existing legislation and concluded that additional measures were necessary.” 452 U. S., at 283. Petitioners’ argument that § 8(d) does not serve the rail banking purpose, moreover, is not well taken. That the ICC must certify that public convenience and necessity permit abandonment before granting a CITU or NITU does not indicate that the statute fails to promote its purpose of preserving rail corridors. Congress did not distinguish between short-term and long-term rail banking, nor did it require that • the Commission develop a specific contingency plan for reactivation of a line before permitting conversion. To the contrary, Congress apparently believed that every line is a potentially valuable national asset that merits preservation even if no future rail use for it is currently foreseeable. Given the long tradition of congressional regulation of railroad abandonments, see, e. g., Colorado v. United States, 271 U. S. 153 (1926), that is a judgment that Congress is entitled to make. IV For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. It is so ordered. Justice O’Connor, with whom Justice Scalia and Justice Kennedy join, concurring. Petitioners assert that the actions of the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC or Commission) prevent them from enjoying property rights secured by Vermont law and thereby have effected a compensable taking. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit determined that, no matter what Vermont law might provide, the ICC’s actions forestalled petitioners from possessing the asserted reversionary interest, and thus that no takings claim could arise. Today the Court affirms the Second Circuit’s judgment on quite different grounds. I join the Court’s opinion, but write separately to express my view that state law determines what property interest petitioners possess and that traditional takings doctrine will determine whether the Government must compensate petitioners for the burden imposed on any property interest they possess. As the Court acknowledges, ante, at 8-9, 15-16, state law creates and defines the scope of the reversionary or other real property interests' affected by the ICC’s actions pursuant to §208 of the National Trails System Act Amendments of 1983, 16 U. S. C. § 1247(d). In determining whether a taking has occurred, “we are mindful of the basic axiom that ‘[property interests... are 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.’” Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U. S. 986, 1001 (1984), quoting Webb’s Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. v. Beckwith, 449 U. S. 155, 161 (1980) (internal quotation omitted). Although original federal grants of railway easements may influence certain disputes over interests in land, see Great Northern R. Co. v. United States, 315 U. S. 262 (1942); Idaho v. Oregon Short Line R. Co., 617 F. Supp. 207 (Idaho 1985), no such federal role is present in this case. Rather, the parties sharply dispute what interest, according to Vermont law, the State of Vermont acquired from the Rutland Railway Corporation and, correspondingly, whether petitioners possess the property interest that they claim has been taken. See Brief for Petitioners 15, and n. 14; Brief for Respondents State of Vermont et al. 22-25; Reply Brief for Petitioners 2-4. Similar reference to state law has guided other courts seeking to determine whether a railway right of way lapsed upon the conversion to trail use. Compare State by Washington Wildlife Preservation, Inc. v. State, 329 N. W. 2d 543, 545-548 (Minn.) (trail use within original interest, thus reversionary rights have not matured), cert. denied, 463 U. S. 1209 (1983), with Lawson v. State, 107 Wash. 2d 444, 730 P. 2d 1308 (1986) (change in use would give effect to reversionary interests); McKinley v. Waterloo R. Co., 368 N. W. 2d 131, 133-136 (Iowa 1985) (lack of railway use triggered period leading to reversion); Schnabel v. County of DuPage, 101 Ill. App. 3d 553, 428 N. E. 2d 671 (1981) (easement lapsed). Determining what interest petitioners would have enjoyed under Vermont law, in the absence of the ICC’s recent actions, will establish whether petitioners possess the predicate property interest that must underlie any takings claim. See Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., supra, at 1001-1004. We do not attempt to resolve that issue. It is also clear that the Interstate Commerce Act, and the ICC’s actions pursuant to it, pre-empt the operation and effect of certain state laws that “conflict with or interfere with federal authority over the same activity.” Chicago & North Western Transp. Co. v. Kalo Brick & Tile Co., 450 U. S. 311, 319 (1981); see id., at 318-319. States may not impose obligations upon carriers at odds with those governed through the ICC’s “exclusive” and “plenary authority to regulate... rail carriers’ cessations of service on their lines.” Id., at 323; see id., at 324-327. A State may again exercise its regulatory powers once the ICC authorizes a carrier’s abandonment of service, and, thus, unless the Commission attaches postabandonment conditions to the abandonment certificate, “brings [the Commission’s] regulatory mission to an end.” Hayfield Northern R. Co. v. Chicago & North Western Transp. Co., 467 U. S. 622, 633 (1984). As the Vermont Supreme Court recognized, state courts cannot enforce or give effect to asserted reversionary interests when enforcement would interfere with the Commission’s administration of the Interstate Commerce Act. See Trustees of Diocese of Vermont v. State, 145 Vt. 510, 496 A. 2d 151 (1985). These results are simply routine and well-established consequences of the Supremacy Clause, U. S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2. The scope of the Commission’s authority to regulate abandonments, thereby delimiting the ambit of federal power, is an issue quite distinct from whether the Commission’s exercise of power over matters within its jurisdiction effected a taking of petitioners’ property. Cf. Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U. S. 164, 174 (1979) (“[T]here is no question but that Congress could assure the public a free right of access.... Whether a statute or regulation that went so far amounted to a ‘taking,’ however, is an entirely separate question”). Although the Commission’s actions may pre-empt the operation and effect of certain state laws, those actions do not displace state law as the traditional source of the real property interests. See Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., supra, at 1003-1004, 1012 (state law creates property right in trade secrets for purposes of Fifth Amendment, and regulatory regime does not pre-empt state property law). The Commission’s actions may delay property owners’ enjoyment of their reversionary interests, but that delay burdens and defeats the property interest rather than suspends or defers the vesting of those property rights. See National Wildlife Federation v. ICC, 271 U. S. App. D. C. 1, 11-12, and n. 16, 850 F. 2d 694, 704-705, and n. 16 (1988). Any other conclusion would convert the ICC’s power to pre-empt conflicting state regulation of interstate commerce into the power to pre-empt the rights guaranteed by state property law, a result incompatible with the Fifth Amendment. See Ruckels haus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U. S., at 1012 (“If Congress can ‘pre-empt’ state property law in the manner advocated by EPA, then the Taking Clause has lost all vitality. [A] sovereign, ‘by ipse dixit, may not transform private property into public property without compensation.... This is the very kind of thing that the Taking Clause of the Fifth Amendment was meant to prevent’”), quoting Webb’s Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. v. Beckwith, 449 U. S., at 164. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit adopted just this unjustified interpretation of the effect of the ICC’s exercise of federal power. The court concluded that even if petitioners held the reversionary interest they claim, no taking occurred because “no reversionary interest can or would vest” until the ICC determines that abandonment is appropriate. See 853 F. 2d 145, 151 (1988). This view conflates the scope of the ICC’s power with the existence of a compensable taking and threatens to read the Just Compensation Clause out of the Constitution. The ICC may possess the power to postpone enjoyment of reversionary interests, but the Fifth Amendment and well-established doctrine indicate that in certain circumstances the Government must compensate owners of those property interests when it exercises that power. See First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U. S. 304, 314-315 (1987) (The Taking Clause “does not prohibit the taking of private property, but instead places a condition on the exercise of that power,” and the Clause “is designed not to limit the governmental interference with property rights per se, but rather to secure compensation in the event of otherwise proper interference amounting to a taking”). Nothing in the Court’s opinion disavows these principles. The Court’s conclusion that § 8(d) authorizes rails-to-trails conversions that amount to takings, ante, at 13, and its conclusion that “under any view of takings law, only some rail-to-trail conversions will amount to takings,” ante, at 16, are inconsistent with the Second Circuit’s view. Indeed, if the Second Circuit’s approach were adopted, discussion of the availability of the Tucker Act remedy would be unnecessary. Even the federal respondents acknowledge that the existence of a taking will rest upon the nature of the state-created property interest that petitioners would have enjoyed absent the federal action and upon the extent that the federal action burdened that interest. See Brief for Federal Respondents 23-24. Well-established principles will govern analysis of whether the burden the ICC’s actions impose upon state-defined real property interests amounts to a compensable taking. We recently concluded in Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, 483 U. S. 825, 831-832 (1987), that a taking would occur if the Government appropriated a public eas Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

D

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr. Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the Court. Petitioner Whiteley, in 1965, was convicted in the District Court for the Second Judicial District of the State of Wyoming on charges of breaking and entering and being an habitual criminal. Both at his arraignment and at trial Whiteley challenged the constitutionality of the use of evidence seized during a search incident to an arrest which he claimed was illegal. The trial court overruled petitioner’s motion to suppress, and on appeal the Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed. Whiteley v. State, 418 P. 2d 164 (1966). This proceeding commenced with a petition for habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming, which was denied on November 25, 1968. Whiteley v. Wyoming, 293 F. Supp. 381. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed. Whiteley v. Meacham, 416 F. 2d 36 (1969). We granted certiorari, limiting the writ to the issue of the constitutionality of the arrest and ensuing search and seizure. 397 U. S. 1062 (1970). We reverse the judgment of the Tenth Circuit for the reasons stated herein. I The circumstances surrounding petitioner’s arrest and the incidental search and seizure, as stated by the Wyoming Supreme Court, 418 P. 2d 164, 165-166, are as follows: “On November 23, 1964, certain business establishments in Saratoga were broken into, including the Rustic Bar and Shively’s Hardware, the offenses being investigated by the Carbon County Sheriff [Sheriff Ogburn] who, acting on a tip, the next day signed a complaint charging defendant and another with breaking and entering the building identified as the Rustic Bar. This complaint was made before a justice of the peace at approximately 11:30 a. m. on the 24th, and a warrant issued. After the investigation, the sheriff put out a state item on the radio to pick up two suspects of the breaking and entering, defendant and another. The message went to the network at Casper and was transmitted over the State, received by the Albany County Sheriff’s Office and communicated to the Laramie Police Department, the message giving names and descriptions of the two persons and advising the type of car probably being driven and the amount of money taken, including certain old coins with the dates. Late at night on November 24, a Laramie patrolman, in reliance on the information in the radio item, arrested the defendant and his companion. At the time, the patrolman had no warrant for defendant’s arrest nor search warrant. The officer together with a deputy sheriff, who had come up in the meantime, searched the car and removed a number of items introduced in evidence, including tools and old coins, identified at the trial as taken from Shively’s Hardware. . . .” Sheriff Ogburn’s complaint, which provided the basis for the arrest warrant issued by the justice of the peace, is as follows: “I, C. W. Ogburn, do solemnly swear that on or about the 23 day of November, A. D. 1964, in the County of Carbon and State of Wyoming, the said Harold Whiteley and Jack Daley, defendants did then and there unlawfully break and enter a locked and sealed building [describing the location and ownership of the building].” App. 28. A state item 881, the bulletin which Sheriff Ogburn put out on the radio and which led to petitioner’s arrest and search by the Laramie patrolman, is as follows: “P & H for B & E Saratoga, early A. M. 11-24-64. Subj. #1. Jack Daley, WMA, 38, D. O. B. 2-29-[26], 5'10", 175, med. build, med. comp., blonde and blue. Tat. left shoulder: 'Love Me or Leave Me.’ #2. Harold Whitley, WMA, 43, D. O. B. 6-22-21, 5' 11", 180, med. build, fair comp, brown eyes. Tat. on right arm 'Bird.’ Poss. driving 1953 or 1954 Buick, light green bottom, dark top. Wyo. lie. 2-bal. unknown. Taken: $281.71 in small change, numerous old coins ranging from ,5‡ pieces to silver dollars, dated from 1853 to 1908. Warrant issues, will extradite. Special attention Denver. . . .” App. 31. II The decisions of this Court concerning Fourth Amendment probable-cause requirements before a warrant for either arrest or search can issue require that the judicial officer issuing such a warrant be supplied with sufficient information to support an independent judgment that probable cause exists for the warrant. Spinelli v. United States, 393 U. S. 410 (1969); United States v. Ventresca, 380 U. S. 102 (1965); Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U. S. 108 (1964); Rugendorf v. United States, 376 U. S. 528 (1964); Jones v. United States, 362 U. S. 257 (1960); Giordenello v. United States, 357 U. S. 480 (1958). In the instant case — so far as the record stipulated to by the parties reveals — the sole support for the arrest warrant issued at Sheriff Ogburn’s request was the complaint reproduced above. That complaint consists of nothing more than the complainant’s conclusion that- the individuals named therein perpetrated the offense described in the complaint. The actual basis for Sheriff Ogburn’s conclusion was an informer’s tip, but that fact, as well as every other operative fact, is omitted from the complaint. Under the cases just cited, that document alone could not support the independent judgment of a disinterested magistrate. The State, however, contends that regardless of the sufficiency of the complaint to support the arrest warrant, the Laramie police officer who actually made the arrest possessed sufficient factual information to support a finding of probable cause for arrest without a warrant. In support of this proposition, the State argues that a reviewing court should employ less stringent standards for reviewing a police officer’s assessment of probable cause as a prelude to a warrantless arrest than the court would employ in reviewing a magistrate’s assessment as a prelude to issuing an arrest or search warrant. That proposition has been consistently rejected by this Court. United States v. Ventresca, 380 U. S., at 105-109; Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U. S., at 110-111; Jones v. United States, 362 U. S., at 270-271. And the reason for its rejection is both fundamental and obvious: less stringent standards for reviewing the officer’s discretion in effecting a warrantless arrest and search would discourage resort to the procedures for obtaining a warrant. Thus the standards applicable to the factual basis supporting the officer’s probable-cause assessment at the time of the challenged arrest and search are at least as stringent as the standards applied with respect to the magistrate’s assessment. See McCray v. Illinois, 386 U. S. 300, 304-305 (1967). Applying those standards to the instant case, the information possessed by the Laramie police officer at the time of arrest and search consisted of: (1) the data contained in state bulletin 881, reproduced supra; (2) the knowledge, obtained by personal observation, that two men were driving a car matching the car described in the radio bulletin; (3) the knowledge, possessed by one of the arresting officers, that one of the people in the car was Jack Daley, App. 71; (4) the knowledge, acquired by personal observation, that the other individual in the car fitted the description of Whiteley contained in state bulletin 881; and (5) the knowledge, acquired by the officer after stopping Whiteley, that he had given a false name. This Court has held that where the initial impetus for an arrest is an informer’s tip, information gathered by the arresting officers can be used to sustain a finding of probable cause for an arrest that could not adequately be supported by the tip alone. Draper v. United States, 358 U. S. 307 (1959). See Spinelli v. United States, 393 U. S. 410 (1969). But the additional information acquired by the arresting officers must in some sense be corroborative of the informer’s tip that the arrestees committed the felony or, as in Draper itself, were in the process of committing the felony. See the opinions of the Court and that of Me. Justice White concurring in Spinelli v. United States, supra, and p. 423. In the present case, the very most the additional information tended to establish is that either Sheriff Ogburn, or his informant, or both of them, knew Daley and Whiteley and the kind of car they drove; the record is devoid of any information at any stage of the proceeding from the time of the burglary to the event of the arrest and search that would support either the reliability of the informant or the informant’s conclusion that these men were connected with the crime. Spinelli v. United States, supra; McCray v. Illinois, supra; Aguilar v. Texas, supra. The State, however, offers one further argument in support of the legality of the arrest and search: the Laramie police relied on the radio bulletin in making the arrest, and not on Sheriff Ogburn’s unnamed informant. Clearly, it is said, they had probable cause for believing that the passengers in the car were the men described in the bulletin, and, in acting on the bulletin, they reasonably assumed that whoever authorized the bulletin had probable cause to direct Whiteley’s and Daley’s arrest. To prevent arresting officers from acting on the assumption that fellow officers who call upon them to make an arrest have probable cause for believing the arrestees are perpetrators of a crime would, it is argued, unduly hamper law enforcement. We do not, of course, question that the Laramie police were entitled to act on the strength of the radio bulletin. Certainly police officers called upon to aid other officers in executing arrest warrants are entitled to assume that the officers requesting aid offered the magistrate the information requisite to support an independent judicial assessment of probable cause. Where, however, the contrary turns out to be true, an otherwise illegal arrest cannot be insulated from challenge by the decision of the instigating officer to rely on fellow officers to make the arrest. In sum, the complaint on which the warrant issued here clearly could not support a finding of probable cause by the issuing magistrate. The arresting officer was not himself possessed of any factual data tending to corroborate the informer’s tip that Daley and Whiteley committed the crime. Therefore, petitioner’s arrest violated his constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments; the evidence secured as an incident thereto should have been excluded from his trial. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 (1961). Ill There remains the question as to the proper disposition of this case. The State urges us to remand so that it will have an opportunity to develop a record which might show that the issuing magistrate had factual information additional to that presented in Sheriff Ogburn’s complaint. Brief for Respondent 8-9. Yet the State concedes, as on the record it must, that at every stage in the proceedings below petitioner argued the insufficiency of the warrant as well as the lack of probable cause at the time of the arrest. Brief for Respondent 4. Knowing the basis for petitioner’s constitutional claim, the State chose to try those proceedings on the record it had developed in the state courts. See n. 4, supra. Its sole explanation for this state of affairs is that “the state has felt, based on precedent and logic, that no court would accept the legal reasoning of petitioner.” Brief for Respondent 9. In the circumstances of this case, that justification, as we have shown, is untenable. Pursuant to our authority under 28 U. S. C. § 2106 to make such disposition of the case “as may be just under the circumstances,” we reverse the judgment of the Tenth Circuit and remand with directions that the writ is to issue unless the State makes appropriate arrangements to retry petitioner. Cf. Giordenello v. United States, 357 U. S., at 487-488. It is so ordered. He was given concurrent sentences on the breaking and entering charges of one to 10 years and, in consequence of the recidivist charge, imprisonment for life. Prior to commencing federal habeas corpus proceedings, Whiteley had filed a petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to the Wyoming statutes. No appeal was taken from the denial of that petition. In his petition for habeas corpus, Whiteley raised several other issues which had previously been advanced in his state petition for post-conviction relief, but not in his direct appeal to the Supreme Court of Wyoming. On these other issues, both lower federal courts held that failure to appeal the denial of his state post-conviction petition constituted nonexhaustion of state remedies. Petitioner sought to raise the exhaustion issue in his present petition for certiorari, but, as noted in text, we granted the writ limited to the search and seizure issue decided by the lower federal courts. At the outset of the federal habeas corpus proceeding now before us, both parties entered into the following stipulation, App. 10: “IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties through their respective counsel that, pursuant to the agreement of the parties in open court on February 16, 1968, both sides will rely exclusively on the record before the trial court in the original case of the State of Wyoming v. Harold Whiteley . . . and any and all parts of the record on appeal to the State of Wyoming ... in the hearing on the merits of this case before the [U. S. District Court].” A second version of state item 881 is identical in all relevant respects except that it omits reference to the arrest warrant. See App. 37. In Ker v. California, 374 U. S. 23 (1963), the Court held that the same probable-cause standards were applicable to federal and state warrants under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. In Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 (1961), the Court held the exclusionary rule was applicable to state prosecutions. See n. 4, supra. The dissent seems to imply that “this record shows” that Sheriff Ogburn received the description of the car contained in the radio bulletin from someone who also informed him that he also saw the car at the scene of the crime. Post, at 570. The record wholly fails to support any such implication. Sheriff Ogburn, who testified on four separate occasions at the trial, see R. 105-112, 187-191, 310-314, 335-337, said nothing of the sort. Only one other witness, Leonard Russell Marion, testified to having given Ogburn any information about the car prior to Whiteley’s arrest; Marion never testified to seeing the car near the scene of the crime. R. 317-322, 329-330. Indeed, it is quite apparent from reading Marion’s testimony that his observations of Whiteley on the day of the robbery took place at his own house. R. 320-321. More importantly, even the dissent apparently concedes that as far as the record in this case reveals, the only information Sheriff Ogburn communicated to the magistrate issuing the warrant was contained in his written complaint reproduced above. Under the cases of this Court, an otherwise insufficient affidavit cannot be rehabilitated by testimony concerning information possessed by the affiant when he sought the warrant but not disclosed to the issuing magistrate. See Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U. S. 108, 109 n. 1. A contrary rule would, of course, render the warrant requirements of the Fourth Amendment meaningless. Since this is a federal habeas corpus proceeding, the State is technically not a party. “The legal principles relied upon by the state throughout this entire litigated process have been based on the premise that a law enforcement officer may make a warrantless arrest if he has requisite probable cause, which can be something less than the requisite probable cause that must be presented to a judicial officer prior to the issuance of an arrest or search warrant.” Brief for Respondent 6. After arresting Whiteley and Daley, the officers searched the car and discovered in the car’s interior the old coins taken in one of the burglaries and described in the radio bulletin. In addition, they found burglar’s tools in the trunk of the car. Of course, the discoveries of an illegal search cannot be used to validate the probable-cause judgment upon which the legality of the search depends. The arrest warrant issued at about noon on November 24, 1964. See App. 53. State bulletin 881 was broadcast at 3:03 p. m. that same day. App. 31. It is apparent that Sheriff Ogbum did not himself acquire additional corroborative data possibly supporting a probable-cause arrest after securing the warrant. The State makes a halfhearted attempt to argue that the introduction of the illegally seized evidence was harmless error. The evidence, of course, was damning, to say the least. See n. 10, supra. The only other evidence implicating Whiteley was his accomplice’s testimony. It is clear that the error cannot be said to be harmless under applicable standards. Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18 (1967); Harrington v. California, 395 U. S. 250 (1969). Contrary to the implications in the dissenting opinion, see post, at 571, no witness at trial other than the accomplice placed Whiteley “near the scene of the crime” on the night of the robbery. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy 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 appeal presents a challenge under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to a state statute which authorizes the transfer of a state prisoner, without his consent, to a state mental hospital upon a finding by a physician or psychologist that the prisoner suffers from a mental disease or defect and that he cannot be given proper treatment within the facility in which he is confined. Appellee Larry D. Jones was convicted of the crime of robbery and was sentenced to a prison term of three to nine years. In May 1974, he began serving his sentence at the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex, a state prison. In January 1975, appellee was transferred to the penitentiary hospital; two days later he was placed in solitary confinement in the prison adjustment center. While there, appellee set his mattress on fire and suffered serious burns. Appellee was transferred by ambulance to the burn unit of a private hospital where he remained for some four months. In April 1975, immediately following his release from the hospital, appellee was transferred to the security unit of the Lincoln Regional Center, a hospital facility owned and operated by the State of Nebraska for the purpose of providing treatment for persons afflicted with emotional and mental disorders. In advance of his transfer to Lincoln Regional Center, appellee was examined by a psychiatrist as required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 83-180 (1976). The evidence adduced before the District Court revealed that, when asked by the examining psychiatrist whether or not he wished to be transferred, ap-pellee answered that he did. However, the District Court deemed the transfer to have been involuntary because appellee was offered no means of obtaining independent advice on the subject and because, in the view of the District Court, appellee “may well not have been competent to exercise a free choice.” It is undisputed that, in transferring appellee from a prison facility to a mental institution, the correctional authorities exercised the authority conferred on them by the state statute challenged here. In April 1976, appellee filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska seeking to intervene in a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner who, like appellee, had been transferred from the State Penal Complex to Lincoln Regional Center. The three-judge District Court agreed that due process attached to plaintiffs’ asserted liberty interest and declared § 83-180 (1) unconstitutional as applied. Miller v. Vitek, 437 F. Supp. 569. The District Court also enjoined the transfer of any state prisoner from a penal facility to a mental institution except in compliance with procedures similar to those identified in this Court’s opinions in Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S. 471 (1972), and Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U. S. 539 (1974). Additional procedures set forth by the District Court require the State to furnish the inmate with effective and timely notice of his rights and, in the case of an indigent inmate, with legal counsel. We noted probable jurisdiction. On November 17, 1977, the Nebraska Board of Parole granted appellee parole for the purpose of allowing him to receive in-patient psychiatric care at the Veterans Hospital in Danville, Ill. During the course of oral argument in this Court, appellee’s counsel advised the Court that appellee has accepted the parole offered to him and agreed to treatment at the Veterans Hospital. Moreover, according to counsel, appellee is now cooperating with the medical staff assigned to his care and voluntarily taking medication prescribed for him. In light of these disclosures, the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska is hereby vacated, and the case is remanded to the District Court for consideration of the question of mootness. Vacated and remanded. Nebraska Rev. Stat. § 83-180 (1976) provides in relevant part: “[W]hen a physician or psychologist designated by the [Director of Correctional Sevices] finds that a person committed to the [Department of Correctional Services] suffers from a mental disease or defect, the chief executive officer may order such person to be segregated from other persons in the facility. If the physician or psychologist is of the opinion that the person cannot be given proper treatment in that facility, the director may arrange for his transfer for examination, study, and treatment to any medical-correctional facility, or to another institution in the Department of Public Institutions where proper treatment is available. A person who is so transferred shall remain subject to the jurisdiction and custody of the Department of Correctional Services and shall be returned to the department when, prior to the expiration of his sentence, treatment in such facility is no longer necessary.” This lawsuit was initially brought by a single plaintiff, Charles Miller. On August 18, 1976, plaintiff’s suit was certified as a class action. After a hearing, the action was decertified. Thereafter, William McKinley Hines, William George Foote, and Larry D. Jones were added as individual plaintiffs-intervenors. Hines, who had been returned to state prison and released on parole, did not participate in the proceedings before the District Court, which ordered him dismissed as a plaintiff-intervenor on September 12, 1977. Prior to the entry of the judgment below, Miller and Foote each completed his maximum sentence and received a final discharge. Jones is the sole appellee in this Court. Miller v. Vitek, 437 F. Supp. 569, 571 n. 3. 434 U. S. 1060 (1978). The District Court rendered its judgment in this case on October 14, 1977. Tr. of Oral Arg. 13, 19, 41-44. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

I

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Per Curiam. The United States asks leave to file a bill of complaint pursuant to this Court’s original jurisdiction against the States of California and Nevada seeking a declaration of the respective rights of the States and of the United States in the Truckee River, a navigable interstate stream. The Truckee rises in the High Sierra, flows into Lake Tahoe, through which the California-Nevada boundary runs, exits on the California side of the Lake, and flows 20 miles before crossing into Nevada. It then continues another 65 miles, through Reno and beyond, to its termination in Pyramid Lake, a desert lake 20 miles long and five miles wide, with no outlet and a water level determined by the balance or imbalance between inflow and evaporation. The bill of complaint sought to be filed states that in 1859 the United States created a reservation for the Paiute Indian Tribe that included Pyramid Lake and an extensive area surrounding it. Allegedly, the United States intended at the time to reserve sufficient water from the Truckee River to maintain Pyramid Lake and the lower reaches of the river as a viable fishery on which the Indians could depend for their subsistence and livelihood. The level of the Lake, however, is said to have declined some 70 feet since 1906, due chiefly to upstream uses and diversions which make it imperative that the prior right of the United States to sufficient water to maintain Pyramid Lake be judicially declared as against each of the defendant States. It appears from the bill of complaint that the United States has several other interests in the waters of the Truckee River, chief among which is the right to divert at its Derby Dam, some distance upstream from Pyramid Lake, large amounts of water from the Truckee River for transportation and use in connection with the Newlands Reclamation Project, initiated and completed by the United States pursuant to the Reclamation Act of 1902, 32 Stat. 388. Judicial approval for this diversion was sought by the United States in a suit brought by it in 1913 in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. United States v. Orr Water Ditch Co., Equity No. A-3 (1944). The decree entered in this action in 1944 authorized the United States to divert Truckee River water at Derby Dam for delivery to the Newlands Project; it also declared the prior right of the United States to sufficient Truckee River water to irrigate some 3,130 acres of bottom land and 2,745 acres of bench land on the Pyramid Lake Indian Reservation. App. D to Motion for Leave to File Complaint. The foremost purpose of the United States in seeking to institute the present litigation is to perfect a prior water right against all upstream uses that will maintain Pyramid Lake at its current level and so prevent further deterioration of the lake and the river as a habitat for the native fish that have historically thrived in the lake and that have provided sustenance for the Tribe. The motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied. The States of California and Nevada have entered into a compact with respect to their respective shares in the Truckee River water, and that compact is the subject of pending bills in Congress. H. R. 15, S. 24, 93d Cong., 1st Sess. There is now no controversy between the two States with respect to the Truckee River. The complaint, therefore, as the United States concedes, is not one alleging a case or controversy between two States within the exclusive jurisdiction of this Court, under 28 U. S. C. § 1251 (a), but a dispute between the United States and two States over which this Court has original but not exclusive jurisdiction under § 1251 (b)(2). We seek to exercise our original jurisdiction sparingly and are particularly reluctant to take jurisdiction of a suit where the plaintiff has another adequate forum in which to settle his claim. Illinois v. City of Milwaukee, 406 U. S. 91 (1972); Ohio v. Wyandotte Chemicals Corp., 401 U. S. 493 (1971); Massachusetts v. Missouri, 308 U. S. 1 (1939). Here, Nevada disputes the right of the United States to sufficient water to maintain Pyramid Lake at any particular level. It also asserts that the United States is bound by the 1944 Orr Ditch decree to respect the private water rights of hundreds of landowners who are served by the Newlands Project and whose rights are dependent upon the right of the United States to divert Truckee River water, the decree authorizing that diversion, and a contract with the United States to deliver the water to the project. This dispute over the Orr Ditch decree and the existence and extent of the prior water rights of the United States with respect to the Pyramid Lake Indian Reservation is within the jurisdiction of the District Court. We need not employ our original jurisdiction to settle competing claims to water within a single State. This is particularly the case where the individual users of water in the Newlands Project, who ordinarily would have no right to intervene in an original action in this Court, New Jersey v. New York, 345 U. S. 369, 373-375 (1953), would have an opportunity to participate in their own behalf if this litigation goes forward in the District Court. We recognize that the United States will not be able to join California as a defendant in a suit in Nevada to perfect Pyramid Reservation water rights and that, absent California’s voluntary appearance, a Nevada decree would not bind that State. Hinderlider v. La Plata Co., 304 U. S. 92, 103 (1938). But these are not determinative considerations. Under the proposed interstate compact, California and Nevada have agreed upon their respective shares of Truckee River water. Nevada has also agreed that any rights to the use of water in Nevada by the United States or its wards are to be charged against Nevada’s share of Truckee water. For the purposes of dividing the waters of an interstate stream with another State, Nevada has the right, parens patriae, to represent all the nonfederal users in its own State insofar as the share allocated to the other State is concerned. It is therefore doubtful at best that there is now any dispute at all between California and the United States with respect to the latter’s claim to water rights at Pyramid Lake. New Jersey v. New York, supra, at 372-373; Hinderlider v. La Plata Co., supra, at 106; Nebraska v. Wyoming, 295 U. S. 40, 43 (1935); 325 U. S. 589, 612-615, 629 (1945). It is true that upstream or downstream water uses and priorities are important considerations when the judiciary equitably apportions an interstate stream, Hinderlider v. La Plata Co., supra, at 102; Nebraska v. Wyoming, 325 U. S., at 617; Wyoming v. Colorado, 259 U. S. 419, 470 (1922), but the United States would appear to have occasion to object to upstream diversions in California on the grounds of interference with its Pyramid Lake water rights only if the compact between the two States is not approved or Nevada, prior to such approval, disowns the agreed-upon division of Truckee River water. In that event, a dispute between the two States may arise, and the United States would then perhaps have some ground to participate and assert that California’s share must be reduced in order to accommodate a prior, long-established use by the United States in the State of Nevada. Cf. Arizona v. California, 373 U. S. 546 (1963); Nebraska v. Wyoming, supra. Any possible dispute with California with respect to United States water uses in that State can be settled in the lower federal courts in California; and the possibility of a ripe controversy between the United States and California with respect to Pyramid Lake water rights appears too remote to warrant granting the Government’s motion for leave to file the instant complaint. We deny the motion, but without prejudice to refiling it should the posture of the litigation change in a manner that presents a more substantial basis for the exercise of our original jurisdiction. So ordered. Mr. Justice Douglas dissents. The United States also operates the Washoe Reclamation Project in Nevada and California which was established under the Washoe Project Act of 1956, 70 Stat. 775. The Act provides, inter alia, for establishing facilities to permit increased releases of water from Lake Tahoe and restoration of the Pyramid Lake fishery, 43 U. S. C. § 614c. In addition to the right claimed for Pyramid Lake, the United States seeks to have rights decreed for it to the use of waters in and on national forests within the Truckee River watershed, to waters reserved as public water holes and hot springs, to the use of waters in and on public lands where the waters have heretofore been put to beneficial use on those lands, and to the use of runoff waters from the Newlands Project for use in a wildlife refuge. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy 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 Stewart announced the judgment of the Court and an opinion in which Mr. Justice Douglas, Mr. Justice Brennan, and Mr. Justice Marshall join. The petitioner, Otis Loper, was brought to trial in a Texas criminal court in 1947 upon a charge of statutory rape. The alleged victim, Loper’s 8-year-old stepdaughter, was the only witness who identified him as the perpetrator of the crime. The sole witness for the defense was Loper himself, who testified that he had not assaulted the victim in any way. For the purpose of impeaching Loper’s credibility, the prosecutor was permitted on cross-examination to interrogate Loper about his previous criminal record. In response to this line of questioning, Loper admitted in damaging detail to four previous felony convictions during the period 1931-1940, three in Mississippi and one in Tennessee. At the conclusion of the one-day trial the jury found Loper guilty as charged and sentenced him to a term of 50 years in prison. Loper initiated the present habeas corpus proceeding in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas in 1969. He alleged, among other things, that the previous convictions used to impeach his credibility at the trial were constitutionally invalid under Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335, because he had been denied the assistance of counsel in the Mississippi and Tennessee courts that had convicted him. His sworn testimony at the habeas corpus hearing confirmed these allegations. In addition, he produced court records to corroborate this testimony. The District Court denied habeas corpus relief, placing “little or no credence” in Loper’s testimony, and holding that in any event “the question does not rise to constitutional stature and is not subject to collateral attack.” On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court. Although recognizing “the force of Loper’s argument to the effect that such convictions may have impaired his credibility in the minds of the jury as a witness in his own behalf,” the appellate court held that “the use of such convictions as evidence for purposes of impeachment which goes only to credibility, is not nearly so serious as the use of a conviction for enhancement, which may add years of imprisonment to the sentence of a defendant. . . . The issue presented raises an evidentiary question. The fact that there are possible infirmities in the evidence does not necessarily raise an issue of constitutional proportions which would require reversal.” 440 F. 2d 934, 937. We limited our grant of certiorari to a single constitutional question, worded as follows in the petition for certiorari: Does the use of prior, void convictions for impeachment purposes deprive a criminal defendant of due process of law where their use might well have influenced the outcome of the case? 404 U. S. 821. This is a recurring question that has received conflicting answers in the United States Courts of Appeals. It is a question that has also divided state appellate courts. The starting point in considering this question is, of course, Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335. In that case the Court unanimously announced a clear and simple constitutional rule: In the absence of waiver, a felony conviction is invalid if it was obtained in a court that denied the defendant the help of a lawyer. The Court dealt with a sequel to Gideon in Burgett v. Texas, 389 U. S. 109. There a Texas indictment charging the petitioner with assault contained allegations of previous felony convictions, that, if proved, would have increased the punishment for assault under the state recidivist statutes. The indictment was read to the jury at the beginning of the trial. Records of two of the previous convictions were offered in evidence during the course of the trial, and it appeared that at least one of these convictions had been obtained in violation of Gideon. In reversing the Texas judgment, the Court said: “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 ... 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 . . . right.” 389 U. S., at 115. Earlier this Term we had before us a case in which it appeared that previous convictions obtained in violation of Gideon had played a part in the determination of the length of a convicted defendant’s prison sentence. United States v. Tucker, 404 U. S. 443. We there ruled that the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had been correct in holding that the teaching of Burgett required a remand of the case to the trial court for resentencing. The Tucker case involved only that aspect of Burgett that prohibits the use of invalid prior convictions to “enhance punishment.” The case now before us involves the use of such convictions “to support guilt.” For the issue of innocence or guilt in this case turned entirely on whether the jury would believe the testimony of an 8-year-old girl or that of Loper. And the sole purpose for which the prior convictions were permitted to be used was to destroy the credibility of Loper’s testimony in the eyes of the jury. Unless Burgett is to be forsaken, the conclusion is inescapable that the use of convictions constitutionally invalid under Gideon v. Wainwright to impeach a defendant’s credibility deprives him of due process of law. We can put the matter no better than in the words of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit: “We conclude that the Burgett rule against use of uncounseled convictions ‘to prove guilt’ was intended to prohibit their use ‘to impeach credibility,’ for the obvious purpose and likely effect of impeaching the defendant’s credibility is to imply, if not prove, guilt. Even if such prohibition was not originally contemplated, we fail to discern any distinction which would allow such invalid convictions to be used to impeach credibility. The absence of counsel impairs the reliability of such convictions just as much when used to impeach as when used as direct proof of guilt.” Gilday v. Scafati, 428 F. 2d 1027, 1029. A dissenting opinion filed today suggests that our decision presses the “sound doctrine of retroactivity beyond the outer limits of its logic.” On the contrary, our decision in this case follows directly from the rationale under which Gideon v. Wainwright, supra, was given retroactive application. We have said that the principle established in Gideon goes to “the very integrity of the fact-finding process” in criminal trials, and that a conviction obtained after a trial in which the defendant was denied the assistance of a lawyer “lacked reliability.” Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U. S. 618, 639 and n. 20. Loper has “suffered anew” from this unconstitutional deprivation, Burgett v. Texas, supra, regardless of whether the prior convictions were used to impeach him before or after the Gideon decision. It would surely be unreasonable, as one dissenting opinion suggests, to expect the judge at Loper’s trial to have anticipated Gideon, just as it would have been unreasonable to have expected the judge at Gideon’s trial to have foreseen our later decision in that case. But a necessary result of applying any decision retroactively is to invalidate rulings made by trial judges that were correct under the law prevailing at the time the judges made them. If the retro-activity of Gideon is “sound,” then this case cannot be decided under the ill-starred and discredited doctrine of Betts v. Brady, 316 U. S. 455. The judgment before us is set aside, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. “Q. During the past ten years how many times have you been indicted and convicted in this State or any other State for a felony? “A. About twice in the past ten years. “Q. How about on May 7th, 1940, weren’t you arrested . . . “MR. LETTS: Your honor, I object to that, as to his being arrested, as that is not admissible in this case. “THE COURT: Well, let him finish the question, Mr. Letts. “Q. All right, On May 7th, 1940, what were you indicted and convicted for? “A. Burglary. “Q. Where was that? “A. Carthage, Mississippi. “Q. What did you get for that? “A. Five years in the penitentiary. “Q. On January 15th, 1935, what were you indicted and convicted for then? “A. Burglary. “MR. LETTS: We object, your honor, as that has been over ten years. “Q. What were you indicted, tried and convicted for then on January 15th, 1935, in Brushy Mountain Parish, Petros, Tennessee? Burglary. “Q. What did you get for that? “A. Four years. “Q. How about October 27th, 1931, what . . . “MR. LETTS: Your honor, we object to that and ask the Court to instruct the jury not to consider it. That reaches way back to 1931 and the Court knows it would prejudice and inflame the minds of the jury in this case. “THE COURT: Objection over-ruled. “Q. Where were you arrested on November 29th, 1934? “A. In Chattanooga, Tennessee. “Q. What about October 27th, 1931, what were you convicted for in Parchman, Mississippi, then? “A. Burglary. “Q. What did you get for that? “A. Six months, I think. “Q. There have been so many offenses you have committed that you can’t remember them straight, can you? “MR. LETTS: We object to that remark, your honor. “THE COURT: Objection sustained. “Q. It was for burglary in 1931? “A. Yes. “Q. Have you always gone by the name of Otis Loper? “A. Not always. “Q. What other names have you gone by? “A. Milton Cummings. “Q. That was in Mississippi, wasn’t it? “A. Yes sir. “Q. What were you indicted and tried for on that case in Mississippi in 1932? “A. Burglary. “Q. How much time did you get on that conviction? “A. Two years. “Q. And that was under the name of Milton Cummings? “A. Yes. “Q. And that is 4 times that you have been convicted of burglary, a felony? “A. Yes. “MR. DUGGAN: That’s all, no more questions.” Loper’s petition was originally dismissed by the District Court, but the Court of Appeals vacated the dismissal and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the question whether Loper had been deprived of his right to appeal from the Texas judgment of conviction. 383 F. 2d 400. On remand, the District Judge, noting that Loper had filed numerous habeas corpus petitions over a period of 20 years, appointed counsel to represent Loper and directed him to raise any points that “conceivably might be raised in his behalf,” in order that a single evidentiary hearing could serve to put an end to postconviction litigation in Loper’s case. Loper, with the assistance of counsel, then advanced six claims, and the evidentiary hearing was directed to resolving all six contentions. The claim at issue here had not been raised in any of Loper’s previous petitions. “Q. Were you convicted in 1931 of burglary in Scott County, Mississippi? “A. Yes, sir. “Q. How old were you at this time? “A. I don’t remember, but I believe I was around 17 years, something around that age. I’m not for sure. “Q. Were you represented by an attorney in connection with that proceeding? “A. No, sir, I didn’t have an attorney. “Q. Were you advised that you had a right to an attorney whether you could afford one or not? “A. No, sir. “Q. Did you know that you were entitled to one whether you could afford one or not? “A. No, sir. “Q. Did you inform the court that you did not want to be represented by an attorney? “A. No, sir. “Q. Were you convicted in that proceeding? “A. Yes, sir. “Q. Were you convicted, Mr. Loper, of burglary in 1940 in Leake County, Mississippi? “A. Yes, sir. “Q. How old were you at the time that occurred? “A. I believe I was about 25 or 26, I don’t remember for sure. “Q. Let me ask you one more question about that Scott County, Mississippi, conviction. Did you plead guilty or not guilty? “A. I plead guilty. “Q. Were you sentenced to a term in prison? “A. Yes, sir. “Q. All right, sir. Now, in connection with the 1940 conviction, were you represented by an attorney? “A. No, sir. “Q. At any stage of the proceedings? “A. No, sir. “Q. Were you advised that you had a right to an attorney whether you could afford one or not? “A. No, sir. “Q. Could you in fact afford one? “A. I don’t believe I could have then. “Q. What about 1931, the conviction in Scott County, Mississippi, could you have afforded an attorney? “A. I couldn’t have, no, sir. “Q. Did you know in connection with the 1940 proceeding that you were entitled to be represented by counsel whether you could afford it or not? “A. No, sir. “Q. Did you inform the court that you did not want to be represented by an attorney? “A. No, sir. “Q. Was the 1940 proceeding in Leake County, Mississippi, did you plead guilty or not guilty? “A. Not guilty. “Q. Was a trial held? “A. Yes, sir. “Q. Who conducted the defense in that trial? “A. Well, there wasn’t anybody. I just didn’t know what to ask the people. I didn’t know anything about how to. “Q. Did you conduct your own trial? “A. As far as it was conducted, yes, sir. “Q. Why did you attempt to do so yourself? “A. Well, I didn’t have an attorney, and nobody to help me. I didn’t want to plead guilty to it.” A certified record of the 1940 proceeding in Leake County, Mississippi, recited that Loper appeared “in his own proper person.” A certified copy of the 1935 proceeding in Hamilton County, Tennessee, recited that Loper appeared “in person.” A certified copy of the 1931 proceeding in Scott County, Mississippi, recited simply that Loper and his eodefendants “entered pleas of guilty, as charged in the indictment.” No record was introduced of the 1932 conviction in Mississippi. The memorandum and order of the District Court are unreported. A dissenting opinion, post, at 502, implies that the District Court found that the petitioner did not meet his burden of proving that he had not waived his right to counsel in the Mississippi and Tennessee courts. But no such finding appears in the record. The District Court did say that “there is no evidence other than petitioner’s own statement that he was not represented by counsel at the time of his prior convictions, which evidence, as stated above, I decline to accept as credible.” (Emphasis added.) This statement is wholly incorrect, for Loper did introduce documentary evidence to corroborate his testimony that he had not been represented by counsel on at least two of his prior convictions. See n. 4, supra. Nowhere in the District Court’s opinion is there any finding of fact as to whether Loper might have waived counsel. And the fact that the challenged convictions occurred at a time when, under our decisions, state courts were under no constitutional obligation to provide lawyers to indigent defendants in all felony cases, would make any such finding highly unrealistic, in the face of the documentary evidence and the petitioner’s uncontradicted testimony. For, at the time of the petitioner’s previous convictions, there was no known constitutional right to be “waived.” Moreover, the judgment that we review today is not that of the District Court, but of the Court of Appeals. That court stated: “The convictions mentioned have been of record for a number of years, yet the record before us does not disclose that any attack has ever been made upon those convictions. Except for the assertions of Loper the record fails to furnish any conclusive information as to the facts and circumstances surrounding his former convictions. So far as the record before us reveals, there are outstanding, unchallenged, state court convictions of felonies in the States of Mississippi and Tennessee. ... [I]f the convictions possessed the infirmities which Loper claims, he has failed to make any effort to set them aside for over '30 years. No one else could have done so. Surely such an attack was available to him in view of the retroactive application of the Gideon decision which was decided over six years prior to the hearing under review.” 440 F. 2d, at 937. But despite these observations, the Court of Appeals, perhaps recognizing the error in the statement of the District Court quoted above, did not rest its decision on a finding that the petitioner had failed to meet his burden of proving the invalidity of the prior convictions. It reached the merits of the legal question involved, and we granted certiorari to review that decision. There is thus no basis in the record upon which we may either dismiss this case or affirm the decision below on the ground that the petitioner did not meet his burden of proving that the prior convictions were invalid. See Burgett v. Texas, 389 U. S. 109, 114-115; Losieau v. Sigler, 406 F. 2d 795, 803; Williams v. Coiner, 392 F. 2d 210, 212-213. The dissenting opinion relies upon our decision last Term in Kitchens v. Smith, 401 U. S. 847. Yet we held in that case that the petitioner on collateral review had sufficiently “proved he was without counsel due to indigency at the time of his [1944] conviction,” even though, unlike the present case, the petitioner “introduced no evidence other than his own testimony.” Id., at 849. Compare the decisions in this case and in Walker v. Follette, 443 F. 2d 167 (CA2 1971), with Gilday v. Scafati, 428 F. 2d 1027 (CA1 1970); Tucker v. United States, 431 F. 2d 1292 (CA9 1970); and Howard v. Craven, 446 F. 2d 586 (CA9 1971). Simmons v. State, 456 S. W. 2d 66 (Ct. Crim. App. Tex. 1970), holds that prior convictions obtained without the benefit of counsel may nevertheless be used for the purpose of impeachment. Most reported state decisions, however, hold the contrary. See Spaulding v. State, 481 P. 2d 389 (Alaska 1971); In re Dabney, 71 Cal. 2d 1, 452 P. 2d 924 (1969); Johnson v. State, 9 Md. App. 166, 263 A. 2d 232 (1970); White v. State, 11 Md. App. 423, 274 A. 2d 671 (1971); Subilosky v. Commonwealth, - Mass. -, 265 N. E. 2d 80 (1970) (semble). This constitutional rule is wholly retroactive. Pickelsimer v. Wainwright, 375 U. S. 2; Kitchens v. Smith, 401 U. S. 847. Under Texas law at the time, the jury, upon finding Loper guilty, was authorized in its absolute and unreviewable discretion to impose any punishment from five years in prison to death in the electric chair. Texas Pen. Code, Art. 1189 (1948). Thus, bringing the prior convictions to the attention of the jury may well also have served to enhance Loper’s punishment. This is not a case where the record of a prior conviction was used for the purpose of directly rebutting a specific false statement made from the witness stand. Cf. Walker v. Follette, 443 F. 2d 167, and see Harris v. New York, 401 U. S. 222; Walder v. United States, 347 U. S. 62. The previous convictions were used, rather, simply in an effort to convict Loper by blackening his character and thus damaging his general credibility in the eyes of the jury. That a record of prior convictions may actually do more than simply impeach a defendant’s credibility has been often noted. See. e. g., C. McCormick, Evidence § 43, p. 93 (1954): “The sharpest and most prejudicial impact of the practice of impeachment by conviction ... is upon one particular type of witness, namely, the accused in a criminal case who elects to take the stand. If the accused is forced to admit that he has a ‘record’ of past convictions, particularly if they are for crimes similar to the one on trial, the danger is obvious that the jury, despite instructions, will give more heed to the past convictions as evidence that the accused is the kind of man who would commit the crime on charge, or even that he ought to be put away without too much concern with present guilt, than they will to its legitimate bearing on credibility.1’ In the circumstances of this case there is little room for a finding of harmless error, if, as appears on the record now before us, Loper was unrepresented by counsel and did not waive counsel at the time of the earlier convictions. Cf. Subilosky v. Moore, 443 F. 2d 334; Tucker v. United States, 431 F. 2d 1292; Gilday v. Scafati, 428 F. 2d 1027. The reasoning of that dissenting opinion would dictate that the rule in Burgett must not be given retroactive application, at least to cases where the sentence was imposed prior to Gideon. Yet, by our disposition of Bates v. Nelson, 393 U. S. 16, where we vacated and remanded in light of Burgett a denial of habeas corpus following a 1957 conviction, we indicated that Burgett is retroactive in its application without regard to whether the use of the prior convictions was made prior to or after Gideon. Every federal court that has considered the question has held Burgett retroactive, and none has made the distinction suggested by the dissenting opinion. See, e. g., Walker v. Follette, 443 F. 2d 167 (CA2 1971); Losieau v. Sigler, 406 F. 2d 795 (CA8 1969); Tucker v. Craven, 421 F. 2d 139 (CA9 1970); Oswald v. Crouse, 420 F. 2d 373 (CA10 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:

A

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court. Since 1907, federal law has barred corporations from contributing directly to candidates for federal office. We hold that applying the prohibition to nonprofit advocacy corporations is consistent with the First Amendment. I The current statute makes it unlawful... for any corporation whatever ... to make a contribution or expenditure in connection with” certain federal elections, 90 Stat. 490, as renumbered and amended, 2 U. S. C. § 441b(a), “contribution or expenditure” each being defined to include “anything of value,” § 441b(b)(2). The prohibition does not, however, forbid “the establishment, administration, and solicitation of contributions to a separate segregated fund to be utilized for political purposes.” § 441b(b)(2)(C); see § 431(4)(B). Such a PAC (so called after the political action committee that runs it) may be wholly controlled by the sponsoring corporation, whose employees and stockholders or members generally may be solicited for contributions. See §§ 441b(b)(4)(B)-(C); Federal Election Comm’n v. National Right to Work Comm., 459 U. S. 197, 200, n. 4 (1982). While federal law requires PACs to register and disclose their activities, §§ 432-434; see Federal Election Comm’n v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U. S. 238, 253-254 (1986), the law leaves them free to make contributions as well as other expenditures in connection with federal elections, § 441b(b)(2)(C). Respondents are a corporation known as North Carolina Right to Life, Inc., three of its officers, and a North Carolina voter (here, together, NCRL), who have sued the Federal Election Commission, the independent agency set up to “administer, seek to obtain compliance with, and formulate policy with respect to” the federal electoral laws. §437c (b)(1). NCRL challenges the constitutionality of § 441b and the FEC’s regulations implementing that section, 11 CFR §§ 114.2(b), 114.10 (2003), but only so far as they apply to NCRL. The corporation is organized under the laws of North Carolina to provide counseling to pregnant women and to urge alternatives to abortion, and as a nonprofit advocacy corporation it is exempted from federal taxation by § 501(e)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U. S. C. § 501(c)(4). ' It has no shareholders and, although it receives some donations from traditional business corporations, it is “overwhelmingly funded by private contributions from individuals.” App. 14. NCRL has made contributions and expenditures in connection with state elections, but not federal, owing to 2 U. S. C. § 441b. Instead, it has established a PAC, the North Carolina Right to Life, Inc., Political Action Committee, which has contributed to federal candidates. See North Carolina Right to Life, Inc. v. Bartlett, 168 F. 3d 705, 709 (CA4 1999), cert. denied, 528 U. S. 1153 (2000). The District Court granted summary judgment to NCRL and held §441b unconstitutional as applied to the corporation, both as to direct contributions and independent expenditures. 137 F. Supp. 2d 648 (EDNC 2000). A divided Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed, 278 F. 3d 261 (2002), relying primarily on Massachusetts Citizens for Life, in which this Court held it unconstitutional to apply the statute to independent expenditures by Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., a nonprofit advocacy corporation in some respects like NCRL. The Court of Appeals ruled, first, that the prohibition on independent expenditures may not be applied to NCRL. Although the panel acknowledged that Massachusetts Citizens for Life, unlike NCRL, had a formal policy against accepting corporate donations, see Massachusetts Citizens for Life, supra, at 263-264 (describing this feature of the organization as “essential to our holding”), it nevertheless treated NCRL as materially indistinguishable from Massachusetts Citizens for Life. To the point for present purposes, the Court of Appeals went on to hold the ban on direct contributions likewise unconstitutional as applied to NCRL. While the majority of the divided court recognized that regulation of campaign contributions has received greater deference under First Amendment cases than regulation of independent expenditures, 278 F. 3d, at 274 (citing Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U. S. 377, 386-388 (2000)), it held the ban on direct contributions unjustified as applied to “[Massachusetts Citizens for Life]-type corporations,” which it thought “pose[d] no risk of ‘unfair deployment of wealth for political purposes.’ ” 278 F. 3d, at 275 (quoting Massachusetts Citizens for Life, supra, at 259). The Court of Appeals reasoned that “[t]he rationale utilized by the Court in [Massachusetts Citizens for Life] to declare prohibitions on independent expenditures unconstitutional as applied to [the advocacy corporation involved there] is equally applicable in the context of direct contributions.” 278 F. 3d, at 275. Judge Gregory dissented from the others on this point, since he saw no way to square their conclusion with this Court’s reasoning in National Right to Work. 278 F. 3d, at 282. After the Fourth Circuit divided 7 to 4 in denying rehearing en banc, the FEC petitioned for certiorari solely as to the constitutionality of the ban on direct contributions. Because on that issue the Fourth Circuit is in conflict with the Sixth, see Kentucky Right to Life, Inc. v. Terry, 108 F. 3d 637, 645-646 (1997) (upholding a provision of Kentucky law analogous to §441b), we granted certiorari, 537 U. S. 1027 (2002). We now reverse. II A Any attack on the federal prohibition of direct corporate political contributions goes against the current of a century of congressional efforts to curb corporations’ potentially “deleterious influences on federal elections,” which we have canvassed a number of times before. United States v. Automobile Workers, 352 U. S. 567, 585 (1957); see id., at 570-584; see also National Right to Work, 459 U. S., at 208-209; Pipe-fitters v. United States, 407 U. S. 385, 402-412 (1972); United States v. CIO, 335 U. S. 106, 113-115 (1948). The current law grew out of a “popular feeling” in the late 19th century “that aggregated capital unduly influenced politics, an influence not stopping short of corruption.” Automobile Workers, supra, at 570. A demand for congressional action gathered force in the campaign of 1904, which made a national issue of the political leverage exerted through corporate contributions, and after the election and new revelations of corporate political overreaching, President Theodore Roosevelt made banning corporate political contributions a legislative priority. R. Mutch, Campaigns, Congress, and Courts: The Making of Federal Campaign Finance Law 1-8 (1988); see Automobile Workers, 352 U. S., at 571-575. Although some congressional proposals would have “prohibited political contributions by [only] certain classes of corporations,” id., at 573, the momentum was “for elections ‘free from the power of money,’ ” id., at 575 (citation omitted), and Congress acted on the President’s call for an outright ban, not with half measures, but with the Tillman Act, ch. 420, 34 Stat. 864. This “first federal campaign finance law,” Mutch, supra, at xvii, banned “any corporation whatever” from making “a money contribution in connection with” federal elections, 34 Stat. 864-865. Since 1907, there has been continual congressional attention to corporate political activity, sometimes resulting in refinement of the law, sometimes in overhaul. One feature, however, has stayed intact throughout this “careful legislative adjustment of the federal electoral laws,” National Right to Work, supra, at 209, and much of the periodic amendment was meant to strengthen the original, core prohibition on direct corporate contributions. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1925, for example, broadened the ban on contributions to include “anything of value,” and criminalized the act of receiving a contribution to match the criminality of making one. Ch. 368, §§302, 313, 43 Stat. 1070,1074. So, in another instance, the 1947 Labor Management Relations Act drew labor unions permanently within the law’s reach and invigorated the earlier prohibition to include “expenditure[s]” as well. Ch. 120, §304, 61 Stat. 159; see Pipefitters, supra, at 402. Today, as in 1907, the law focuses on the “special characteristics of the corporate structure” that threaten the integrity of the political process. National Right to Work, 459 U. S., at 209; see id., at 207; see also Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U. S. 652, 658-659 (1990); Massachusetts Citizens for Life, 479 U. S., at 257-258; Federal Election Comm’n v. National Conservative Political Action Comm., 470 U. S. 480, 500-501 (1985). As we explained it in Austin, “State law grants corporations special advantages — such as limited liability, perpetual life, and favorable treatment of the accumulation and distribution of assets— that enhance their ability to attract capital and to deploy their resources in ways that maximize the return on their shareholders’ investments. These state-created advantages not only allow corporations to play a dominant role in the Nation’s economy, but also permit them to use ‘resources amassed in the economic marketplace’ to obtain ‘an unfair advantage in the political marketplace.’ ” 494 U. S., at 658-659 (quoting Massachusetts Citizens for Life, supra, at 257). Hence, the public interest in “restrict[ing] the influence of political war chests funneled through the corporate form.” National Conservative Political Action Comm., supra, at 500-501; see National Right to Work, supra, at 207 (“[Substantial aggregations of wealth amassed by the special advantages which go with the corporate form of organization should not be converted into political ‘war chests’ which could be used to incur political debts from legislators”). As these excerpts from recent opinions show, not only has the original ban on direct corporate contributions endured, but so have the original rationales for the law. In barring corporate earnings from conversion into political “war chests,” the ban was and is intended to “preven[t] corruption or the appearance of corruption.” National Conservative Political Action Comm., supra, at 496-497; see also First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 788, n. 26 (1978) (“The importance of the governmental interest in preventing [corruption] has never been doubted”). But the ban has always done further duty in protecting “the individuals who have paid money into a corporation or union for purposes other than the support of candidates from having that money used to support political candidates to whom they may be opposed.” National Right to Work, supra, at 208; see CIO, 335 U. S., at 113; see also Austin, supra, at 673-678 (Brennan, J., concurring). Quite aside from war-chest corruption and the interests of contributors and owners, however, another reason for regulating corporate electoral involvement has emerged with restrictions on individual contributions, and recent cases have recognized that restricting contributions by various organizations hedges against their use as conduits for “circumvention of [valid] contribution limits.” Federal Election Comm’n v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Comm., 533 U. S. 431, 456, and n. 18 (2001); see Austin, supra, at 664. To the degree that a corporation could contribute to political candidates, the individuals “who created it, who own it, or whom it employs,” Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. King, 533 U. S. 158, 163 (2001), could exceed the bounds imposed on their own contributions by diverting money through the corporation, cf. Colorado Republican, 533 U. S., at 446-447. As we said on the subject of limiting coordinated expenditures by political parties, experience “demonstrates how candidates, donors, and parties test the limits of the current law, and it shows beyond serious doubt how contribution limits would be eroded if inducement to circumvent them were enhanced.” Id., at 457. In sum, our cases on campaign finance regulation represent respect for the “legislative judgment that the special characteristics of the corporate structure require particularly careful regulation.” National Right to Work, supra, at 209-210. And we have understood that such deference to legislative choice is warranted particularly when Congress regulates campaign contributions, carrying as they do a plain threat to political integrity and a plain warrant to counter the appearance and reality of corruption and the misuse of corporate advantages. See, e. g., Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 26-28, 47 (1976) (per curiam). As we said in Colorado Republican, “limits on contributions are more clearly justified by a link to political corruption than limits on other kinds of . . . political spending are (corruption being understood not only as quid pro quo agreements, but also as undue influence on an officeholder’s judgment, and the appearance of such influence).” 533 U. S., at 440-441 (citation omitted). B That historical prologue would discourage any broadside attack on corporate campaign finance regulation or regulation of corporate contributions, and NCRL accordingly questions § 441b only to the extent the law places nonprofit advocacy corporations like itself under the general ban on direct contributions. But not even this more focused challenge can claim a blank slate, for . Judge Gregory rightly said in his dissent that our explanation in National Right to Work all but decided the issue against NCRL’s position. National Right to Work addressed the provision of §441b restricting a nonstock corporation to its membership when soliciting contributions to its PAC, and we considered whether a nonprofit advocacy corporation without members of the usual sort could be held to violate the law by soliciting a donation to its PAC from any individual who had at one time contributed to the corporation. See 459 U. S., at 199-200. We sustained the FEC’s position that a fund drive as broad as this went beyond the solicitation of “members” permitted by § 441b, and we invoked the history distilled above in holding that the statutory restriction was no infringement on those First Amendment associational rights closely akin to speech. Id., at 206-209. We concluded that the congressional judgment to regulate corporate political involvement “warrants considerable deference” and “reflects a permissible assessment of the dangers posed by [corporations] to the electoral process.” Id., at 207-211. It would be hard to read our conclusion in National Right to Work, that the PAC solicitation restrictions were constitutional, except on the practical understanding that the corporation’s capacity to make contributions was legitimately limited to indirect donations within the scope allowed to PACs. See, e. g., id., at 208 (reviewing both “the statutory prohibitions and exceptions”). In fact, we specifically rejected the argument made here, that deference to congressional judgments about proper limits on corporate contributions turns on details of corporate form or the affluence of particular corporations. In the same breath, we remarked on the broad applicability of §441b to “corporations and labor unions without great financial resources, as well as those more fortunately situated,” and made a point of refusing to “second-guess a legislative determination as to the need for prophylactic measures where corruption is the evil feared.” Id., at 210. Later cases have repeatedly acknowledged, without questioning, the reading of National Right to Work as generally approving the §441b prohibition on direct contributions, even by nonprofit corporations “without great financial resources.” Ibid. In National Conservative Political Action Committee, for example, we not only spoke of National Right to Work as consistent with “the well-established constitutional validity of legislative regulation of corporate contributions to candidates for public office,” but went on to reaffirm that the Court in that case had “rightly concluded that Congress might include, along with labor unions and corporations traditionally prohibited from making contributions to political candidates, membership corporations, though contributions by the latter might not exhibit all of the evil that contributions by traditional economically organized corporations exhibit.” 470 U. S., at 495, 500; see id., at 500 (describing National Right to Work as giving “proper deference to a congressional determination of the need for a prophylactic rule”). Relying again on National Right to Work, we made a similar point in Austin when we sustained Michigan’s ban on direct corporate contributions, even though the ban “included] within its scope closely held corporations that do not possess vast reservoirs of capital.” 494 U. S., at 661. “Although. some closely held corporations, just as some publicly held ones, may not have accumulated significant amounts of wealth, they receive from the State the special benefits conferred by the corporate structure and present the potential for distorting the political process. This potential for distortion justifies [the state law’s] general applicability to all corporations.” Ibid. But National Right to Work does not stand alone in its bearing on the issue here, and equal significance must be accorded to Massachusetts Citizens for Life, the very case upon which NCRL and the Court of Appeals have placed principal reliance. There, we held the prohibition on independent expenditures under §441b unconstitutional as applied to a nonprofit advocacy corporation. While the majority explained generally that the “potential for unfair deployment of wealth for political purposes” fell short of justifying a ban on expenditures by groups like Massachusetts Citizens for Life that “do not pose that danger of corruption,” the majority’s response to the dissent pointed to a different resolution of the present case. 479 U. S., at 259. The Chief Justice’s dissenting opinion noted that Massachusetts Citizens for Life “was not unlike” the corporation at issue in National Right to Work, which he read as supporting the ban on independent expenditures. 479 U. S., at 269. Without disagreeing about the similarity of the two organizations, the majority nonetheless distinguished National Right to Work on the ground of its addressing regulation of contributions, not expenditures. See 479 U. S., at 259-260 (“[R]estrictions on contributions require less compelling justification than restrictions on independent spending”). “In light of the historical role of contributions in the corruption of the electoral process, the need for a broad prophylactic rule [against contributions] was thus sufficient in [National Right to Work]” Id., at 260. C The upshot is that, although we have never squarely held against NCRL’s position here, we could not hold for it without recasting our understanding of the risks of harm posed by corporate political contributions, of the expressive significance of contributions, and of the consequent deference owed to legislative judgments on what to do about them. NCRL’s efforts, however, fail to unsettle existing law on any of these points. First, NCRL argues that on a class-wide basis "[Massachusetts Citizens for Life]-type corporations pose no potential of threat to the political system,” so that the governmental interest in combating corruption is as weak as the Court held it to be in relation to the particular corporation considered in Massachusetts Citizens for Life. Brief for Respondents 19. But this generalization does not hold up. For present purposes, we will assume advocacy corporations are generally different from traditional business corporations in the improbability that contributions they might make would end up supporting causes that some of their members would not approve. See Massachusetts Citizens for Life, supra, at 260-262. But concern about the corrupting potential underlying the corporate ban may indeed be implicated by advocacy corporations. They, like their for-profit counterparts, benefit from significant “state-created advantages,” Austin, supra, at 659, and may well be able to amass substantial “political 'war chests,’ ” National Right to Work, 459 U. S., at 207. Not all corporations that qualify for favorable tax treatment under § 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code lack substantial resources, and the category covers some of the Nation’s most politically powerful organizations, including the AARP, the National Rifle Association, and the Sierra Club. Nonprofit advocacy corporations are, moreover, no less susceptible than traditional business companies to misuse as conduits for circumventing the contribution limits imposed on individuals. Cf. Austin, supra, at 664 (noting that a nonprofit corporation is capable of “serving] as a conduit for corporate political spending”). Second, NCRL argues that application of the ban on its contributions should be subject to a strict level of scrutiny, on the ground that § 441b does not merely limit contributions, but bans them on the basis of their source. Brief for Respondents 14-16. This argument, however, overlooks the basic premise we have followed in setting First Amendment standards for reviewing political financial restrictions: the level of scrutiny is based on the importance of the “political activity at issue” to effective speech or political association. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, 479 U. S., at 259; see Colorado Republican, 533 U. S., at 440-442, and nn. 6-7; Nixon, 528 U. S., at 386-388. Going back to Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1 (1976), restrictions on political contributions have been treated as merely “marginal” speech restrictions subject to relatively complaisant review under the First Amendment, because contributions lie closer to the edges than to the core of political expression. See Colorado Republican, supra, at 440. “While contributions may result in political expression if spent by a candidate or an association ... , the transformation of contributions into political debate involves speech by someone other than the contributor.” Buckley, supra, at 20-21. This is the reason that instead of requiring contribution regulations to be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest, “a contribution limit involving ‘significant interference’ with associational rights” passes muster if it satisfies the lesser demand of being “ ‘closely drawn’ to match a ‘sufficiently important interest.’ ” Nixon, supra, at 387-388 (quoting Buckley, supra, at 25); cf. Austin, 494 U. S., at 657; Buckley, supra, at 44-45. Indeed, this recognition that degree of scrutiny turns on the nature of the activity regulated is the only practical way to square two leading cases: National Right to Work approved strict solicitation limits on a PAC organized to make contributions, see 459 U. S., at 201-202, whereas Massachusetts Citizens for Life applied a compelling interest test to invalidate the ban on an advocacy corporation’s expenditures in light of PAC regulatory burdens, see 479 U. S., at 252-255; see also id., at 265-266 (opinion of O’Connor, J.). Each case involved §441b, after all, and the same “ban” on the same corporate “sources” of political activity applied in both cases. It is not that the difference between a ban and a limit is to be ignored; it is just that the time to consider it is when applying scrutiny at the level selected, not in selecting the standard of review itself. But even when NCRL urges precisely that, and asserts that § 441b is not sufficiently “closely drawn,” the claim still rests on a false premise, for NCRL is simply wrong in characterizing §441b as a complete ban. As we have said before, the section “permits some participation of unions and corporations in the federal electoral process by allowing them to establish and pay the administrative expenses of [PACs].” National Right to Work, supra, at 201; see also Austin, supra, at 660; Massachusetts Citizens for Life, supra, at 252. The PAC option allows corporate political participation without the temptation to use corporate funds for political influence, quite possibly at odds with the sentiments of some shareholders or members, and it lets the Government regulate campaign activity through registration and disclosure, see §§432-434, without jeopardizing the associational rights of advocacy organizations’ members, see NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U. S. 449, 462 (1958) (holding that “Compelled disclosure of membership in an organization engaged in advocacy of particular beliefs” may violate the First Amendment). NCRL cannot prevail, then, simply by arguing that a ban on an advocacy corporation’s direct contributions is bad tailoring. NCRL would have to demonstrate that the law violated the First Amendment in allowing contributions to be made only through its PAC and subject to a PAC’s administrative burdens. But a unanimous Court in National Right to Work did not think the regulatory burdens on PACs, including restrictions on their ability to solicit funds, rendered a PAC unconstitutional as an advocacy corporation’s sole avenue for making political contributions. See 459 U. S., at 201-202. There is no reason to think the burden on advocacy corporations is any greater today, or to reach a different conclusion here. III The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed. It is so ordered. Section 501(c)(4)(A) grants exemption to “[cjivic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare,... the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.” An organization “may carry on lawful political activities and remain exempt under section 501(c)(4) as long as it is primarily engaged in activities that promote social welfare.” Rev. Rui. 81-95,1981-1 Cum. Bull. 332. Unlike contributions to § 501(c)(3) organizations, donations to those recognized under § 501(c)(4) are not tax deductible. See Regan v. Taxation With Representation of Wash, 461 U. S. 540, 543 (1983). We thus have no occasion to say whether the Court of Appeals correctly held NCRL entitled to the so-called “Massachusetts Citizens for Life exception” to the statute’s ban on independent expenditures. See, e. g., Act of June 25, 1910, ch. 392, 36 Stat. 822; Act of Aug. 19, 1911, ch. 33, 37 Stat. 25; Federal Corrupt Practices Act, 1925, ch. 368, 43 Stat. 1070; Act of July 19, 1940 (Hatch Act), 54 Stat. 767; War Labor Disputes Act, 1943, ch. 144, § 9, 57 Stat. 167; Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, §304,61 Stat. 159; Act of Oct. 31, 1951, §21,65 Stat. 718; Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA), 86 Stat. 3; FECA Amendments of 1974, 88 Stat. 1263; FECA Amendments of 1976, 90 Stat. 475; FECA Amendments of 1979, 93 Stat. 1339; Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, 116 Stat. 81. Section 441b(b)(4)(A) bars a corporation from soliciting contributions to a PAC established by the corporation, except from stockholders or other specified categories of persons. Section 441b(b)(4)(C), the specific provision at issue in National Right to Work, provides, in relevant part, that § 441b(b)(4)(A) “shall not prevent a . . . corporation without capital stock ... from soliciting contributions to [a PAC established by the corporation] from members of such .. . corporation.” That said, this concern is not wholly inapplicable to advocacy corporations, as “persons may desire that an organization use their contributions to further a certain cause, but may not want the organization to use their money to urge support for or opposition to political candidates solely on the basis of that cause.” Massachusetts Citizens for Life, 479 U. S., at 261. In any event, we have never intimated that the risk of corruption alone is insufficient to support regulation of political contributions. See, e. g., Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U. S. 652, 658-659 (1990); Federal Election Comm’n v. National Right to Work Comm., 459 U. S. 197, 208 (1982); cf. Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U. S. 377, 388-389 (2000). See http://www.aarp.org/press/disclosure.html (as visited June 12, 2003) (available in Clerk of Court’s case file) (AARP); http://www.give.org/ reports/index.asp (as visited June 12, 2003) (available in Clerk of Court’s case file) (National Rifle Association and Sierra Club). These examples answer NCRL’s argument that the Massachusetts Citizens for Life exception is “self-limiting.” See Brief for Respondents 27 (“If [a Massachusetts Citizens for Life}-type corporation begins generating or receiving substantial business income or business corporation contributions, by definition, it automatically is no longer [a Massachusetts Citizens for Life]- type corporation” (citing Federal Election Comm'n v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U. S. 238, 263-264 (1986))). The nonprofit advocacy corporations mentioned (one of which has, in fact, been granted "[Massachusetts Citizens for Life]-type” status by a Court of Appeals, see, e. g., FEC v. National Rifle Assn., 254 F. 3d 173, 192 (CADC 2001)) show that “political “war chests’ ” may be amassed simply from members’ contributions. 459 U. S., at 207. NCRL suggests that the Government’s interest in combating circumvention of the campaign finance laws would be sufficiently met by allowing limited contributions subject to the earmarking rule of §441a(a)(8), which provides that “contributions which are in any way earmarked or otherwise directed through an intermediate or conduit to [a] candidate” are treated as contributions to the candidate (thus triggering the disclosure requirements of § 434(b)(3)(A)). Brief for Respondents 31. We rejected this precise argument, however, in Federal Election Comm’n v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Comm., 533 U. S. 431 (2001), where we concluded that it “ignores the practical difficulty of identifying and directly combating circumvention under actual political conditions.” Id., at 462. “The earmarking provision... would reach only the most clumsy attempts to pass contributions through to candidates. To treat the earmarking provision as the outer limit of acceptable tailoring would disarm any serious effort to limit [circumvention].” Ibid. Within the realm of contributions generally, corporate contributions are furthest from the core of political expression, since corporations’ First Amendment speech and association interests are derived largely from those of their members, see, e. g., NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U. S. 449, 458-459 (1958), and of the public in receiving information, see, e. g., First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 777 (1978). A ban on direct corporate contributions leaves individual members of corporations free to make their own contributions, and deprives the public of little or no material information. Judicial deference is particularly warranted where, as here, we deal with a congressional judgment that has remained essentially unchanged throughout a century of “careful legislative adjustment.” National Right to Work, supra, at 209; cf. Nixon, supra, at 391 (“The quantum of empirical evidence needed to satisfy heightened judicial scrutiny of legislative judgments will vary up or down with the novelty and plausibility of the justification raised”). Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy 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 motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

I

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Justice O’Connor delivered the opinion of the Court. In Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, ante, p. 41, the Court held that state common law causes of action asserting improper processing of a claim for benefits under an employee benefit plan regulated by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 88 Stat. 829, 29 U. S. C. § 1001 et seq., are pre-empted by the Act. 29 U. S. C. § 1144 (a). The question presented by this litigation is whether these state common law claims are not only pre-empted by ERISA, but also displaced by ERISA’s civil enforcement provision, § 502(a)(1)(B), 29 U. S. C. § 1132(a)(1)(B), to the extent that complaints filed in state courts purporting to plead such state common law causes of action are removable to federal court under 28 U. S. C. § 1441(b). General Motors Corporation, a Delaware corporation whose principal place of business is in Michigan, has set up an employee benefit plan subject to the provisions of ERISA for its salaried employees. The plan pays benefits to salaried employees disabled by sickness or accident and is insured by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (Metropolitan). General Motors employed Michigan resident Arthur Taylor as a salaried employee from 1959-1980. In 1961 Taylor was involved in a job-related automobile accident and sustained a back injury. Taylor filed a workers’ compensation claim for this injury, and he eventually returned to work. In May 1980, while embroiled in a divorce and child custody dispute, Taylor took a leave of absence from his work on account of severe emotional problems. Metropolitan began paying benefits under General Motors’ employee benefit plan, but asked Taylor to submit to a psychiatric examination by a designated psychiatrist. He did so and the psychiatrist determined that Taylor was emotionally unable to work. Six weeks later, after a followup examination, however, Metropolitan’s psychiatrist determined that Taylor was now fit for work; Metropolitan stopped making payments as of July 30, 1980. Meanwhile, Taylor had filed a supplemental claim for benefits alleging that his back injuries disabled him from continuing his work. Metropolitan again sent Taylor to be examined, this time by an orthopedist. The physician found no orthopedic problems and Metropolitan subsequently denied the supplemental disability claim. On October 31, General Motors requested that Taylor report to its medical department for an examination. That examination took place on November 5 and a General Motors physician concluded that Taylor was not disabled. When Taylor nevertheless refused to return to work, General Motors notified him that his employment had been terminated. Six months later Taylor filed suit against General Motors and Metropolitan in Michigan state court praying for judgment for “compensatory damages for money contractually owed Plaintiff, compensation for mental anguish caused by breach of this contract, as well as immediate reimplementation of all benefits and insurance coverages Plaintiff is entitled to,” App. to Pet. for Cert, in No. 85-688, pp. 28a-29a. Taylor also asserted claims for wrongful termination of his employment and for wrongfully failing to promote him in retaliation for the 1961 worker’s compensation claim. Id., at 25a-26a. General Motors and Metropolitan removed the suit to federal court alleging federal question jurisdiction over the disability benefits claim by virtue of ERISA and pendent jurisdiction over the remaining claims. Id., at 30a. The District Court found the case properly removable and granted General Motors and Metropolitan summary judgment on the merits. 588 F. Supp. 562 (ED Mich. 1984). The Court of Appeals reversed on the ground that the District Court lacked removal jurisdiction. 763 F. 2d 216 (CA6 1985). Noting a split in authority on the question among the federal courts, the Court of Appeals found that Taylor’s complaint stated only state law causes of action subject to the federal defense of ERISA pre-emption, and that the “well-pleaded complaint” rule of Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U. S. 149 (1908), precluded removal on the basis of a federal defense. 763 F. 2d, at 219. The Court of Appeals further held that the established doctrine permitting the removal of cases purporting to state only state law causes of action in labor cases pre-empted by §301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (LMRA), 61 Stat. 156, 29 U. S. C. § 185, did not apply to this case. 763 F. 2d, at 220. We granted certiorari, 475 U. S. 1009 (1986), and now reverse. II Under our decision in Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, ante, p. 41, Taylor’s common law contract and tort claims are preempted by ERISA. This lawsuit “relate[s] to [an] employee benefit plan.” § 514(a), 29 U. S. C. § 1144(a). It is based upon common law of general application that is not a law regulating insurance. See Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, ante, at 48-51. Accordingly, the suit is pre-empted by § 514(a) and is not saved by § 514(b)(2)(A). Ante, at 48. Moreover, as a suit by a beneficiary to recover benefits from a covered plan, it falls directly under § 502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA, which provides an exclusive federal cause of action for resolution of such disputes. Ante, at 56. I — I HH 1 — I The century-old jurisdictional framework governing removal of federal question cases from state into federal courts is described in Justice Brennan’s opinion for a unanimous Court in Franchise Tax Board of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern Cal., 463 U. S. 1 (1983). By statute “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.” 28 U. S. C. § 1441(a). One category of cases over which the district courts have original jurisdiction are “federal question” cases; that is, those cases “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U. S. C. § 1331. It is long settled law that a cause of action arises under federal law only when the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint raises issues of federal law. Gully v. First National Bank, 299 U. S. 109 (1936); Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, swpra. The “well-pleaded complaint rule” is the basic principle marking the boundaries of the federal question jurisdiction of the federal district courts. Franchise Tax Board of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern Cal., supra, at 9-12. Federal pre-emption is ordinarily a federal defense to the plaintiff’s suit. As a defense, it does not appear on the face of a well-pleaded complaint, and, therefore, does not authorize removal to federal court. Gully v. First National Bank, supra. One corollary of the well-pleaded complaint rule developed in the case law, however, is that Congress may so completely pre-empt a particular area that any civil complaint raising this select group of claims is necessarily federal in character. For 20 years, this Court has singled out claims pre-empted by § 301 of the LMRA for such special treatment. Avco Corp. v. Machinists, 390 U. S. 557 (1968). “The necessary ground of decision [in Avco] was that the pre-emptive force of §301 is so powerful as to displace entirely any state cause of action ‘for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization.’ Any such suit is purely a creature of federal law, notwithstanding the fact that state law would provide a cause of action in the absence of § 301.” Franchise Tax Board of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern Cal., supra, at 23 (footnote omitted). There is no dispute in this litigation that Taylor’s complaint, although pre-empted by ERISA, purported to raise only state law causes of action. The question therefore resolves itself into whether or not the Avco principle can be extended to statutes other than the LMRA in order to rechar-acterize a state law complaint displaced by § 502(a)(1)(B) as an action arising under federal law. In Franchise Tax Board, the Court held that ERISA pre-emption, without more, does not convert a state claim into an action arising under federal law. Franchise Tax Board of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern Cal., 463 U. S., at 25-27. The court suggested, however, that a state action that was not only pre-empted by ERISA, but also came “within the scope of § 502(a) of ERISA” might fall within the Avco rule. Id., at 24-25. The claim in this case, unlike the state tax collection suit in Franchise Tax Board, is within the scope of § 502(a) and we therefore must face the question specifically reserved by Franchise Tax Board. In the absence of explicit direction from Congress, this question would be a close one. As we have made clear today in Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, ante, at 54, “[t]he policy choices reflected in the inclusion of certain remedies and the exclusion of others under the federal scheme would be completely undermined if ERISA-plan participants and beneficiaries were free to obtain remedies under state law that Congress rejected in ERISA.” Cf. Franchise Tax Board of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern Cal., 463 U. S., at 25-26 (“Unlike the contract rights at issue in Avco, the State’s right to enforce its tax levies is not of central concern to the federal statute”). Even with a provision such as § 502(a)(1)(B) that lies at the heart of a statute with the unique pre-emptive force of ERISA, id., at 24, n. 26, however, we would be reluctant to find that extraordinary-pre-emptive power, such as has been found with respect to § 301 of the LMRA, that converts an ordinary state common law complaint into one stating a federal claim for purposes of the well-pleaded complaint rule. But the language of the jurisdictional subsection of ERISA’s civil enforcement provisions closely parallels that of § 301 of the LMRA. Section 502(f) says: “The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction, without respect to the amount in controversy or the citizenship of the parties, to grant the relief provided for in subsection (a) of this section in any action.” 29 U. S. C. § 1132(f). Cf. § 301(a) of the LMRA, 29 U. S. C. § 185(a). The presumption that similar language in two labor law statutes has a similar meaning is fully confirmed by the legislative history of ERISA’s civil enforcement provisions. The Conference Report on ERISA describing the civil enforcement provisions of § 502(a) says: “[W]ith respect to suits to enforce benefit rights under the plan or to recover benefits under the plan which do not involve application of the title I provisions, they may be brought not only in U. S. district courts but also in State courts of competent jurisdiction. All such actions in Federal or State courts are to be regarded as arising under the laws of the United States in similar fashion to those brought under section SOI of the Labor-Management Relations Act of 194-7.” H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 93-1280, p. 327 (1974) (emphasis added). No more specific reference to the Avco rule can be expected and the rest of the legislative history consistently sets out this clear intention to make § 502(a)(1)(B) suits brought by participants or beneficiaries federal questions for the purposes of federal court jurisdiction in like manner as § 301 of the LMRA. See Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, ante, at 54-55. For example, Senator Williams, a sponsor of ERISA, emphasized that the civil enforcement section would enable participants and beneficiaries to bring suit to recover benefits denied contrary to the terms of the plan and that when they did so “[i]t is intended that such actions will be regarded as arising under the laws of the United States, in similar fashion to those brought under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act.” 120 Cong. Rec. 29933 (1974). See also id., at 29942 (remarks of Sen. Javits) (federal substantive law to “deal with issues involving rights and obligations under private welfare and pension plans”). Taylor argues strenuously that this action cannot be removed to federal court because it was not “obvious” at the time he filed suit that his common law action was both preempted by § 514(a), 29 U. S. C. § 1144(a), and also displaced by the civil enforcement provisions of § 502(a). See Brief for Respondent 14-21. But the touchstone of the federal district court’s removal jurisdiction is not the “obviousness” of the pre-emption defense but the intent of Congress. Indeed, as we have noted, even an “obvious” pre-emption defense does not, in most cases, create removal jurisdiction. In this case, however, Congress has clearly manifested an intent to make causes of action within the scope of the civil enforcement provisions of § 502(a) removable to federal court. Since we have found Taylor’s cause of action to be within the scope of § 502(a), we must honor that intent whether pre-emption was obvious or not at the time this suit was filed. Accordingly, this suit, though it purports to raise only state law claims, is necessarily federal in character by virtue of the clearly manifested intent of Congress. It, therefore, “arise[s] under the . . . laws ... of the United States,” 28 U. S. C. § 1331, and is removable to federal court by the defendants, 28 U. S. C. § 1441(b). The judgment of the Court of Appeals is Reversed. Section 502(a)(1)(B) provides: “A civil action may be brought— “(1) by a participant or beneficiary— “(B) to recover benefits due to him under the terms of his plan, to enforce his rights under the terms of the plan, or to clarify his rights to future benefits under the terms of the plan.” Compare Clorox Co. v. United States District Court, 779 F. 2d 517, 521 (CA9 1985); Roe v. General American Life Ins. Co., 712 F. 2d 450, 452 (CA10 1983); Leonardis v. Local 282 Pension Trust Fund, 391 F. Supp. 554, 556-557 (EDNY 1975); Tolson v. Retirement Committee of the Briggs & Stratton Retirement Plan, 566 F. Supp. 1503, 1504 (ED Wis. 1983) (all finding removal jurisdiction), with Taylor v. General Motors Corp., 763 F. 2d 216, 219-220 (CA6 1985); Powers v. South Central United Food & Commercial Workers Unions, 719 F. 2d 760, 763-767 (CA5 1983) (no removal jurisdiction). Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy 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 O’Connor delivered the opinion of the Court. The issue before us in this case is whether a Social Security claimant is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act for representation provided during administrative proceedings held pursuant to a district court order remanding the action to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. I Respondent Elmer Hudson filed an application for the establishment of a period of disability and for disability benefits under the Social Security Act, 49 Stat. 620, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 401 et seq. (1982 ed. and Supp. V) on September 9,1981. On the same day, she filed an application for supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Act. Respondent, now 50, submitted medical evidence indicating obesity, limitations in movement, and lower back pain. Her application for benefits was administratively denied, and that position was upheld on reconsideration by the Social Security Administration. Respondent requested and received a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), where she was represented by a Legal Services Corporation paralegal. At the hearing, respondent testified that she suffered from back pain, depression, and nervousness. Respondent was in a state of anxiety and cried throughout the hearing. The ALJ ordered a posthearing psychiatric examination by Dr. Anderson, a psychiatrist, and respondent’s representative chose to have her undergo an additional evaluation by Dr. Myers, a clinical psychologist. Dr. Anderson’s report indicated that respondent suffered from mild to moderate dysthymic disorder and a histrionic personality disorder. He concluded that respondent’s psychological condition would not interfere with her ability to work in the domestic services area, where most of her past work experience lay. Dr. Myers found that respondent was moderately to severely depressed, suffered from insomnia, fatigue, psychomotor retardation, tearfulness, and anxiety. He concluded that her psychological problems, coupled with her mild physical disabilities and back pain, rendered her unemployable absent exhaustive rehabilitative efforts. Based on these two reports, the ALJ rendered her decision finding that respondent was not disabled because she was capable of performing work similar to that she had done in the past. The ALJ’s decision was approved by the Social Security Appeals Council, thus becoming the final decision of the Secretary concerning respondent’s applications. Respondent then brought an action in the District Court for the Northern District of Alabama under 42 U. S. C. § 405(g) seeking judicial review of the Secretary’s decision denying benefits. The District Court found that the Secretary’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and affirmed the denial of benefits. App. to Pet. for Cert. 43a-44a. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed. It vacated the Secretary’s decision and instructed the District Court to remand the case to the Secretary for reconsideration. Hudson v. Heckler, 755 F. 2d 781 (1985). The Court of Appeals agreed with respondent that “the Secretary did not follow her own regulations” in making the disability determination in respondent’s case. Id., at 785. The court found that those regulations required the Secretary to consider the cumulative effect of impairments even where no individual ailment considered in isolation would be disabling. Ibid. In respondent’s case the ALJ had never considered the combined effect of respondent’s physical and psychological afflictions. Nor had the ALJ given any reasons for her rejection of Dr. 'Myers’ evaluation of the combined effects of respondent’s physical and psychological conditions. Id., at 785-786. Following the District Court’s remand order, the Social Security Appeals Council vacated its earlier denial of respondent’s request for review and returned the case to an ALJ for further proceedings. App. to Pet. for Cert. 30a. The Appeals Council instructed the ALJ to provide respondent with an opportunity to testify at a supplemental hearing and to adduce additional evidence. Id., at 31a. The Appeals Council also indicated that the ALJ might wish to obtain the services of a medical adviser to evaluate respondent’s psychiatric impairment during the period at issue. Ibid. Finally, the Appeals Council instructed the ALJ to apply the revised regulations for determining disability due to mental disorders, which had been published by the Secretary in 1985 pursuant to statutory directive. Ibid. On remand, the ALJ found that respondent had been disabled as of May 15, 1981, as she had originally maintained in her initial applications for benefits. Respondent was represented before the ALJ in the remand proceedings by the same counsel who had represented her before the District Court and the Court of Appeals. On October 22, 1986, the Appeals Council adopted the ALJ’s recommended decision and instructed the Social Security Administration to pay respondent disability and supplemental income benefits. Id., at 21a-23a. On December 11, 1986, the District Court, pursuant to the Secretary’s motion, dismissed respondent’s action for judicial review, finding that after the remand order respondent had obtained all the relief prayed for in her complaint. The District Court retained jurisdiction over the action for the limited purpose of considering any petition for the award of attorney’s fees. Respondent then filed the instant petition for an award of attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), Pub. L. 96-481, 94 Stat. 2328, as amended, 28 U. S. C. § 2412(d) (1982 ed., Supp. V). The District Court denied respondent’s fee application in toto, finding that the position taken by the Secretary in the initial denial of benefits to respondent was “substantially justified.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 17a-20a. The Court of Appeals again reversed. Hudson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 839 F. 2d 1453 (CA11 1988). The Court of Appeals noted that in its earlier opinion it had found that the Secretary had violated her own regulations by failing to consider the cumulative effect of respondent’s ailments, and that the ALJ had failed to give her reasons for rejection of Dr. Myers’ testimony concerning the cumulative effects of respondent’s ailments. Id., at 1457-1458. The Secretary’s defense of the denial of benefits to respondent “on those two grounds was not substantially justified.” Id., at 1458. Having concluded that an award of attorney’s fees was proper under the EAJA, the court went on to consider whether the award could include attorney’s fees for work done at the administrative level after the cause was remanded to the Secretary by the District Court. The Court of Appeals rejected the Secretary’s argument that 5 U. S. C. §§504(a)(1) and 504(b)(1)(C) (1982 ed., Supp. V) limited a court’s power to award attorney’s fees for administrative proceedings to those situations “in which the position of the United States is represented by counsel or otherwise. ...” While recognizing that the Secretary was not represented by counsel in the remand proceedings at issue here, the Court of Appeals found that “the critical determination is whether the Secretary has staked out a position.” 839 F. 2d, at 1460. Since the Secretary had taken an adversarial position in the proceedings for judicial review prior to the remand, the Court of Appeals found that the proceedings were no less “adversarial” on remand before the agency, and therefore a fee award encompassing work performed before the agency on remand was proper. Ibid. Because the Court of Appeals’ decision granting attorney’s fees for representation in administrative proceedings on remand from judicial review of a Social Security benefits determination conflicts with the decisions of other Courts of Appeals, see, e. g., Cornella v. Schweiker, 728 F. 2d 978, 988-989 (CA8 1984), we granted the Secretary’s petition for certiorari. Sub nom. Bowen v. Hudson, 488 U. S. 980 (1988). In 1980, Congress passed the EAJA in response to its concern that persons “may be deterred from seeking review of, or defending against, unreasonable governmental action because of the expense involved in securing the vindication of their rights.” 94 Stat. 2325. As the Senate Report put it: “For many citizens, the costs of securing vindication of their rights and the inability to recover attorney fees preclude resort to the adjudicatory process. . . . When the cost of contesting a Government order, for example, exceeds the amount at stake, a party has no realistic choice and no effective remedy. In these cases, it is more practical to endure an injustice than to contest it.” S. Rep. No. 96-253, p. 5 (1979). The EAJA was designed to rectify this situation by providing for an award of a reasonable attorney’s fee to a “prevailing party” in a “civil action” or “adversary adjudication” unless the position taken by the United States in the proceeding at issue “was substantially justified” or “special circumstances make an award unjust.” That portion of the Act applicable to “civil actions” provides, as amended, in relevant part that “[ejxcept as otherwise specifically provided by statute, a court shall award to a prevailing party other than the United States fees and other expenses . . . incurred by that party in any civil action . . . including proceedings for judicial review of agency action, brought by or against the United States in any court having jurisdiction of that action, unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust.” 28 U. S. C. § 2412(d)(1)(A) (1982 ed., Supp. V). Application of this provision to respondent’s situation here requires brief consideration of the structure of administrative proceedings and judicial review under the Social Security Act. Once a claim has been processed administratively, judicial review of the Secretary’s decision is available pursuant to § 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U. S. C. § 405(g), which provides in pertinent part: “Any individual, after any final decision of the Secretary made after a hearing to which he was a party, . . . may obtain a review of such decision by a civil action .... The court shall have the power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Secretary, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing. . . . The court may, on motion of the Secretary for good cause shown before he files his answer, remand the case to the Secretary for further action by the Secretary, and it may at any time order additional evidence to be taken before the Secretary, but only upon a showing that there is new evidence which is material and that there is good cause for the failure to incorporate such evidence into the record in a prior proceeding; and the Secretary shall, after the case is remanded, and after hearing such additional evidence if so ordered, modify or affirm his findings of fact or his decision, or both, and shall file with the court any such additional and modified findings of fact and decision, and a transcript of the additional record and testimony upon which his action in modifying or affirming was based.” As provisions for judicial review of agency action go, § 405(g) is somewhat unusual. The detailed provisions for the transfer of proceedings from the courts to the Secretary and for the filing of the Secretary’s subsequent findings with the court suggest a degree of direct interaction between a federal court and an administrative agency alien to traditional review of agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act. As one source puts it: “The remand power places the courts, not in their accustomed role as external overseers of the administrative process, making sure that it stays within legal bounds, but virtually as coparticipants in the process, exercising ground-level discretion of the same order as that exercised by ALJs and the Appeals Council when they act upon a request to reopen a decision on the basis of new and material evidence.” J. Mashaw, C. Goetz, F. Goodman, W. Schwartz, P. Verkuil, & M. Carrow, Social Security Hearings and Appeals 133 (1978). Where a court finds that the Secretary has committed a legal or factual error in evaluating a particular claim, the district court’s remand order will often include detailed instructions concerning the scope of the remand, the evidence to be adduced, and the legal or factual issues to be addressed. See, e. g., Cooper v. Bowen, 815 F. 2d 557, 561 (CA9 1987). Often, complex legal issues are involved, including classification of the claimant’s alleged disability or his or her prior work experience within the Secretary’s guidelines or “grids” used for determining claimant disability. See, e. g., Cole v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 820 F. 2d 768, 772-773 (CA6 1987). Deviation from the court’s remand order in the subsequent administrative proceedings is itself legal error, subject to reversal on further judicial review. See, e. g., Hooper v. Heckler, 752 F. 2d 83, 88 (CA4 1985); Mefford v. Gardner, 383 F. 2d-748, 758-759 (CA6 1967). In many remand situations, the court will retain jurisdiction over the action pending the Secretary’s decision and its filing with the court. See Ahghazali v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 867 F. 2d 921, 927 (CA6 1989) (remanding action to District Court with instructions to retain jurisdiction during proceedings on remand before the agency); Taylor v. Heckler, 778 F. 2d 674, 677, n. 2 (CA11 1985) (“[T]he district court retains jurisdiction of the case until the proceedings on remand have been concluded”); accord, Brown v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 747 F. 2d 878, 883-885 (CA3 1984). The court retains the power in such situations to assure that its prior mandate is effectuated. See Ford Motor Co. v. NLRB, 305 U. S. 364, 373 (1939). Two points important to the application of the EAJA emerge from the interaction of the mechanisms for judicial review of Social Security benefits determinations and the EAJA. First, in a case such as this one, where a court’s remand to the agency for further administrative proceedings does not necessarily dictate the receipt of benefits, the claimant will not normally attain “prevailing party” status within the meaning of § 2412(d)(1)(A) until after the result of the administrative proceedings is known. The situation is for all intents and purposes identical to that we addressed in Hanrahan v. Hampton, 446 U. S. 754 (1980). There we held that the reversal of a directed verdict for defendants on appeal did not render the plaintiffs in that action “prevailing parties” such that an interim award of attorney’s fees would be justified under 42 U. S. C. § 1988. We found that such “procedural or evidentiary rulings” were not themselves “matters on which a party could ‘prevail’ for purposes of shifting his counsel fees to the opposing party under § 1988.” Id., at 759. More recently in Texas State Teachers Assn. v. Garland Independent School Dist., 489 U. S. 782 (1989), we indicated that in order to be considered a prevailing party, a plaintiff must achieve some of the benefit sought in bringing the action. Id., at 791-793. We think it clear that under these principles a Social Security claimant would not, as a general matter, be a prevailing party within the meaning of the EAJA merely because a court had remanded the action to the agency for further proceedings. See Hewitt v. Helms, 482 U. S. 755, 760 (1987). Indeed, the vast majority of the Courts of Appeals have come to this conclusion. See, e. g., Paulson v. Bowen, 836 F. 2d 1249, 1252 (CA9 1988); Swedberg v. Bowen, 804 F. 2d 432, 434 (CA8 1986); Brown v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, supra, at 880-881. Second, the EAJA provides that an application for fees must be filed with the court “within thirty days of final judgment in the action.” 28 U. S. C. §2412(d)(1)(B) (1982 ed., Supp. V). As in this case, there will often be no final judgment in a claimant’s civil action for judicial review until the administrative proceedings on remand are complete. See Guthrie v. Schweiker, 718 F. 2d 104, 106 (CA4 1983) (“[T]he procedure set forth in 42 U. S. C. § 405(g) contemplates additional action both by the Secretary and a district court before a civil action is concluded following a remand”). The Secretary concedes that a remand order from a district court to the agency is not a final determination of the civil action and that the district court “retains jurisdiction to review any determination rendered on remand.” Brief for Petitioner 16, 16-17. Thus, for purposes of the EAJA, the Social Security claimant’s status as a prevailing party and the final judgment in her “civil action . . . for review of agency action” are often completely dependent on the successful completion of the remand proceedings before the Secretary. Moreover, the remanding court continues to retain jurisdiction over the action within the meaning of the EAJA and may exercise that jurisdiction to determine if its legal instructions on remand have been followed by the Secretary. Our past decisions interpreting other fee-shifting provisions make clear that where administrative proceedings are intimately tied to the resolution of the judicial action and necessary to the attainment of the results Congress sought to promote by providing for fees, they should be considered part and parcel of the action for which fees may be awarded. In Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens’ Council, 478 U. S. 546 (1986), we considered whether the costs of representation before federal and state administrative agencies in defense of the provisions of a consent decree entered under the Clean Air Act were compensable under the fee-shifting provision of that statute. Section 304(d) of the Clean Air Act provides for the award of a reasonable attorney fee in conjunction with “any final order in any action brought pursuant to” certain provisions of the Act. 42 U. S. C. § 7604(d). In Delaware Valley, we rejected the contention that the word “action” in the fee-shifting provision should be read narrowly to exclude all proceedings which could be plausibly characterized as “nonjudicial.” We indicated that “[although it is true that the proceedings [at issue] were not ‘judicial’ in the sense that they did not occur in a courtroom or involve ‘traditional’ legal work such as examination of witnesses or selection of jurors for trial, the work done by counsel in these two phases was as necessary to the attainment of adequate relief for their client as was all of their earlier work in the courtroom which secured Delaware Valley’s initial success in obtaining the consent decree.” 478 U. S., at 558. Similarly, in New York Gas Light Club, Inc. v. Carey, 447 U. S. 54 (1980), we held that under the fee-shifting provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. §2000e-5(k), a federal court could award attorney’s fees for services performed in state administrative and judicial enforcement proceedings. We noted that the words of the statute, authorizing “the court” to award attorney’s fees “[i]n any action or proceeding under this title,” could be read to include only federal administrative or judicial proceedings. 447 U. S., at 60-61. Looking to the entire structure of Title VII, we observed that Congress had mandated initial resort to state and local remedies, and that “Congress viewed proceedings before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and in federal court as supplements to available state remedies for employment discrimination.” Id., at 65. Given this interlocking system of judicial and administrative avenues to relief, we concluded that the exclusion of state and local administrative proceedings from the fee provisions would clearly clash with the congressional design behind the statutory scheme whose enforcement the fee-shifting provisions was designed to promote. Ibid. See also Webb v. Dyer County Board of Education, 471 U. S. 234, 243 (1985) (work performed in administrative proceedings that is “both useful and of a type ordinarily necessary to advance civil rights litigation” may be compensable under 42 U. S. C. § 1988); North Carolina Dept. of Transportation v. Crest Street Community Council, Inc., 479 U. S. 6, 15 (1986). We think the principles we found persuasive in Delaware Valley and Carey are controlling here. As in Delaware Valley, the administrative proceedings on remand in this case were “crucial to the vindication of [respondent’s] rights.” Delaware Valley, supra, at 561. No fee award at all would have been available to respondent absent successful conclusion of the remand proceedings, and the services of an attorney may be necessary both to ensure compliance with the District Court’s order in the administrative proceedings themselves, and to prepare for any further proceedings before the District Court to verify such compliance. In addition, as we did in Carey, we must endeavor to interpret the fee statute in light of the statutory provisions it was designed to effectuate. Given the “mandatory” nature of the administrative proceedings at issue here, and their close relation in law and fact to the issues before the District Court on judicial review, we find it difficult to ascribe to Congress an intent to throw the Social Security claimant a lifeline that it knew was a foot short. Indeed, the incentive which such a system would create for attorneys to abandon claimants after judicial remand runs directly counter to long established ethical canons of the legal profession. See American Bar Association, Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.16, pp. 53-55 (1984). Given the anomalous nature of this result, and its frustration of the very purposes behind the EAJA itself, Congress cannot lightly be assumed to have intended it. See Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U. S. 412, 418-419 (1978). Since the judicial review provisions of the Social Security Act contemplate an ongoing civil action of which the remand proceedings are but a part, and the EAJA allows “any court having jurisdiction of that action” to award fees, 28 U. S. C. § 2412(d)(1)(A), we think the statute, read in light of its purpose “to diminish the deterrent effect of seeking review of, or defending against, governmental action,” 94 Stat. 2325, permits a court to award fees for services performed on remand before the Social Security Administration. Where a court finds that the Secretary’s position on judicial review was not substantially justified within the meaning of the EAJA, see Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U. S. 552, 563-568 (1988), it is within the court’s discretion to conclude that representation on remand was necessary to the effectuation of its mandate and to the ultimate vindication of the claimant’s rights, and that an award of fees for work performed in the administrative proceedings is therefore proper. See Delaware Valley, supra, at 561; Webb, supra, at 243. The Secretary mounts two interrelated challenges to this interpretation of § 2412(d)(1)(A). While the Secretary’s contentions are not without some force, neither rises to the level necessary to oust what we think is the most reasonable interpretation of the statute in light of its manifest purpose. First, the Secretary argues that plain meaning of the term “civil action” in § 2412(d)(1)(A) excludes any proceedings outside of a court of law. Brief for Petitioner 12-13; Reply Brief for Petitioner 8-9. Of course, if the plain language of the EAJA evinced a congressional intent to preclude the interpretation we reach here, that would be the end of the matter. In support of this proposition, the Secretary points out that the “‘[t]erm [action] in its usual legal sense means a suit brought in a court; a formal complaint within the jurisdiction of a court of law.’” Brief for Petitioner 13, n. 7, quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 26 (5th ed. 1979). Second, the Secretary notes that Congress did authorize EAJA fee awards under 5 U. S. C. §504(a)(1) (1982 ed., Supp. V) where an agency “conducts an adversary adjudication,” and that an adversary adjudication is defined in § 504(b)(1)(C) as “an adjudication ... in which the position of the United States is represented by counsel or otherwise.” Under 28 U. S. C. §2412(d)(3) (1982 ed., Supp. V) a court is empowered to award fees for representation before an agency to a party who prevails in an action for judicial review to “the same extent authorized in [5 U. S. C. § 504(a)].” Thus, the Secretary concludes that since benefits proceedings before the Secretary and his designates are nonadversarial, and a court is explicitly empowered to award fees for agency proceedings where such proceedings satisfy the requirements of § 504(a)(1), the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius applies, and a court may never award fees for time spent in nonadversarial administrative proceedings. See Brief for Petitioner 12-18; Reply Brief for Petitioner 7-12. We agree with the Secretary that for purposes of the EAJA Social Security benefit proceedings are not “adversarial” within the meaning of § 504(b)(1)(C) either initially or on remand from a court. See Richardso?i v. Perales, 402 U. S. 389, 403 (1971). The plain language of the statute requires that the United States be represented by “counsel or otherwise,” and neither is true in this context. Nonetheless, we disagree with the conclusion the Secretary would draw from this fact. First, as Delaware Valley, Webb, and Carey indicate, administrative proceedings may be so intimately connected with judicial proceedings as to be considered part of the “civil action” for purposes of a fee award. This is particularly so in the Social Security context where “a suit [has been] brought in a court,” and where “a formal complaint within the jurisdiction of a court of law” remains pending and depends for its resolution upon the outcome of the administrative proceedings. Second, we disagree with the Secretary’s submission that a negative implication can be drawn from the power granted a court to award fees based on representation in a prior adversary adjudication before an agency. Section 2412(d)(8) provides that “[i]n awarding fees and other expenses under this subsection to a prevailing party in any action for judicial review of an adversary adjudication,” the court may award fees to the same extent that they would have been available before the agency itself under § 504(a)(1). On its face, the provision says nothing about the power of a court to award reasonable fees for representation in a non-adversarial adjudication which is wholly ancillary to a civil action for judicial review. That Congress carved the world of EAJA proceedings into “adversary adjudications” and “civil actions” does not necessarily speak to, let alone preclude, a reading of the term “civil action” which includes administrative proceedings necessary to the completion of a civil action. We conclude that where a court orders a remand to the Secretary in a benefits litigation and retains continuing jurisdiction over the case pending a decision from the Secretary which will determine the claimant’s entitlement to benefits, the proceedings on remand are an integral part of the “civil action” for judicial review, and thus attorney’s fees for representation on remand are available subject to the other limitations in the EAJA. We thus affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals on this issue and remand the case to that court 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:

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 Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court. The questions presented for decision here are the date upon which pension funds covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were required to offer benefit structures that did not discriminate on the basis of sex and whether persons who retired before that date are entitled to adjusted benefits to eliminate any sex discrimination for all future benefit payments. We revisit our decisions in Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power v. Manhart, 435 U. S. 702 (1978), and Arizona Governing Committee for Tax Deferred Annuity and Deferred Compensation Plans v. Norris, 463 U. S. 1073 (1983). The issues before us turn on whether Manhaifs invalidation of discriminatory contributions necessarily apprised employers that plans which were nondiseriminatory as to contributions must in every case be nondiseriminatory as to benefits. We conclude that Manhart neither resolved the issue nor gave employers notice that benefits necessarily were embraced by the decision. The point was not resolved in a definitive way until our decision in Norris. We hold further that employees who retired before the effective date of Norris are not entitled to a readjusted benefits payment structure. I Since 1970, the State of Florida has operated the Florida Retirement System (Florida System) for state employees and employees of over 1,100 participating local governments. Fla. Stat. § 121.011 et seq. (1987). The Florida System is a defined benefit pension plan, which guarantees retirement benefits that may not be lowered once the employee retires and selects a pension option. The Florida System’s normal retirement benefit is a single life plan with monthly payments for the employee’s life, calculated as a percentage of the employee’s average highest salary upon retirement. § 121.091 (1). Upon retirement, an employee also may select a pension plan from one of three retirement options: (1) a joint and survivorship option providing monthly payments for the retiree’s lifetime and, in the event of the retiree’s death within 10 years after retirement, the same monthly payments to the beneficiary for the balance of the 10-year period; (2) a joint annuitant option ensuring monthly benefits for the lives of the retiree and his beneficiary; and (3) a joint annuitant option providing monthly payments for the lives of the retiree and his beneficiary, but reducing by one third, upon the death of either, the monthly benefits to the surviving individual. § 121.091(6). The state legislature periodically reviews the Florida System’s finances and operation, and determines the appropriate contribution rates for government employers as a percentage of the gross compensation of participating employees. Fla. Stat. §§121.031, 121.061, 121.071 (1987). The State Constitution requires Florida to collect contributions sufficient to fund the System on a “sound actuarial basis.” See Fla. Const., Art. X, § 14. The Florida System was funded originally by employer and employee contributions; but, since 1975, the System has been funded entirely by contributions from state and local government employers. Contributions for male and female employees with the same length of service, age, and salary always have been equal. The normal, or single life, plan, moreover, has provided equal monthly benefits to similarly situated male and female employees since the inception of the Florida System. Only the payment structure under the three joint options is in dispute here. Florida calculates an employee’s normal retirement benefit as a product of two variables, with the first variable a statutorily determined percentage of the employee’s average monthly compensation upon retirement and the second variable the employee’s credited years of employment. Fla. Stat. §§ 121.091(l)(a),(b) (1987). The normal retirement benefit is therefore equal for similarly situated male and female employees. If a retiring employee selects one of the optional joint annuitant plans instead of the normal plan, the Florida System then uses a third variable, the retiree’s life expectancy, to determine the present actuarial value of his or her normal retirement benefit. § 121.091 (6)(b). Until our Norris decision, Florida calculated a retiree’s life expectancy using sex-based actuarial tables. As the male’s life expectancy was less than a female’s, so too was the actuarial value of his normal retirement benefit; and, because the optional plans operated by a presumed exchange of the normal benefit for an optional plan, the lower actuarial value of the male benefit caused the male retiree to receive a joint annuitant benefit with lower monthly payments. Immediately after our decision in Noiris, Florida acted to adopt unisex actuarial tables for all employees in the Florida System retiring after August 1, 1983. Under the unisex tables, male and female retirees similarly situated receive equal monthly pension benefits under any of the offered plans. As a result, Florida’s current retirement plans create no distinction, either in contributions or in payments, between employees or between post-Norris retirees on the basis of sex. II Retirees Hughlan Long and S. Dewey Haas brought this suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida against Florida and various of its officials with responsibility for management of the Florida System. They alleged that petitioners were violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §2000e et seq., by operating pension plans that discriminated on the basis of sex, and requested the District Court to certify a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Retirees requested retroactive compensation for underpayment of pension benefits. On January 20, 1983, the District Court approved respondents’ class action, certifying a class consisting of male retirees who elected one of the optional plans and who retired after March 24, 1972, and before August 1, 1983. After an orderly progress to the merits, the District Court entered summary judgment in respondents’ favor, holding that Florida’s optional pension plans discriminated against male employees in violation of Title VII. The District Court determined that the effective date of our decision in Manhart was October 1, 1978. It awarded relief to class members who retired after that date and before August 1, 1983, by retroactive “topping up” of the monthly retirement benefits to Florida’s current unisex levels. The topping up was awarded for the period from October 1, 1978, to April 30, 1986, the date of the District Court’s judgment for purposes of damages calculation. It also awarded all class members topped-up future monthly benefits, commencing on the date of its judgment. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. 805 F. 2d 1542, rehearing denied, 805 F. 2d 1552 (1986) (per curiam). It held, in sum, that our decision in Manhart had placed employers on notice that pension benefits, not just contributions, must be calculated without reliance on sex-based actuarial tables. Id., at 1547-1548, 1551. We granted certiorari, 484 U. S. 814 (1987), to. consider these issues, and we reverse. Ill . Two aspects of retroactivity análysis are presented by this case. The first is whether Manhart or Norris establishes the appropriate date for commencing liability for employer-operated pension plans that offered discriminatory payment options. We discuss below the retroactivity principles already explored in the pension cases and determine that Norris is the controlling liability date and that liability may not be imposed for pr e-Norris conduct. The second question concerns the proper implementation of our nonretroactivity determination. This requires us to determine whether benefit adjustments ordered by the District Court should be classified as retroactive or prospective. We hold the adjustments are retroactive and that pr e-Norris retirees are not entitled to adjusted benefits for the violations claimed here. A We have identified three criteria for determining whether retroactive awards are appropriate in Title VII pension cases involving the use of sex-based actuarial tables. Manhart, 435 U. S., at 719-723; Norris, 463 U. S., at 1105-1107; id., at 1109-1111 (O’Connor, J., concurring). See also Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U. S. 97, 105-109 (1971). The first is to examine whether the decision established a new principle of law, focusing, in this context, on whether Manhart clearly defined the employer’s obligations under Title VII with respect to benefits payments. The second criterion is to test whether retroactive awards are necessary to the operation of Title VII principles by acting to deter deliberate violations or grudging compliance. The third is to ask whether retroactive liability will produce inequitable results for the States, employers, retirees, and pension funds affected by our decision. The first criterion, the extent to which new principles of law have been established, is of particular significance to our holding today. The Court of Appeals held that Manhart placed Florida on notice that optional pension plans offering sex-based benefits violated Title VII, and it awarded retroactive relief accordingly. We disagree. The pension plan provision at issue in Manhart was the “requirement that men and women make unequal contributions to an employer-operated pension fund.” 435 U. S., at 717. While the language of our decision may have suggested the potential application of Title VII to unequal payments, we were careful to state that we did not reach that issue. We limited our holding to unequal contributions. We recognized that “[t]here can be no doubt that the prohibition against sex-differentiated employee contributions represents a marked departure from past practice.” Id., at 722. Our decision stated two principal limits on the potential liability of employer-operated pension plans. First, we limited the holding to the fact pattern then before us. We stated: “Although we conclude that the Department’s practice [of requiring discriminatory pension contributions on the basis of sex] violated Title VII, we do not suggest that the statute was intended to revolutionize the insurance and pension industries. All that is at issue today is a requirement that men and women make unequal contributions to an employer-operated pension fund.” Id., at 717. Second, we confined the reach of our decision by recognizing the potential for interaction between an employer-operated pension plan and pension plans available in the marketplace. We said: “Nothing in our holding implies that it would be unlawful for an employer to set aside equal retirement contributions for each employee and let each retiree purchase the largest benefit which his or her accumulated contributions could command in the open market.” Id., at 717-718. Our references to contributions, as distinct from benefits payments, and our recognition of open market forces limited the decision and left some doubt regarding its command. Ensuing decisions expressed conflicting views of Manhart’s reach. Commentators also expressed conflicting opinions regarding the permissible and appropriate scope of the decision. Not until Norris, decided five years after Manhart, did we address the matter of unequal benefits payments and the open market exception. Norris extended the principle of nondiscrimination to unequal benefits, stating that “the classification of employees on the basis of sex is no more permissible at the pay-out stage of a retirement plan than at the pay-in stage.” Norris, 463 U. S., at 1081. It also addressed uncertainty over the open market exception and responded to discrete issues not raised in Manhart. Granting only narrow operation to the open market exception, we excluded from it employer-operated pension plans which offered annuities that duplicated those available from private companies. 463 U. S., at 1087-1088. Norris also condemned pension plans offering male and female employee annuities with “the same present actuarial value” where sex-based differentials resulted. Id., at 1082-1083. Pension funds which offered nondiscriminatory plans with alternative discriminatory options were also held in noncompliance with Title VII’s requirements. Id., at 1081-1082, and n. 10. Thus, some questions left open by Manhart. were answered in Norris. Our close division in the later case, however, suggests that application of the earlier law to differential benefits was far from obvious. In view of the substantial departure from existing practice that Manhart ordered, pension fund administrators could rely with reasonable assurance on its express qualifications and conclude that it was confined to cases of sex-based contributions. A few months before our decision in Norris, the United States Department of Labor completed a study of pension plans and the financial impact of an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission proposal to adopt an equal benefits rule. United States Dept, of Labor, Cost Study of the Impact of an Equal Benefits Rule on Pension Benefits (Jan. 1983) (hereinafter Cost Study). The Cost Study found that “[sjubstantial percentages of both [defined benefit and defined contribution] types of pension plans follow the customary insurance industry practice of using sex-segregated mortality tables in calculating annuity benefits.” Id., at 2. It estimated that 45% of the participants in defined benefit plans like the Florida System and 74% of the participants in defined contribution plans continued to receive benefits calculated with sex-based tables. Ibid. The Florida experience further illustrates the difficulty of determining the requirements for full compliance. Since its inception, the Florida System not only required equal contributions for male and female employees but also provided a primary single life benefit with equal payments to similarly situated male and female employees. The primary single life benefit is of particular significance, for it complied with both Norris and Manhart. See Cost Study 11-12; Hager & Zimpleman, The Norris Decision, Its Implications and Application, 32 Drake L. Rev. 913, 938 (1982-1983) (Norris decision will “have little effect upon defined benefit plans so far as the normal form pension benefit is concerned . . . [since that benefit] already pays equal annuity incomes”). The provision of optional annuity plans in the Florida System provided employees with a range of choices for their convenience. Before Norris, Florida could conclude reasonably that, once employees were offered a unisex primary benefit, Manhart did not prevent the offering of sex-based annuities as options. The alternative for employers who wished to control, or were unable to finance, the costs of unisex options would be to eliminate optional benefits entirely and offer the primary benefit alone. See Hager & Zimpleman, 32 Drake L. Rev., at 938-939. Employees do not benefit from the reduction of their pension plan options, and Florida may have assumed we did not intend to eliminate an employee’s flexibility in choosing a retirement option, so long as the options presented included a sex-neutral benefit. In Norris itself we recognized that Manhart had reserved the determination of some major issues. While we narrowed the open market exception to include only pension plans where employers set aside an equal lump-sum payment and the individual employee purchased an annuity from a private pension company, 463 U. S., at 1088, we recognized that employers “reasonably could have assumed that it would be lawful to make available to its employees annuities offered by insurance companies on the open market.” Id., at 1106. The pension plan we considered in Norris reflected a reasonable application of the open market exception. While the forms of the Florida System’s plans and those considered in Norris may differ, they are the same in economic substance. Florida’s continuance of the optional plans until the Norris decision does not justify imposition of a retroactive award. We note, moreover, that while Florida’s offer of the nondiscriminatory benefit makes its case against retroactivity more compelling, this particular feature is not essential to establish that Norris is the effective date for conforming benefit structures. The considerations discussed below are also of relevance. The second and third criteria of retroactivity analysis also support our determination that Norris, and not Manhart, provides the appropriate date for determining liability and relief. In the pension context, we have considered whether retroactive awards are necessary to further the purposes of Title VII and to ensure compliance with our decisions, and we have concluded that retroactivity is not required. Manhart, 435 U. S., at 720-721; Norris, supra, at 1110 (O’Connor, J., concurring). We see no reason to depart from that conclusion in the case before us. Florida acted immediately after our decision in Norris and modified its optional pension plans to provide equal monthly benefits to each individual employee who retired after August 1, 1983. There is no evidence that employers in general have not complied with the Title VII requirements we announced in Man-hart and extended in Norris. Finally, we conclude here, as in Manhart and Norris, that the imposition of retroactive liability on the States, local governments, and other employers that offered sex-based pension plans to their employees is inequitable. The effect of “drastic changes in the legal rules governing pension and insurance funds” on the provision of reserves for unexpected benefits; the complexities of pension funding in an industry that had once relied on sex-based tables, coupled with the lack of authoritative guidance from the courts or administrative agencies; the potential instability in pension and retirement programs and the resulting harm to other retirees as innocent third parties; and the absence of any reason to believe that “the threat of a backpay award” was necessary to effect pension fund compliance with our decision, all compelled our conclusion in Manhart that “the rules that apply to these funds should not be applied retroactively unless the legislature has plainly commanded that result.” Manhart, supra, at 720-723. Noting that Congress had, in fact, stressed the importance of “making only gradual and prospective changes” in the legal rules governing pension plans, 435 U. S., at 721-722, n. 40, we concluded, in general terms, that the “Albemarle presumption in favor of retroactive relief” should not be applied to this type of Title VII pension plan suit. Id., at 723. See Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U. S. 405, 421 (1975). In Norris, we reaffirmed our conclusion that retroactive liability was inappropriate in Title VII pension plan cases. 463 U. S., at 1105-1107. Retroactive awards, applied to every employer-operated pension plan that did not anticipate our decision, would impose financial costs that would threaten the security of both the funds and their’beneficiaries. Id., at 1110 (O’Connor, J., concurring); id., at 1094-1095 (Marshall, J., concurring in judgment in part). See also Buck Research Corporation, Trends in Corporate Pension Benefits: Unisex Before and After Norris 15 (Oct. 1983) (survey of Fortune 500 industrial corporations showing only 39.8% used unisex tables for their pension annuities when Norris was decided). Respondents argue that Florida’s pension administrators had “actual notice from internal memoranda and discussions” that the continuation of the sex-based optional pension plans after Manhart violated Title VII. 805 F. 2d, at 1550. Similarly, respondents argue that the Florida System can in fact afford the District Court’s $43 million award. Our power to order appropriate relief under Title VII is equitable in nature and flexible, Manhart, supra, at 718-719; see 42 U. S. C. §2000e-5(g), but the particular circumstances of a case are not the sole determinant of relief. That Florida’s fund currently may possess a surplus or that Florida’s administrators discussed early intimations of later doctrine should not control a decision that must be based on a broad principle. 435 U. S., at 722, n. 42. We will not adopt the premise that the appropriateness of a retroactive award turns on a particular pension fund’s current financial status, so that financially successful pension funds pay but financially insecure pension funds do not. To do so imposes a penalty for prudent management. Similarly, the question whether Manhart placed employers on notice of Title VII’s requirements cannot turn on the internal debates of one pension fund’s administrators. The meaning and scope of a decision do not rest on the subjective interpretations of discrete, affected persons and their legal advisers. We have previously noted that “[ijmportant national goals would be frustrated by a regime of discretion that ‘produce[d] different results for breaches of duty in situations that cannot be differentiated in policy.’” Albemarle Paper, supra, at 417 (citing Moragne v. States Marine Lines, 398 U. S. 375, 405 (1970)). While we hold that Manhart did not establish the date for Florida to conform its payment options to unisex standards, we do not hesitate to say that Norris did so. If Florida had continued to use sex-based actuarial tables to calculate benefits for its pension plans after Norris, the case before us would have been an altogether different one. Norris informed covered employers with pension plans of the obligation under Title VII to provide payment levels, both for contributions and for benefits, that are nondiscriminatory as to sex. We conclude that the effective date of our decision in Norris provides the appropriate limit on retroactive liability in this case. B We next consider implementation of our nonretroactivity determination. The District Court made two separate awards. The first, for back compensatory payments to employees who retired after Manhart and before Norris and covering the entire period from Manhart to the date of its judgment, is retroactive without doubt and is, by our decision here, impermissible. The second award required that payments after judgment be adjusted for all pr e-Norris male retirees who are receiving lower benefits. The District Court, and the Court of Appeals in affirming, labeled this latter award prospective relief. We disagree. The distinction between retroactive and prospective relief is not always self-evident. An order requiring adjusted future payments for pr e-Norris retirees may contain the essential elements of a retroactive order. Unlike an ordinary injunction against future conduct, the effect of an order that increases pension benefits to employees who háve already retired may be retroactive in a fundamental sense if it corrects a fixed calculation based on assumptions that both the State and the retiree held when the retirement occurred. Benefits are altered despite the circumstance that past contributions were keyed to lower benefit payments, which undermines the basic financial calculus of a pension plan that determines contribution rates to support a predicted level of payments. See Norris, 463 U. S., at 1092 (Marshall, J., concurring in judgment in part). Such changes in benefits based on past contributions and actuarial assumptions may create a deficiency in the pension fund, requiring additional funds from the State and other employers to meet the increased benefits liability or forcing the pension plan to violate its contractual benefit guarantee to other retirees. In sum, an award in many cases may be retroactive In nature “[w]hen a-court directs a change in benefits based on contributions made before the court’s order.” Ibid.; see id., at 1105, n. 10. It is not correct to consider payments of benefits based on a retirement that has already occurred as a sort of continuing violation. Our decision in Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U. S. 385 (1986), is not to the contrary. Bazemore concerned the continuing payment of discriminatory wages based on employer practices prior to Title VII. In a salary case, however, each week’s paycheck is compensation for work presently performed and completed by an employee. Further, the employer does not fund its payroll on an actuarial basis. By contrast, a pension plan, funded on an actuarial basis, provides benefits fixed under a contract between the employer and retiree based on a past assessment of an employee’s expected years of service, date of retirement, average final salary, and years of projected benefits. In the pension fund context, a continuing violation principle in every case would render employers liable for all past conduct, regardless of whether the liability principle was first announced by Man-hart, Norris, or our decision here. We cannot recognize a principle of equitable relief that ignores the essential assumptions of an actuarially funded pension plan. We applied these principles in Norris and held that an order to adjust future annuity payments to female retirees to reach equality with payments to similarly situated men was “fundamentally retroactive in nature.” 463 U. S., at 1105, n. 10. The District Court’s award here is indistinguishable in principle from the one found retroactive in Norris. The State of Florida determined contribution rates by relying on a precise assessment of expected future pension benefits for covered state and local government employees. The Constitution of the State of Florida mandated that the fund be maintained on a sound actuarial basis. Fla. Const., Art. X, § 14. As Florida guarantees the level of benefits, the District Court’s award affects the pension fund’s ability to meet its accrued obligations. A different case, and a different assessment of retroactivity, might result under pension plan structures which do not provide retirees with a contractual right to a fixed level of benefits or rate of return on contributions. See Spirt v. Teachers Insurance & Annuity Assn., 735 F. 2d 23, 28 (CA2 1984). There, an award for future increase may require neither additional funding by the State or employer nor violation of contractual rights of other retirees. That is not the case before us, however. It is essentially retroactive to disrupt past pension funding assumptions by requiring further adjustments based on conduct that could not reasonably have been considered violative of Title VII at the time retirements occurred and funding provisions were made. Respondents “could not have done anything after [Norris] to eliminate [the resulting disparity in the pension fund] short of expending state funds.” Norris, supra, at 1095 (Marshall, J., concurring in judgment in part). Under the Florida plan, no adjustment in benefits payments is required for employees who retired before the effective date of our decision in Norris. As the class here consists only of employees who retired before Norris, it is not entitled to the relief ordered by the District Court. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is reversed. It is so ordered. March 24, 1972, is the effective date of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, which, for the first time, made public employers like Florida and its local governments an “employer” within the meaning of Title VII. 86 Stat. 103. See 42 U. S. C. § 2000e. We do not determine whether this is the appropriate date for public employers’ liability under Title VII. “Topping up” compensates for the difference between the benefits male retirees did receive and the benefits they would have received if the Florida System had used unisex mortality tables, but would not provide male retirees with benefits equal to those female retirees received under the sex-based tables. App. to Pet. for Cert. A65. See Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power v. Manhart, 435 U. S. 702, 719-720, n. 36 (1978) (full equalization “may give the victims of the discrimination more than their due”). The parties raise other issues regarding whether 42 U. S. C. §2000e-5(g) limits petitioners’ liability for retroactive compensation to no more than two years prior to the filing of a proper Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charge of discrimination and whether 42 U. S. C. §2000e-5(e) requires that the plaintiff class be restricted to include only those individuals who retired no more than 300 days prior to the filing of such an EEOC charge. We do not address these issues because, in either case, the relevant liability limitations would be prior to our decision in Arizona Governing Committee for Tax Deferred Annuity and Deferred Compensation Plans v. Norris, 463 U. S. 1073 (1983), which sets the controlling date for liability. Compare Peters v. Wayne State University, 691 F. 2d 235 (CA6 1982) (use of sex-based tables does not violate Title VII if actuarial value of pension plans for similarly situated males and females is equal), and EEOC v. Colby College, 589 F. 2d 1139, 1146 (CA1 1978) (Coffin, J., concurring) (Manhart does not necessarily preclude pension system that offers employees equal benefit plans as well as optional “actuarially sound” plans, with unequal benefits, based on sex-based tables), with Spirt v. Teachers Insurance and Annuity Assn., 691 F. 2d 1054 (CA2 1982) (unequal benefits as well as unequal contributions barred under Manhart), vacated and remanded, 463 U. S. 1223 (1983), and Sobel v. Yeshiva University, 566 F. Supp. 1166, 1192 (SDNV 1983) (following Spirt as binding Circuit law, but noting that the Court’s decision to review Norris should end uncertainty regarding “[w]hether the Supreme Court will retreat from its Manhart holding or offer some reasonable means of applying it in a nondiscriminatory fashion . . . [and] the Court is almost certain to comment upon several types of distribution options which have been offered to avoid a Manhart problem” (footnote omitted)), rev’d and remanded, 797 F. 2d 1478 (CA2 1986), later decision, 656 F. Supp. 587 (SDNY 1987). Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy 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. Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court. The question presented for review in this case is whether an instruction informing jurors that they “must not be swayed by mere sentiment, conjecture, sympathy, passion, prejudice, public opinion or public feeling” during the penalty phase of a capital murder trial violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. We hold that it does not. Respondent Albert Brown was found guilty by a jury of forcible rape and first-degree murder in the death of 15-year-old Susan J. At the penalty phase, the State presented evidence that respondent had raped another young girl some years prior to his attack on Susan J. Respondent presented the testimony of several family members, who recounted respondent’s peaceful nature and expressed disbelief that respondent was capable of such a brutal crime. Respondent also presented the testimony of a psychiatrist, who stated that Brown killed his victim because of his shame and fear over sexual dysfunction. Brown himself testified, stating that he was ashamed of his prior criminal conduct and asking for mercy from the jury. California Penal Code Ann. § 190.3 (West Supp. 1987) provides that capital defendants may introduce at the penalty phase any evidence “as to any matter relevant to . . . mitigation . . . including, but not limited to, the nature and circumstances of the present offense,. . . and the defendant’s character, background, history, mental condition and physical condition.” The trial court instructed the jury to consider the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and to weigh them in determining the appropriate penalty. App. 23-24. But the court cautioned the jury that it “must not be swayed by mere sentiment, conjecture, sympathy, passion, prejudice, public opinion or public feeling.” Id., at 20. Respondent was sentenced to death. On automatic appeal, the Supreme Court of California reversed the sentence of death. 40 Cal. 3d 512, 709 P. 2d 440 (1985). Over two dissents on this point, the majority opinion found that the instruction at issue here violates the Federal Constitution: “ ‘federal constitutional law forbids an instruction which denies a capital defendant the right to have the jury consider any “sympathy factor” raised by the evidence when determining the appropriate penalty ....’” Id., at 537, 709 P. 2d, at 453, quoting People v. Lanphear, 36 Cal. 3d 163, 165, 680 P. 2d 1081, 1082 (1984). Relying on Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U. S. 104 (1982), Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U. S. 586 (1978), and Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U. S. 280 (1976), the court ruled that the instruction “is calculated to divert the jury from its constitutional duty to consider ‘any [sympathetic] aspect of the defendant’s character or record,’ whether or not related to the offense for which he is on trial, in deciding the appropriate penalty.” 40 Cal. 3d, at 537, 709 P. 2d, at 453. We granted certiorari to resolve whether such an instruction violates the United States Constitution. 476 U. S. 1157 (1986). The Eighth Amendment jurisprudence of this Court establishes two separate prerequisites to a valid death sentence. First, sentencers may not be given unbridled discretion in determining the fates of those charged with capital offenses. The Constitution instead requires that death penalty statutes be structured so as to prevent the penalty from being administered in an arbitrary and unpredictable fashion. Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153 (1976); Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S. 238 (1972). Second, even though the sentencer’s discretion must be restricted, the capital defendant generally must be allowed to introduce any relevant mitigating evidence regarding his “‘character or record and any of the circumstances of the offense.’” Eddings, supra, at 110, quoting Lockett, supra, at 604. Consideration of such evidence is a “constitutionally indispensable part of the process of inflicting the penalty of death.” Woodson v. North Carolina, supra, at 304 (opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.). The instruction given by the trial court in this case violates neither of these constitutional principles. We think that the California Supreme Court improperly focused solely on the word “sympathy” to determine that the instruction interferes with the jury’s consideration of mitigating evidence. “The question, however, is not what the State Supreme Court declares the meaning of the charge to be, but rather what a reasonable juror could have understood the charge as meaning.” Francis v. Franklin, 471 U. S. 307, 315-316 (1985); see Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U. S. 510, 516-517 (1979). To determine how a reasonable juror could interpret an instruction, we “must focus initially on the specific language challenged.” Francis v. Franklin, 471 U. S., at 315. If the specific instruction fails constitutional muster, we then review the instructions as a whole to see if the entire charge delivered a correct interpretation of the law. Ibid. In this ease, we need not reach the second step of analysis because we hold that a reasonable juror would not interpret the challenged instruction in a manner that would render it unconstitutional. The jury was told not to be swayed by “mere sentiment, conjecture, sympathy, passion, prejudice, public opinion or public feeling.” Respondent does not contend, and the Supreme Court of California did not hold, that conjecture, passion, prejudice, public opinion, or public feeling should properly play any role in the jury’s sentencing determination, even if such factors might weigh in the defendant’s favor. Rather, respondent reads the instruction as if it solely cautioned the jury not to be swayed by “sympathy.” Even if we were to agree that a rational juror could parse the instruction in such a hypertechnical manner, we would disagree with both respondent’s interpretation of the instruction and his conclusion that the instruction is unconstitutional. By concentrating on the noun “sympathy,” respondent ignores the crucial fact that the jury was instructed to avoid basing its decision on mere sympathy. Even a juror who insisted on focusing on this one phrase in the instruction would likely interpret the phrase as an admonition to ignore emotional responses that are not rooted in the aggravating and mitigating evidence introduced during the penalty phase. While strained in the abstract, respondent’s interpretation is simply untenable when viewed in light of the surrounding circumstances. This instruction was given at the end of the penalty phase, only after respondent had produced 13 witnesses in his favor. Yet respondent’s interpretation would have these two words transform three days of favorable testimony into a virtual charade. We think a reasonable juror would reject that interpretation, and instead understand the instruction not to rely oh “mere sympathy” as a directive to ignore only the sort of sympathy that would be totally divorced from the evidence adduced during the penalty phase. We also think it highly unlikely that any reasonable juror would almost perversely single out the word “sympathy” from the other nouns which accompany it in the instruction: conjecture, passion, prejudice, public opinion, and public feeling. Reading the instruction as a whole, as we must, it is no more than a catalog of the kind of factors that could improperly influence a juror’s decision to vote for or against the death penalty. The doctrine of noscitur a sociis is based on common sense, and a rational juror could hardly hear this instruction without concluding that it was meant to confine the jury’s deliberations to considerations arising from the evidence presented, both aggravating and mitigating. An instruction prohibiting juries from basing their sentencing decisions on factors not presented at the trial, and irrelevant to the issues at the trial, does not violate the United States Constitution. It serves the useful purpose of confining the jury’s imposition of the death sentence by cautioning it against reliance on extraneous emotional factors, which, we think, would be far more likely to turn the jury against a capital defendant than for him. And to the extent that the instruction helps to limit the jury’s consideration to matters introduced in evidence before it, it fosters the Eighth Amendment’s “need for reliability in the determination that death is the appropriate punishment in a specific case.” Woodson, 428 U. S., at 305. Indeed, by limiting the jury’s sentencing considerations to record evidence, the State also ensures the availability of meaningful judicial review, another safeguard that improves the reliability of the sentencing process. See Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U. S. 325, 335, and n. 11 (1976) (opinion of Stewart, Powell and Stevens, JJ.). We hold that the instruction challenged in this case does not violate the provisions of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The judgment of the Supreme Court of California is therefore reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. We have noted our approval of this statutory scheme. California v. Ramos, 468 U. S. 992, 1005, n. 19 (1983). See also Pulley v. Harris, 465 U. S. 37, 53 (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:

A

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr. Justice Black delivered the opinion of the Court. In 1959 petitioner, Clyde A. Perkins, brought this civil antitrust action against the Standard Oil Company of California seeking treble damages under § 2 of the Clayton Act, as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act, for injuries alleged to have resulted from Standard’s price discriminations in the sale of gasoline and oil during a period of over two years from 1955 to 1957. In 1963, after a lengthy and complicated trial, the jury returned a verdict for Perkins and assessed damages against Standard of $333,404.67, which, after trebling by the court and after the addition of attorney’s fees, resulted in a total judgment against Standard of $1,298,213.71. On review, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the assessment of damages included injuries to Perkins that were not recoverable under the Act and therefore ordered a new trial. Standard Oil Co. of California v. Perkins, 396 F. 2d 809. We granted certiorari to determine whether the Court of Appeals, in reversing the judgment, had correctly construed the Robinson-Patman Act. Petitioner Perkins entered the oil and gasoline business in 1928 as the operator of a single service station in the State of Washington. By the mid-1950’s he had become one of the largest independent distributors of gasoline and oil in both Washington and Oregon. He was both a wholesaler, operating storage plants and trucking equipment, and a retailer through his own Perkins stations. From 1945 until 1957, Perkins purchased substantially all of his gasoline requirements from Standard. From 1955 to 1957 Standard charged Perkins a higher price for its gasoline and oil than Standard charged to its own Branded Dealers, who competed with Perkins, and to Signal Oil & Gas Co., a wholesaler whose gas eventually reached the pumps of a major competitor of Perkins. Perkins contends that Standard’s price and price-related discriminations against him seriously harmed his competitive position and forced him, in 1957, to sacrifice by sale what remained of his once independent business to one of the major companies in the gasoline business, Union Oil. Many of the elements of liability on the part of Standard are not in dispute. Standard has admitted that it sold gasoline and oil to its Branded Dealers and to Signal Oil at discriminatorily lower prices than those at which it sold to Perkins. The Court of Appeals found that Standard’s liability for the harm done Perkins by the favorable treatment of the Branded Dealers was beyond dispute. Of this aspect of the damages, the Court of Appeals said: “The Branded Dealers purchased gasoline and oil from Standard which they in turn sold at retail. With respect to them, Perkins’ story is quickly told. Because of Standard’s favoritism and discrimination they were able to and did offer lower prices and better services and facilities than Perkins in marketing at retail.” 396 F. 2d, at 812. With regard to Perkins’ damage resulting from Standard’s discrimination in favor of Signal Oil, however, the Court of Appeals took a different view because of the following circumstances under which the discriminatory sales were made. Standard admittedly sold gasoline to Signal at a lower price than it sold to Perkins. Signal sold this Standard gasoline to Western Hyway, which in turn sold the Standard gasoline to Regal Stations Co., Perkins’ competitor. Perkins alleged that the lower price charged Signal by Standard was passed on to Signal’s-subsidiary Western Hyway, and then to Western’s subsidiary, Regal. Regal’s stations were thus able to undersell Perkins’ stations and, according to Perkins, the resulting competitive harm, along with that he suffered at the hands of Standard’s favored Branded Dealers, destroyed his ability to compete and eventually forced him to sell what was left of his business. The Court of Appeals held, however, that any harm suffered by Perkins from impaired competition with Regal stations was beyond the scope of the Robinson-Patman Act because Regal was too far removed from Standard in the chain of distribution. A substantial part of the damages the jury assessed against Standard, as the Court of Appeals viewed it, might have been based upon a finding that Perkins suffered competitive harm from the price advantage held by Regal stations. That court, concluding that “the whole verdict is tainted, since the amount reflected in it by Regal’s conduct cannot be ascertained, . . .” reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial. 396 F. 2d, at 813. We disagree with the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that § 2 of the Clayton Act, as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act, does not apply to the damages suffered by Perkins as a result of the price advantage granted by Standard to Signal, then by Signal to Western, then by Western to Regal. The Act, in pertinent part, provides: “(a) It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, . . . either directly or indirectly, to discriminate in price between different purchasers of commodities of like grade and quality, . . . where the effect of such discrimination may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce, or to injure, destroy, or prevent competition with any person who either grants or knowingly receives the benefit of such discrimination, or with customers of either of them . . . .” The Court of Appeals read this language as limiting “the distributing levels on which a supplier’s price discrimination will be recognized as potentially injurious to competition.” 396 F. 2d, at 812. According to that court, the coverage of the Act is restricted to injuries caused by an impairment of competition with (1) the seller (“any person who . . . grants . . . such discrimination”), (2) the favored purchaser (“any person who . . . knowingly receives the benefit of such discrimination”), and (3) customers of the discriminating seller or favored purchaser (“customers of either of them”). Here, Perkins’ injuries resulted in part from impaired competition with a customer (Regal) of a customer (Western Hyway) of the favored purchaser (Signal). The Court of Appeals termed these injuries “fourth level” and held that they were not protected by the Robinson-Patman Act. We conclude that this limitation is wholly an artificial one and is completely unwarranted by the language or purpose of the Act. In FTC v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 390 U. S. 341 (1968), we held that a retailer who buys through a wholesaler could be considered a “customer” of the original supplier within the meaning of § 2 (d) of the Clayton Act, as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act, a section dealing with discrimination in promotional allowances which is closely analogous to § 2 (a) involved in this case. In Meyer, the Court stated that to read “customer” narrowly would be wholly untenable when viewed in light of the purposes of the Robinson-Patman Act. Similarly, to read “customer” more narrowly in this section than we did in the section involved in Meyer would allow price discriminators to avoid the sanctions of the Act by the simple expedient of adding an additional link to the distribution chain. Here, for example, Standard supplied gasoline and oil to Signal. Signal, allegedly because it furnished Standard with part of its vital supply of crude petroleum, was able to insist upon a discriminatorily lower price. Had Signal then sold its gas directly to the Regal stations, giving Regal stations a competitive advantage, there would be no question, even under the decision of the Court of Appeals in this case, that a clear violation of the Robinson-Patman Act had been committed. Instead of selling directly to the retailer Regal, however, Signal transferred the gasoline first to its subsidiary, Western Hyway, which in turn supplied the Regal stations. Signal owned 60% of the stock of Western Hyway; Western in turn owned 55% of the stock of the Regal stations. We find no basis in the language or purpose of the Act for immunizing Standard’s price discriminations simply because the product in question passed through an additional formal exchange before reaching the level of Perkins’ actual competitor. Erom Perkins’ point of view, the competitive harm done him by Standard is certainly no less because of the presence of an additional link in this particular distribution chain from the producer to the retailer. Here Standard discriminated in price between Perkins and Signal, and there was evidence from which the jury could conclude that Perkins was harmed competitively when Signal’s price advantage was passed on to Perkins’ retail competitor Regal. These facts are sufficient to give rise to recoverable damages under the Robinson-Patman Act. Before an injured party can recover damages under the Act, he must, of course, be able to show a causal connection between the price discrimination in violation of the Act and the injury suffered. This is true regardless of the “level” in the chain of distribution on which the injury occurs. The court below held that, as a matter of law, “Section 2 (a) of the Act does not recognize a causal connection, essential to liability, between a supplier’s price discrimination and the trade practices of a customer as far removed on the distributive ladder as Regal was from Standard.” 396 F. 2d, at 816. As we have noted above, we do not accept such an artificial limitation. If there is sufficient evidence in the record to support an inference of causation, the ultimate conclusion as to what that evidence proves is for the jury. Continental Co. v. Union Carbide, 370 U. S. 690, 700-701 (1962). Here the trial judge properly charged the jury that Perkins had the burden of showing that any damage to his business was proximately caused by Standard’s price discrimina-tions and there was substantial evidence from which the jury could infer causation. There was evidence that Signal received a lower price from Standard than did Perkins, that this price advantage was passed on, at least in part, to Regal, and that Regal was thereby able to undercut Perkins’ price on gasoline. Furthermore, there was evidence that Perkins repeatedly complained to Standard officials that the discriminatory price advantage given Signal was being passed down to Regal and evidence that Standard officials were aware that Perkins’ business was in danger of being destroyed by Standard’s discriminatory practices. This evidence is sufficient to sustain the jury’s award of damages under the Robinson-Patman Act. One other minor group of damages was found to be improper by the Court of Appeals and we conclude that this ruling was also erroneous. Perkins submitted some evidence tending to show that he as an individual had suffered financial losses because the two failing Perkins corporations (Perkins of Washington and Perkins of Oregon) were unable to pay him agreed brokerage fees for securing gasoline, rental on leases of service stations, and other indebtedness. The Court of Appeals, in order to give guidance to the trial judge at the proposed new trial, noted that, in its opinion, these damages were not proximately caused by Standard’s violations and that Perkins should not recover for these damages in a second trial. For this proposition the Court of Appeals cited Karseal Corp. v. Richfield Oil Corp., 221 F. 2d 358, 363, which held that “the rule is that one who is only incidentally injured by a violation of the antitrust laws,— the bystander who was hit but not aimed at, — cannot recover against the violator.” It is clear in this case, however, that Perkins was no mere innocent bystander; he was the principal victim of the price discrimination practiced by Standard. Since he was directly injured and was clearly entitled to bring this suit, he was entitled to present evidence of all of his losses to the jury. Moreover, it is obvious from the opinion of the Court of Appeals that this question was being decided, not because there was any reversible error at the first trial, but in order to give guidance for the conduct of any new trial. The record in this case does not show that the jury included an award for any of these minor items in its judgment. It is impossible to say that they were included because they were not covered in the trial judge’s charge to the jury. While the trial judge treated many items of damage specifically, there was no charge — either specific or general — upon which the jury could have felt free to include such items in its award. For this reason, the Court of Appeals could not have reversed the jury’s verdict in this case on this ground. Respondent has argued in its brief several minor trial rulings which it contends were in error. Most of these additional arguments were rejected by the Court of Appeals. We have examined the others and find them without merit. We therefore see no need to prolong this litigation which began nearly 10 years ago. The jury’s verdict and judgment should be reinstated. It is so ordered. Me. Justice Harlan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. Section 2 of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 730, as amended, 49 Stat. 1526, 15 U. S. C. § 13, provides in pertinent part as follows: “(a) It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, either directly or indirectly, to discriminate in price between different purchasers of commodities of like grade and quality, where either or any of the purchases involved in such discrimination are in commerce, where such commodities are sold for use, consumption, or resale within the United States or any Territory thereof or the District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States, and where the effect of such discrimination may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce, or to injure, destroy, or prevent competition with any person who either grants or knowingly receives the benefit of such discrimination, or with customers of either of them . . . .” Branded Dealers were independent operators of Standard’s Signal and Chevron stations who marketed gasoline and oil under Standard’s brand names. During the claim period the Signal Branded Dealers had no connection with Signal Oil & Gas Co., which is involved in this litigation as a wholesaler. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy 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. The three individual respondents in this case were convicted of felonies and have completed the service of their respective sentences and paroles. They filed a petition for a writ of mandate in the Supreme Court of California to compel California county election officials to register them as voters. They claimed, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, that application to them of the provisions of the California Constitution and implementing statutes which disenfranchised persons convicted of an “infamous crime” denied them the right to equal protection of the laws under the Federal Constitution. The Supreme Court of California held that “as applied to all ex-felons whose terms of incarceration and parole have expired, the provisions of article II and article XX, section 11, of the California Constitution denying the right of suffrage to persons convicted of crime, together with the several sections of the Elections Code implementing that disqualification..., violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Ramirez v. Brown, 9 Cal. 3d 199, 216-217, 507 P. 2d 1345, 1357 (1973). We granted certiorari, 414 U. S. 816 (1973). Article XX, § 11, of the California Constitution has provided since its adoption in 1879 that “[l]aws shall be made” to exclude from voting persons convicted of bribery, perjury, forgery, malfeasance in office, “or other high crimes.” At the time respondents were refused registration, former Art. II, § 1, of the California Constitution provided in part that “no alien ineligible to citizenship, no idiot, no insane person, no person convicted of any infamous crime, no person hereafter convicted of the embezzlement or misappropriation of public money, and no person who shall not be able to read the Constitution in the English language and write his or her name, shall ever exercise the privileges of an elector in this State.” Sections 310 and 321 of the California Elections Code provide that an affidavit of registration shall show whether the affiant has been convicted of “a felony which disqualifies [him] from voting.” Sections 383, 389, and 390 direct the county clerk to cancel the registration of all voters who have been convicted of "any infamous crime or of the embezzlement or misappropriation of any public money.” Sections 14240 and 14246 permit a voter’s qualifications to be challenged on the ground that he has been convicted of “a felony” or of “the embezzlement or misappropriation of public money.” California provides by statute for restoration of the right to vote to persons convicted of crime either by court order after the completion of probation, or, if a prison term was served, by executive pardon after completion of rehabilitation proceedings. California also provides a procedure by which a person refused registration may obtain judicial review of his disqualification. Each of the individual respondents was convicted of one or more felonies, and served some time in jail or prison followed by a successfully terminated parole. Respondent Ramirez was convicted in Texas; respondents Lee and Gill were convicted in California. When Ramirez applied to register to vote in San Luis Obispo County, the County Clerk refused to allow him to register. The Monterey County Clerk refused registration to respondent Lee, and the Stanislaus County Registrar of Voters (hereafter also included in references to clerks) refused registration to respondent Gill. All three respondents were refused registration because of their felony-convictions. In May 1972 respondents filed a petition for a writ of mandate in the Supreme Court of California, invoking its original jurisdiction. They named as defendants below the three election officials of San Luis Obispo, Monterey, and Stanislaus Counties who had refused to allow them to register, "individually and as representatives of the class of all other County Clerks and Registrars of Voters who have the duty of determining for their respective counties whether any ex-felon will be denied the right to vote.” The petition for a writ of mandate challenged the constitutionality of respondents’ exclusion from the voting rolls on two grounds. First, it was contended that California’s denial of the franchise to the class of ex-felons could no longer withstand scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Relying on the Court’s recent voting-rights cases, respondents argued that a compelling state interest must be found to justify exclusion of a class from the franchise, and that California could assert no such interest with respect to ex-felons. Second, respondents contended that application of the challenged California constitutional and statutory provisions by election officials of the State’s 58 counties was so lacking in uniformity as to deny them due process and “geographical... equal protection.” They appended a report by respondent California Secretary of State, and the questionnaires returned by county election officials on which it was based. The report concluded that there was wide variation in the county election officials’ interpretation of the challenged voting exclusions. The Supreme Court of California upheld the first contention and therefore did not reach the second one. I Before reaching respondents’ constitutional challenge, the Supreme Court of California considered whether a decision reached by the three county clerks not to contest the action, together with their representation to the court that they would henceforth permit all ex-felons whose terms of incarceration and parole had expired to register and vote, rendered this case moot. That court decided that it did not. The acquiescence of the three officials was in no way binding on election officials of the other 55 California counties in which respondents might choose to reside, and it was undisputed that there were many ex-felons among the residents of those counties who had been or would be refused registration on the ground challenged. Because the case posed a question of broad public interest, which was likely to recur and which should receive a statewide resolution, the court exercised its “inherent discretion to resolve the issue, 'even though an event occurring during its pendency would normally render the matter moot.’... This rule is particularly applicable to challenges to the validity of election laws.” 9 Cal. 3d, at 203, 507 P. 2d, at 1347. In addition to California cases, the court cited Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), and Goosby v. Osser, 409 U. S. 512 (1973). As a practical matter, there can be no doubt that there is a spirited dispute between the parties in this Court as to the constitutionality of the California provisions disenfranchising ex-felons. Even though the Supreme Court of California did not in fact issue a permanent writ of mandate, and therefore its judgment is in effect a declaratory judgment, an action for such relief may stem from a controversy that is “definite and concrete, touching the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests.” Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227, 240-241 (1937). By reason of the special relationship of the public officials in a State to the court of last resort of that State, the decision of the Supreme Court of California, if left standing, leaves them permanently bound by its conclusion on a matter of federal constitutional law. Cf. North Dakota Pharmacy Bd. v. Snyder’s Stores, 414 U. S. 156 (1973). This case in some respects presents stronger arguments for concluding that a live case or controversy remains than in other election cases in which we have addressed the question of mootness. Unlike Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U. S. 814 (1969), in which the particular candidacy was not apt to be revived in a future election, or Hall v. Beals, 396 U. S. 45 (1969), in which the voters who had been disenfranchised because of a residence requirement would not have suffered the same fate under the amended statute, respondents here are indefinitely disenfranchised by the provisions of California law which they challenge. While the situation in Moore v. Ogilvie, supra, was described as “ ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review/ ” 394 U. S., at 816, that involved here can best be described, in view of the Supreme Court of California's decision against the state officials and their obligation to follow the law as laid down by that court, as “incapable of repetition,” and therefore evading review. There are thus the strongest sorts of practical arguments, as well as the language of Moore v. Ogilvie, supra, which militate against a conclusion of mootness in this case. But purely practical considerations have never been thought to be controlling by themselves on the issue of mootness in this Court. While the Supreme Court of California may choose to adjudicate a controversy simply because of its public importance, and the desirability of a statewide decision, we are limited by the case-or-controversy requirement of Art. Ill to adjudication of actual disputes between adverse parties. The mootness problem here arises because, as it noted, the Supreme Court of California was assured by the three county clerks who were named as defendants that the three named plaintiffs would be allowed to register and vote. The three named plaintiffs resided respectively in the California counties of San Luis Obispo, Monterey, and Stanislaus, and the county clerks of those counties who were named as defendants neither defended the action in the Supreme Court of California nor sought review here. Petitioner here is the County Clerk of Mendocino County, who though of course bound by the judgment of the Supreme Court of California, since she was made a party to that action, has no concrete dispute with voters who reside in other counties. Thus if the case were limited to the named parties alone, it could be persuasively argued that there was no present dispute on the issue of the right to register between the three named individual respondents in this Court and the one named petitioner here. We think, however, that the unusual procedural history of the case in the Supreme Court of California leads to the conclusion that the litigation before us is not moot. The individual named plaintiffs brought their action in the Supreme Court of California on behalf of themselves and all other ex-felons similarly situated, and not simply those ex-felons residing in the counties in which the named plaintiffs resided. While only the county clerks of Stanislaus, Monterey, and San Luis Obispo were named parties defendant, they were designated in the original complaint filed in the Supreme Court of California “as representatives of the class of all other County Clerks.” The California Secretary of State was likewise named a party defendant. On the basis of this complaint, the Supreme Court of California issued an alternative writ of mandate directed to the three named county clerks “individually and as representatives of the class of all other County Clerks and Registrars of Voters,” directing them to register to vote not simply the three named plaintiffs, but “all ex-felons whose term of incarceration and parole have expired and who upon application demonstrate that they are otherwise fully qualified to vote,” or in the alternative to show cause why they had not done so upon the return date of the writ. Thus, while the Supreme Court of California did not in so many words say that it was permitting respondents to proceed by way of a “class action,” the fact that the court's process recited that the named clerks were subject to it “individually and as representatives of the class of all other County Clerks and Registrars of Voters,” and the fact that the beneficiaries of that process were not merely the named plaintiffs but “all ex-felons whose term of incarceration and parole [had] expired...” indicates that the court treated the action as one brought for the benefit of the class described in the petition for the writ of mandate. Petitioner Viola Richardson, the County Clerk of Mendocino County, filed a complaint in intervention in the action in the Supreme Court of California, alleging that the suit as framed by the named plaintiffs was gollusive, in that neither the three named county clerks nor the Secretary of State could be expected to contest the claims of plaintiffs. Petitioner Viola Richardson further alleged in her complaint of intervention that she was a party to a lawsuit brought against her by an ex-felon (also named Richardson) who had sought to register in Mendocino County, had been denied the right, and whose suit seeking to establish the right was then pending in the State Court of Appeal. The county clerks actually named as defendants in the mandate action each obeyed the alternative writ issued by the Supreme Court of California, and did not contest the named plaintiffs’ legal claim that they had a right to vote secured by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which overrode the contrary provisions of the California Constitution. The Secretary of State appeared in the action and generally denied the named plaintiffs’ essential claims. The Supreme Court of California, prior to the return date of the writ, issued an order denying petitioner Richardson’s motion to intervene, but instead ordered her added to the named defendants in the action along with the three other named county clerks and the Secretary of State. This action in the Supreme Court of California, coming as it did after the acquiescence of the named clerks in the counties in which the named plaintiffs resided, and yet at a time when the Secretary of State was still a party defendant who had answered the complaint, clearly indicates tó us that that court considered the action to be not only on behalf of the three named plaintiffs, but also on behalf of all ex-felons in California similarly situated. We are reinforced in this conclusion by the language quoted above from the alternative writ of mandate issued by the Supreme Court of California. Had the Supreme Court of California based its action on petitioner Richardson’s claim that the suit was collusive, and that it might become a binding precedent in her litigation then pending in the State Court of Appeal, it would seem to have been sufficient to grant the motion to intervene. But the court’s action adding petitioner Richardson as a named defendant would appear to have been based on its conclusion that at least some members of the class represented by the plaintiffs in fact resided in Mendocino County, and were there seeking to exercise their right to vote. In reaching such a conclusion, of course, the Supreme Court of California had before it petitioner Richardson’s allegation that at least her opponent in the litigation pending in the Court of Appeal was not merely seeking to register to vote in Mendocino County, but had brought a lawsuit to enforce his claim. At the time petitioner Richardson was added as a party defendant, the three named plaintiffs had obtained the relief which they sought, whereas the remaining members of the class, including petitioner Richardson’s opponent in the Court of Appeal litigation, had not. We have held that in the federal system one may not represent a class of which he is not a part, Bailey v. Patterson, 369 U. S. 31, 32-33 (1962), and if this action had arisen in the federal courts there would be serious doubt as to whether it could have proceeded as a class action on behalf of the class of ex-felons denied the right to register after the three named plaintiffs had been granted that right. Indiana Employment Security Div. v. Burney, 409 U. S. 540 (1973). But California is at liberty to prescribe its own rules for class actions, subject only to whether limits may be imposed by the United States Constitution, and we interpret its action in adding petitioner Richardson as a defendant to mean that it regarded her opponent in the Court of Appeal litigation, both as an unnamed member of the class of ex-felons referred to in the mandate complaint, and as one of a class actually seeking to register in Mendocino County, as a party to the action in the Supreme Court of California, albeit an unnamed one. In Brockington v. Rhodes, 396 U. S. 41 (1969), we emphasized in finding the case moot that appellant's “suit did not purport to be a class action, and he sought no declaratory relief.” Id., at 42. We said: “[I]n view of the limited nature of the relief sought, we think the case is moot because the congressional election is over. The appellant did not allege that he intended to run for office in any future election. He did not attempt to maintain a class action on behalf of himself and other putative independent candidates, present or future. He did not sue for himself and others similarly situated as independent voters, as he might have under Ohio law.... He did not séek a declaratory judgment, although that avenue too was open to him....” Id., at 43. Here, unlike Brockington, there was a class action, and relief in the nature of declaratory relief was granted. The decision below is not only binding on petitioner Richardson, and thus dispositive of her other Court of Appeal litigation, but also decides the federal constitutional question presented for the unnamed members of the classes represented below by petitioner and respondents, whose continuing controversy led the Supreme Court of California to conclude that this case was not moot. The briefs of the parties before us indicate that the adverse alignment in the Supreme Court of California continues in this Court, and we therefore hold the case is not moot. II Unlike most claims under the Equal Protection Clause, for the decision of which we have only the language of the Clause itself as it is embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment, respondents’ claim implicates not merely the language of the Equal Protection Clause of § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, but also the provisions of the less familiar § 2 of the Amendment: “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.” (Emphasis supplied.) Petitioner contends that the italicized language of § 2 expressly exempts from the sanction of that section disenfranchisement grounded on prior conviction of a felony. She goes on to argue that those who framed and adopted the Fourteenth Amendment could not have intended to prohibit outright in § 1 of that Amendment that which was expressly exempted from the lesser sanction of reduced representation imposed by § 2 of the Amendment. This argument seems to us a persuasive one unless it can be shown that the language of § 2, “except for participation in rebellion, or other crime,” was intended to have a different meaning than would appear from its face. The problem of interpreting the “intention” of a constitutional provision is, as countless cases of this Court recognize, a difficult one. Not only are there deliberations of congressional committees and floor debates in the House and Senate, but an amendment must thereafter be ratified by the necessary number of States. The legislative history bearing on the meaning of the relevant language of § 2 is scant indeed;. the framers of the Amendment were primarily concerned with the effect of reduced representation upon the States, rather than with the two forms of disenfranchisement which were exempted from that consequence by the language with which we are concerned here. Nonetheless, what legislative history there is indicates that this language was intended by Congress to mean what it says. A predecessor of § 2 was contained in an earlier draft of the proposed amendment, which passed the House of Representatives, but was defeated in the Senate early in 1866. The Joint Committee of Fifteen on Reconstruction then reconvened, and for a short period in April 1866, revised and redrafted what ultimately became the Fourteenth Amendment. The Journal of that Committee’s proceedings shows only what motions were made and how the various members of the Committee voted on the motions; it does not indicate the nature or content of any of the discussion in the Committee. While the Journal thus enables us to trace the evolution of the draft language in the Committee, it throws only indirect light on the intention or purpose of those who drafted § 2. See B. Kendrick, Journal of the Joint Committee of Fifteen on Reconstruction 104-120 (1914). We do know that the particular language of § 2 upon which petitioner relies was first proposed by Senator Williams of Oregon to a meeting of the Joint Committee on April 28, 1866. Senator Williams moved to strike out what had been § 3 of the earlier version of the draft, and to insert in place thereof the following: “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states which may be' included within this Union according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State excluding Indians not taxed. But whenever in any State the elective franchise shall be denied to any portion of its male citizens, not less than twenty-one years of age, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion or other crime, the basis of representation in such State shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens not less than twenty-one years of age.” Id., at 102. The Joint Committee approved this proposal by a lopsided margin, and the draft Amendment was reported to the House floor with no change in the language of §2. Throughout the floor debates in both the House and the Senate, in which numerous changes of language in § 2 were proposed, the language “except for participation in rebellion, or other crime” was never altered. The language of § 2 attracted a good deal of interest during the debates, but most of the discussion was devoted to its foreseeable consequences in both the Northern and Southern States, and to arguments as to its necessity or wisdom. What little comment there was on the phrase in question here supports a plain reading of it. Congressman Bingham of Ohio, who was one of the principal architects of the Fourteenth Amendment and an influential member of the Committee of Fifteen, commented with respect to § 2 as follows during the floor debates in the House: “The second section of the amendment simply provides for the equalization of representation among all the States of the Union, North, South, East, and West. It makes no discrimination. New York has a colored population of fifty thousand. By this section, if that great State discriminates against her colored population as to the elective franchise, (except in cases of crime,) she loses to that extent her representative power in Congress. So also will it be with every other State.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 2543 (1866). Two other Representatives who spoke to the question made similar comments. Representative Eliot of Massachusetts commented in support of the enactment of § 2 as follows: “Manifestly no State should have its basis of national representation enlarged by reason of a portion of citizens within its borders to which the elective franchise is denied. If political power shall be lost because of such denial, not imposed because of participation in rebellion or other crime, it is to be hoped that political interests may work in the line of justice, and that the end will be the impartial enfranchisement of all citizens not disqualified by crime.” Id., at 2511. Representative Eckley of Ohio made this observation: “Under a congressional act persons convicted of a crime against the laws of the United States, the penalty for which is imprisonment in the penitentiary, are now and always have been disfranchised, and a pardon did not restore them unless the warrant of pardon so provided. "... But suppose the mass of the people of a State are pirates, counterfeiters, or other criminals, would gentlemen be willing to repeal the laws now in force in order to give them an opportunity to land their piratical crafts and come on shore to assist in the election of a President or members of Congress because they are numerous? And let it be borne in mind that these latter offenses are only crimes committed against property; that of treason is against the nation, against the whole people — the highest known to the law.” Id., at 2535. The debates in the Senate did not cover the subject as exhaustively as did the debates in the House, apparently because many of the critical decisions were made by the Republican Senators in an unreported series of caucuses off the floor. Senator Saulsbury of Delaware, a Democrat who was not included in the majority caucus, observed: “It is very well known that the majority of the members of this body who favor a proposition of this character have been in very serious deliberation for several days in reference to these amendments, and have held some four or five caucuses on the subject.” Id., at 2869. Nonetheless, the occasional comments of Senators on the language in question indicate an understanding similar to that of the House members. Senator Johnson of Maryland, one of the principal opponents of the Fourteenth Amendment, made this argument: “Now it is proposed to deny the right to be represented of a part, simply because they are not permitted to exercise the right of voting. You do not put them upon the footing of aliens, upon the footing of rebels, upon the footing of minors, upon the footing of the females, upon the footing of those who may have committed crimes of the most heinous character. Murderers, robbers, houseburners, counterfeiters of the public securities of the United States, all who may have committed any crime, at any time, against the laws of the United States or the laws of a particular State, are to be included within the basis; but the poor black man, unless he is permitted to vote, is not to be represented, and is to have no interest in the Government.” Id., at 3029. Senator Henderson of Missouri, speaking in favor of the version of § 2 which had been reported by the Joint Committee in April, as opposed to the earlier provision of the proposal which had been defeated in the Senate, said this: “The States under the former proposition [the corresponding provision of the original Amendment reported by the Committee of Fifteen, which passed the House of Representatives but was defeated in the Senate] might have excluded the negroes under an educational test and yet retained their power in Congress. Under this they cannot. For all practical purposes,. under the former proposition loss of representation followed the disfranchisement of the negro only; under this it follows the disfranchisement of white and black, unless excluded on account of'rebellion or other crime.' ” Id., at 3033. Further light is shed on the understanding of those who framed and ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, and thus on the meaning of § 2, by the fact that at the time of the adoption of the Amendment, 29 States had provisions in their constitutions which prohibited, or authorized the legislature to prohibit, exercise of the franchise by persons convicted of felonies or infamous crimes. More impressive than the mere existence of the state constitutional provisions disenfranchising felons at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment is the congressional treatment of States readmitted to the Union following the Civil War. For every State thus readmitted, affirmative congressional action in the form of an enabling act was taken, and as a part of the readmission process the State seeking readmission was required to submit for the approval of the Congress its proposed state constitution. In March 1867, before any State was readmitted, Congress passed “An act to provide for the more efficient Government of the Rebel States,” the so-called Reconstruction Act. Act of Mar. 2, 1867, c. 153, 14 Stat. 428. Section 5 of the Reconstruction Act established conditions on which the former Confederate States would be readmitted to representation in Congress. It provided: “That when the people of any one of said rebel States shall have formed a constitution of government in conformity with the Constitution of the United States in all respects, framed by a convention of delegates elected by the male citizens of said State, twenty-one years old and upward, of whatever race, color, or previous condition, who have been resident in said State for one year previous to the day of such election, except such as may he disfranchised for participation in the rebellion or for felony at common law, and when such constitution shall provide that the elective franchise shall be enjoyed by all such persons as have the qualifications herein stated for electors of delegates, and when such constitution shall be ratified by a majority of the persons voting on the question of ratification who are qualified as electors for delegates, and when such constitution shall have been submitted to Congress for examination and approval, and Congress shall have approved the same, and when said State, by a vote of its legislature. elected under said constitution, shall have adopted the amendment to the Constitution of the United States, proposed by the Thirty-ninth Congress, and known as article fourteen, and when said article shall have become a part of the Constitution of the United States, said State shall be declared entitled to representation in Congress, and senators and representatives shall be admitted therefrom on their taking the oath prescribed by law, and then and thereafter the preceding sections of this act shall be inoperative in said State... (Emphasis supplied.) Section 5 was introduced as a Senate amendment to the House bill, which was concerned only with the establishment of military government in the former Confederate States. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 2d Sess., 1360-1361 (1867). The legislative history of the Reconstruction Act was recounted by Senator Henderson of Missouri, who ultimately voted for it: “As the bill originally came from the House it was a bald and naked proposition to establish without limitation of power or the time of its duration a purely military government for the ten States now unrepresented. This, in my judgment, was a most dangerous experiment.... “The Senate, being unwilling to embark on the experiment of pure military rule, modified the House bill by adopting what is known as the Blaine or Sherman amendment. This amendment conceded military rule, as asked by the House, but put some sort of limit to its duration. It provided that when the rebel States should adopt universal suffrage, regardless of color or race, excluding none, white or black, except for treason or such crimes as were felony at the common law, the regulation of exclusion to be left to the States themselves, and should adopt the constitutional amendment proposed at the last session of Congress... and so soon as a sufficient number of said States should adopt it to make it a part of the Constitution of the United States, then military law should cease and the States should be admitted, provided that Congress even then should see fit to receive them.” Id., at 1641. A series of enabling acts in 1868 and 1870 admitted those States to representation in Congress. The Act admitting Arkansas, the first State to be so admitted, attached a condition to its admission. Act of June 22, 1868, c. 69, 15 Stat. 72. That Act provided: “WHEREAS the people of Arkansas, in pursuance of the provisions of an act entitled ‘An act for the more efficient government of the rebel States,' passed March second, eighteen hundred and sixty-seven, and the act supplementary thereto, have framed and adopted a constitution of State government, which is republican, and the legislature of said State has duly ratified the amendment to the Constitution of the United States proposed by the Thirty-ninth Congress, and known as article fourteen: Therefore, “Be it enacted... That the State of Arkansas is entitled and admitted to representation in Congress as one of the States of the Union upon the following fundamental condition: That the constitution of Arkansas shall never be so amended or changed as to deprive any citizen or class of citizens of the United States of the right to vote who are entitled to vote by the constitution herein recognized, except as a punishment for such crimes as are now felonies at common law, whereof they shall have been duly convicted, under laws equally applicable to all the inhabitants of said State: Provided, That any alteration of said constitution prospective in its effect may be made in regard to the time and place of residence of voters.” The phrase “under laws equally applicable to all the inhabitants of said State” was introduced as an amendment to the House bill by Senator Drake of Missouri. Cong. Globe, 40th Cong., 2d Sess., 2600 (1868). Senator Drake's explanation of his reason for introducing his amendment is illuminating. He expressed concern that without that restriction, Arkansas might misuse the exception for felons to disenfranchise Negroes: “There is still another objection to the condition as expressed in the bill, and that is in the exception as to the punishment for crime. The bill authorizes men to be deprived of the right to vote ‘as a punishment for such crimes as are now felonies at common law, whereof they shall have been duly convicted.' There is one fundamental defect in that, and that is that there is no requirement that the laws under which men shall be duly convicted of these crimes shall be equally applicable to all the inhabitants of the State. It is a very easy thing in a State to make one set of laws applicable to white men, and another set of laws applicable to colored men.” Ibid. The same “fundamental condition” as was imposed by the act readmitting Arkansas was also, with only slight variations in language, imposed by the Act readmitting North Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida, enacted three days later. Act of June 25, Í868, c. 70, 15 Stat.. 73. That condition was again imposed by the Acts readmitting Virginia, Mississippi, Texas, and Georgia early in 1870. Act of Jan. 26, 1870, c. 10, 16 Stat. 62; Act of Feb. 1, 1870, c. 12, 16 Stat. 63; Act of Feb. 23, 1870, c. 19, 16 Stat. 67; Act of Mar. 30, 1870, c. 39, 16 Stat. 80; Act of July 15, 1870, c. 299, 16 Stat. 363. This convincing evidence of the historical understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment is confirmed by the decisions of this Court which have discussed the constitutionality of provisions disenfranchising felons. Although the Court has never given plenary consideration to the precise question of whether a State may constitutionally exclude some or all convicted felons from the franchise, we have indicated approval of such exclusions on a number of occasions. In two cases decided toward the end of the last century, the Court approved exclusions of bigamists and polygamists from the franchise under territorial laws of Utah and Idaho. Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U. S. 15 (1885); Davis v. Beason, 133 U. S. 333 (1890). Much more recently we have strongly suggested in dicta that exclusion of convicted felons from the franchise violates no constitutional provision. In Lassiter v. Northampton County Board of Elections, 360 U. S. 45 (1959), where we upheld North Carolina's imposition of a literacy requirement for voting, the Court said, id., at 51: “Residence requirements, age, previous criminal record (Davis v. Beason, 133 U. S. 333, 345-347) are obvious examples indicating factors which a State may take into consideration in determining the qualifications of voters.” Still more recently, we have summarily affirmed two decisions of three-judge District Courts rejecting constitutional challenges to state laws disenfranchising convicted felons. Fincher v. Scott, 352 F. Supp. 117 (MDNC1972), aff’d, 411 U. S. 961 (1973); Beacham v. Braterman, 300 F. Supp. 182 (SD Fla.), aff’d, 396 U. S. 12 (1969). Both District Courts relied on Green v. Board of Elections, 380 F. 2d 445 (1967), cert. denied, 389 U. S. 1048 (1968), where the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

B

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Per Curiam. According to an expert who testified during state posteonvietion relief, petitioner Demareus A. Sears performs at or below the bottom first percentile in several measures of cognitive functioning and reasoning. The cause of this abnormality appears to be significant frontal lobe brain damage Sears suffered as a child, as well as drug and alcohol abuse in his teens. But because — in the words of the state trial court — his counsel conducted a penalty phase investigation that was “on its face . . . constitutionally inadequate,” App. to Pet. for Cert. 27B, evidence relating to Sears’ cognitive impairments and childhood difficulties was not brought to light at the time he was sentenced to death. After finding constitutionally deficient attorney performance under the framework we set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (1984), the state postconviction court found itself unable to assess whether counsel’s inadequate investigation might have prejudiced Sears. App. to Pet. for Cert. 29B-30B. Because Sears’ counsel did present some mitigation evidence during Sears’ penalty phase — but not the significant mitigation evidence a constitutionally adequate investigation would have uncovered — the state court determined it could not speculate as to what the effect of additional evidence would have been. Id., at 30B. Accordingly, it denied Sears postconviction relief. Id., at 34B. Thereafter, the Supreme Court of Georgia summarily denied review of his claims. Id., at 1A. For the reasons that follow, it is plain from the face of the state court’s opinion that it failed to apply the correct prejudice inquiry we have established for evaluating Sears’ Sixth Amendment claim. We therefore grant the petition for writ of certiorari, vacate the judgment, and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. I In 1993, a Georgia jury convicted Sears of armed robbery and kidnaping with bodily injury (which also resulted in death), a capital crime under state law. See Ga. Code Ann. § 16-5-40(d)(4) (2006). During the penalty phase of Sears’ capital trial, his counsel presented evidence describing his childhood as stable, loving, and essentially without incident. Seven witnesses offered testimony along the following lines: Sears came from a middle-class background; his actions shocked and dismayed his relatives; and a death sentence, the jury was told, would devastate the family. See Pet. for Cert. 6-7. Counsel’s mitigation theory, it seems, was calculated to portray the adverse impact of Sears’ execution on his family and loved ones. 20 Record 5181. But the strategy backfired. The prosecutor ultimately used the evidence of Sears’ purportedly stable and advantaged upbringing against him during the State’s closing argument. With Sears, the prosecutor told the jury, “[w]e don’t have a deprived child from an inner city; a person who[m] society has turned its back on at an early age. But, yet, we have a person, privileged in every way, who has rejected every opportunity that was afforded him.” Pet. for Cert. 7-8 (quoting trial transcript; internal quotation marks omitted). The mitigation evidence that emerged during the state postconviction evidentiary hearing, however, demonstrates that Sears was far from “privileged in every way.” Sears’ home life, while filled with material comfort, was anything but tranquil: His parents had a physically abusive relationship, Exh. 26, 6 Record 1676 (Affidavit of Demetrius A. Sears), and divorced when Sears was young, Exh. 22, id., at 1654 (Affidavit of Virginia Sears Graves); he suffered sexual abuse at the hands of an adolescent male cousin, Exh. 26, id., at 1681-1682; his mother’s “favorite word for referring to her sons was ‘little mother fuckers,’ ” Exh. 3, 2 id., at 265 (Affidavit of Richard G. Dudley, Jr., M. D.); and his father was “verbally abusive,” Exh. 37, 6 id., at 1746-1747 (Affidavit of Carol Becci-Youngs), and disciplined Sears with age-inappropriate military-style drills, Exh. 3, 2 id., at 263-264; Exh. 19, 6 id., at 1622 (Affidavit of Prank Sears); Exh. 22, id., at 1651; Exh. 28, id., at 1694 (Affidavit of Kenneth Burns, Sr.). Sears struggled in school, demonstrating substantial behavior problems from a very young age. For example, Sears repeated the second grade, Exh. 6, 3 id., at 500-501, and was referred to a local health center for evaluation at age nine, Exh. 7, id., at 503, 504, 508. By the time Sears reached high school, he was “described as severely learning disabled and as severely behaviorally handicapped.” Exh. A to Exh. 1, 2 id., at 174-176 (Affidavit of Tony L. Strickland, M. S., Ph. D.). Environmental factors aside, and more significantly, evidence produced during the state postconviction relief process also revealed that Sears suffered “significant frontal lobe abnormalities.” Exh. 1, id., at 147. Two different psychological experts testified that Sears had substantial deficits in mental cognition and reasoning — i. e., “problems with planning, sequencing and impulse control,” ibid. — as a result of several serious head injuries he suffered as a child, as well as drug and alcohol abuse. See 1 Record 37-40 (Testimony of Dr. Strickland); id., at 95-96 (Testimony of Dr. Dudley). Regardless of the cause of his brain damage, his scores on at least two standardized assessment tests placed him at or below the first percentile in several categories of cognitive function, “making him among the most impaired individuals in the population in terms of ability to suppress competing impulses and conform behavior only to relevant stimuli.” Exh. 1, 2 id., at 148; see also 1 id., at 37. The assessment also revealed that Sears’ “ability to organize his choices, assign them relative weight and select among them in a deliberate way is grossly impaired.” Exh. 1, 2 id., at 149. From an etiological standpoint, one expert explained that Sears’ “history is replete with multiple head trauma, substance abuse and traumatic experiences of the type expected” to lead to these significant impairments. Id., at 150; see also 1 id., at 44. Whatever concern the dissent has about some of the sources relied upon by Sears’ experts — informal personal accounts, see post, at 960-963 (opinion of SCALIA, J.) — it does not undermine the well-credentialed expert’s assessment, based on between 12 and 16 hours of interviews, testing, and observations, see 1 Record 32, that Sears suffers from substantial cognitive impairment. Sears performed dismally on several of the forensic tests administered to him to assess his frontal lobe functioning. On the Stroop Word Interference Test, which measures response inhibition, id., at 36-37, 99.6% of those individuals in his cohort (which accounts for age, education, and background) performed better than he did. Ibid. On the Trail-Making B test, which also measures frontal lobe functioning, id., at 37-38, Sears performed at the first (and lowest) percentile. Id., at 38. Based on these results, the expert’s firsthand observations, and an extensive review of Sears’ personal history, the expert’s opinion was unequivocal: There is “clear and compelling evidence” that Sears has “pronounced frontal lobe pathology.” Id., at 68. Further, the fact that Sears’ brother is a convicted dr^g dealer and user, and introduced Sears to a life of crime, 6 id., at 1683-1686, actually would have been consistent with a mitigation theory portraying Sears as an individual with diminished judgment and reasoning skills, who may have desired to follow in the footsteps of an older brother who had shut him out of his life, post, at 962. And the fact that some of such evidence may have been “hearsay” does not necessarily undermine its value — or its admissibility — for penalty phase purposes. Post, at 961, n. 3. Finally, the fact that along with this new mitigation evidence there was also some adverse evidence is unsurprising, post, at 962-963, given that counsel’s initial mitigation investigation was constitutionally inadequate. Competent counsel should have been able to turn some of the adverse evidence into a positive — perhaps in support of a cognitive deficiency mitigation theory. In particular, evidence of Sears’ grandiose self-conception and evidence of his magical thinking, ibid., were features, in another well-credentialed expert’s view, of a “profound personality disorder.” 1 Record 104. This evidence might not have made Sears any more likable to the jury, but it might well have helped the jury understand Sears, and his horrendous acts — especially in light of his purportedly stable upbringing. Because they failed to conduct an adequate mitigation investigation, none of this evidence was known to Sears’ trial counsel. It emerged only during state postconviction relief. II Unsurprisingly, the state postconviction trial court concluded that Sears had demonstrated his counsel’s penalty phase investigation was constitutionally deficient. See Strickland, 466 U. S., at 688-(explaining that first inquiry when evaluating Sixth Amendment ineffectiveness claim is whether counsel’s representation “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness”). In its view, the cursory nature of counsel’s investigation into mitigation evidence— “limited to one day or less, talking to witnesses selected by [Sears’] mother” — was “on its face ... constitutionally inadequate.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 27B. What is surprising, however, is the court’s analysis regarding whether counsel’s facially inadequate mitigation investigation prejudiced Sears. See Strickland, supra, at 694. Although the court appears to have stated the proper prejudice standard, it did not correctly conceptualize how that standard applies to the circumstances of this case. Because Sears’ counsel did present some mitigation evidence during his penalty phase, the court concluded that “[t]his case cannot be fairly compared with those where little or no mitigation evidence is presented and where a reasonable prediction of outcome can be made.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 30B. The court explained that “it is impossible to know what effect [a different mitigation theory] would have had on [the jury].” Ibid. “Because counsel put forth a reasonable theory with supporting evidence,” the court reasoned, “[Sears]. . . failed to meet his burden of proving that there is a reasonable likelihood that the outcome at trial would have been different if a different mitigation theory had been advanced.” Ibid. There are two errors in the state court’s analysis of Sears’ Sixth Amendment claim. First, the court curtailed a more probing prejudice inquiry because it placed undue reliance on the assumed reasonableness of counsel’s mitigation theory. The court’s determination that counsel had conducted a constitutionally deficient mitigation investigation should have, at the very least, called into question the reasonableness of this theory. Cf. Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U. S. 510, 522 (2003) (explaining that “counsel’s failure to uncover and present voluminous mitigating evidence at sentencing could not be justified as a tactical decision . . . because counsel had not ‘fulfill[ed] their obligation to conduct a thorough investigation of the defendant’s background’” (quoting Williams v. Taylor, 529 U. S. 362, 396 (2000); alteration in original)). And, more to the point, that a theory might be reasonable, in the abstract, does not obviate the need to analyze whether counsel’s failure to conduct an adequate mitigation investigation before arriving at this particular theory prejudiced Sears. The “reasonableness” of counsel’s theory was, at this stage in the inquiry, beside the point: Sears might be prejudiced by his counsel’s failures, whether his haphazard choice was reasonable or not. Justice Scalia chides the Court for concluding that the trial court assumed, rather than found, that counsel’s mitigation theory was a reasonable one. Post, at 957. But our point is that any finding with respect to the reasonableness of the mitigation theory counsel utilized — in this case, family impact — is in tension with the trial court’s unambiguous finding that counsel’s investigation was itself so unreasonable as to be facially unconstitutional. This point is plain in Williams: We rejected any suggestion that a decision to focus on one potentially reasonable trial strategy — in that case, petitioner’s voluntary confession — was “justified by a tactical decision” when “counsel did not fulfill their obligation to conduct a thorough investigation of the defendant’s background.” 529 U. S., at 396. A “tactical decision” is a precursor to concluding that counsel has developed a “reasonable” mitigation theory in a particular case. Second, and more fundamentally, the court failed to apply the proper prejudice inquiry. We have never limited the prejudice inquiry under Strickland to cases in which there was only “little or no mitigation evidence” presented, App. to Pet. for Cert. 30B. True, we have considered cases involving such circumstances, and we have explained that there is no prejudice when the new mitigating evidence “would barely have altered the sentencing profile presented” to the decisionmaker, Strickland, 466 U. S., at 700. But we also have found deficiency and prejudice in other cases in which counsel presented what could be described as a superficially reasonable mitigation theory during the penalty phase. E. g., Williams, supra, at 398 (remorse and cooperation with police); Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U. S. 374, 378 (2005) (residual doubt). We did so most recently in Porter v. McCollum, 558 U. S. 30, 32 (2009) (per curiam), where counsel at trial had attempted to blame his client’s bad acts on his drunkenness, and had failed to discover significant mitigation evidence relating to his client’s heroic military service and substantial mental health difficulties that came to light only during postconviction relief, id., at 40-41. Not only did we find prejudice in Porter, but — bound by deference owed under 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(1) — we also concluded the state court had unreasonably applied Strickland’s prejudice prong when it analyzed Porter’s claim. Porter, supra, at 42. We certainly have never held that counsel’s effort to present some mitigation evidence should foreclose an inquiry into whether a facially deficient mitigation investigátion might have prejudiced the defendant. To the contrary, we have consistently explained that the Strickland inquiry requires precisely the type of probing and fact-specific analysis that the state trial court failed to undertake below. In the Williams decision, for instance, we categorically rejected the type of truncated prejudice inquiry undertaken by the state court in this case. 529 U. S., at 397-398. And, in Porter, we recently explained: “To assess [the] probability [of a different outcome under Strickland], we consider the totality of the available mitigation evidence — both that adduced at trial, and the evidence adduced in the habeas proceeding — and reweig[h] it against the evidence in aggravation.” 558 U. S., at 41 (internal quotation marks omitted; third alteration in original). That same standard applies — and will necessarily require a court to “speculate” as to the effect of the new evidence— regardless of how much or how little mitigation evidence was presented during the initial penalty phase. Indeed, it is exactly this kind of probing inquiry that Justice Scalia now undertakes, post, at 960-964, and that the trial court failed to do. In all circumstances, this is the proper prejudice standard for evaluating a claim of ineffective representation in the context of a penalty phase mitigation investigation. Ill A proper analysis of prejudice under Strickland would have taken into account the newly uncovered evidence of Sears’ “significant” mental and psychological impairments, along with the mitigation evidence introduced during Sears’ penalty phase trial, to assess whether there is a reasonable probability that Sears would have received a different sentence after a constitutionally sufficient mitigation investigation. See Porter, supra, at 40; Williams, supra, at 397-398; Strickland, supra, at 694. It is for the state court — and not for either this Court or even Justice Scalia — to undertake this reweighing in the first instance. Accordingly, the petition for certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed informa pauperis are granted. The judgment below is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. The Chief Justice and Justice Alito would deny the petition for a writ of certiorari. Although this is a state-court decision, it resolved a federal issue on exclusively federal-law grounds. We therefore have jurisdiction. 28 U. S. C. § 1257; see also Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U. S. 356 (2010) (reviewing state posteonvietion decision raising Sixth Amendment question). Seaxs was sentenced to death for the Kentucky murder of a woman whom he and an accomplice kidnaped in Georgia. Under Georgia law, a jury may “impose a death sentence for the offense of kidnapping with bodily injury on the ground that the offense of kidnapping with bodily injury was committed while the offender was engaged in the commission of the capital felon[y] of murder . . . .” Potts v. State, 261 Ga. 716, 720, 410 S. E. 2d 89, 93 (1991). So long as “the murder . . . [is] sufficiently a part of the same criminal transaction,” it may count as a “statutory aggravating circumstanc[e] of the offense of kidnapping with bodily injury.” Ibid., 410 S. E. 2d, at 94. Sears has raised a categorical Eighth Amendment challenge to the constitutionality of his death sentence for a kidnaping offense, which we decline to reach. And any jurisdictional or constitutional issue with respect to Georgia’s ability to execute Sears for a murder occurring in Kentucky is not before us. In the particular instance recounted in this affidavit, Sears’ art teacher stated that his father “berate[d] [him] in front of” the school principal and her during a parent-teacher conference. Exh. 37, 6 Record 1746. The event was significant: “I’ll never forget the way he bullied him,” the art teacher explained, “Mr. Sears was so verbally abusive and made such a scene, that it made everyone in the room uncomfortable.” Ibid. The art teacher had “never been in a conference where a parent severely criticized a child in the presence of his teachers and meant it, as Mr. Sears did.” Id., at 1747. Dr. Strickland, a psychologist, is the director of a mild head injury clinic and the Sports Concussion Institute at Centinella Freeman Medical Center in Los Angeles. 1 id., at 30. He is an associate professor of psychiatry in residence at the University of California at Los Angeles and directs a memory disorder and cerebral palsy clinic for that university’s department of neuroscience. Id., at 30-31. The State had no objection to his being tendered as an expert in neuropsychology. Id., at 31. During a colloquy with the court, Dr. Strickland further explained: “THE COURT: But by taking some history of head injuries, coupled with the results of the tests that you’ve given, you can comfortably conclude that the results of the tests that you’ve given were a consequence of frontal lobe head injuries? “THE WITNESS: Absolutely. And, moreover, Your Honor, the patient has a lesion on the front of his head, which is something I can observe.” Id., at 78. Like Georgia’s “necessity exception” to its hearsay rules, see Ga. Code Ann. § 24-3-l(b) (2006), we have also recognized that reliable hearsay evidence that is relevant to a capital defendant’s mitigation defense should not be excluded by rote application of a state hearsay rule. See Green v. Georgia, 442 U. S. 95, 97 (1979) (per curiam) (“Regardless of whether the proffered testimony comes within Georgia’s hearsay rule, under the facts of this ease its exclusion constituted a violation of the Due Process Clause .... The excluded testimony was highly relevant to a critical issue in the punishment phase of the trial”); see also Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U. S. 284, 302 (1973) (“In these circumstances, where constitutional rights directly affecting the ascertainment of guilt are implicated, the hearsay rule may not he applied mechanistically to defeat the ends of justice”). We take no view on whether the evidence at issue would satisfy the considerations we set forth in Green, or would be otherwise admissible under Georgia law. Dr. Dudley, a psychiatrist, completed his internship and residency at Northwestern University Medical Center, and has been board certified in psychiatry by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology for more than 35 years. 1 Record 91-92. The State also had no objection to his being tendered as an expert in psychiatry. Id., at 93. The court asked whether “there is a reasonable likelihood that the outcome of his trial would have been different if his counsel had done more investigation.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 29B-30B; see Strickland, 466 U. S., at 694 (“The defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome”). Channeling powers of telepathy, Justice Scalia asserts that what the trial court actually decided in this ease is that “Sears’ trial counsel presented a reasonable mitigation theory and offered evidence sufficient to support it, so the prejudice inquiry was more difficult — so difficult that Sears could not make the requisite showing.” Post, at 960. Such a highly favorable reading of the trial court’s analysis would be far more convincing had the trial court engaged with the evidence as Justice Scalia does. But it offered no such analysis in its opinion; indeed, it appears the court did not even conduct any real analysis, explaining that it was “impossible to know what effect” the evidence might have had on the jury. App. to Pet. for Cert. 30B (emphasis added). Moreover, the reasonableness of the theory is not relevant when evaluating the impact of evidence that would have been available and likely-introduced, had counsel completed a constitutionally adequate investigation before settling on a particular mitigation theory. This point was also plain in Williams: “Whether or not . . . omissions [in the investigation] were sufficiently prejudicial to have affected the outcome of sentencing,” they may nevertheless demonstrate deficiency. 529 U. S., at 396. The one inquiry, deficient mitigation investigation, is distinct from the second, whether there was prejudice as a result. See, e. g., Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U. S. 510, 515-516 (2003); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668, 700 (1984). Whether it did so implicitly is far from apparent, notwithstanding Justice Scaua’s suggestion to the contrary. See post, at 959-960. The trial court stated that the record was “largely silent” on “what [evidence] would have been shown if [additional mitigating evidence] had been sought.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 28B. This is a curious assertion in light of the 22 volumes of evidentiary hearing transcripts and submissions in the record, which spell out the findings discussed above. It also undermines any suggestion that the court did, in fact, do the reweighing Justice Scalia believes it undertook; it is plain the record is not “largely silent.” And it also undermines any suggestion that the court simply discounted the value of the testimony; had it made any such finding, the court could have easily stated, instead, that the record evidence was unpersuasive. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy 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. This is the latest in a line of contested matters that have come before us in this action that was brought in this Court by the State of Kansas against the State of Colorado concerning the Arkansas River. The Special Master has filed a Fifth and Final Report that includes a proposed judgment and decree, and Kansas has filed an exception to the Report, contending that the Special Master erred in concluding that 28 U. S. C. § 1821, which sets the witness attendance fee for a proceeding in “any court of the United States” at $40 per day, applies to cases within this Court’s original jurisdiction. Assuming for the sake of argument that Kansas is correct in its interpretation of the statutes at issue in this matter and that this Court has the authority to determine the amount that Kansas should recover in expert witness fees, we hold that the fee set out in § 1821 is nevertheless the appropriate fee. Accordingly, we overrule Kansas’ exception and approve the entry of the proposed judgment and decree. I Kansas filed this original action in 1985, claiming that Colorado had violated the Arkansas River Compact (Compact), 63 Stat. 145, by drilling irrigation wells that depleted water that should have been available for users in Kansas. In 1995, we accepted the recommendation of the Special Master that Colorado’s wells had violated the Compact, and we remanded for further proceedings to determine appropriate remedies. See Kansas v. Colorado, 514 U. S. 673. The Special Master then recommended that monetary damages be awarded as compensation. In 2001, we accepted all but one of the Special Master’s recommendations, modifying the remaining recommendation with respect to the starting date for an award of prejudgment interest. See Kansas v. Colorado, 533 U. S. 1. In 2004, we approved additional recommendations by the Special Master, and the case was again remanded. See Kansas v. Colorado, 543 U. S. 86. On remand, the Special Master approved a schedule to resolve remaining disputed issues. Consistent with our guidance, experts for the States were assigned greater responsibility for discussing and resolving issues. Because of the contributions of expert witnesses and the use of the Hydrologic-Institutional Model to determine compliance with the Compact, the parties resolved most of the disputed issues. See id., at 89. The sole remaining issue concerns Kansas’ application for expert witness fees. After the Special Master determined that Kansas was the prevailing party for purposes of awarding “costs,” Kansas submitted two alternative proposals for calculating the amount that it was entitled to recover for the costs it had incurred in retaining expert witnesses. The first proposal, which Kansas advocated, was based on the assumption that these fees were not limited by the $40 per day attendance fee set out in § 1821(b) and called for an award of $9,214,727.81 in expert witness fees. The other calculation, which was based on the assumption that § 1821(b) did apply, calculated the amount that Kansas was entitled to recover for expert witness fees at $162,927.94. After hearing argument, the Special Master held that §1821 applies in cases within our original jurisdiction. Based on this holding, the two States entered into a cost settlement agreement that provided for total witness costs of $199,577.19 but preserved the right of the States to file exceptions to the Special Master’s rulings on legal issues regarding costs. II Kansas argues that the Special Master erred in holding that § 1821(b) applies to cases within our original jurisdiction. Kansas contends that early statutes governing the award of costs in cases in the lower courts did not apply to this Court’s original cases and that this scheme has been carried forward to the present day. Kansas notes that the statutory provision authorizing the taxation of costs, 28 U. S. C. § 1920, authorizes “[a] judge or clerk of any court of the United States” to tax as costs “[f]ees . . . for . . . witnesses” and that the definition of the term “judge ... of the United States,” as used in Title 28, does not include a Justice of this Court. In Kansas’ view, § 1911, which provides that “[t]he Supreme Court may fix the fees to be charged by its clerk,” manifests Congress’ understanding that we should have the authority to determine the fees that may be recovered by a prevailing party in a case brought under our original jurisdiction. Kansas further maintains that “[e]ven if Congress had intended to regulate taxation of costs in the original jurisdiction of this Court, such an act would be subject to the Court’s ultimate authority to regulate procedure within its constitutionally created original jurisdiction.” Kansas’ Exception and Brief 10. Kansas therefore contends that our holding in Crawford Fitting Co. v. J. T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U. S. 437, 444 (1987), that district courts must adhere to the witness attendance fee limitations set forth in § 1821(b), is not relevant here. Colorado disagrees. Citing our decision in Crawford Fitting, Colorado argues that the $40 per day witness attendance fee limitation of § 1821(b) applies not only to cases in the district courts but also to our original eases. Colorado notes that § 1821(a)(1) prescribes the witness attendance fee for a proceeding in “any court of the United States” and that § 1821(a)(2) defines the term “ ‘court of the United States’ ” to include this Court. Colorado also contends that there is no precedent to support the argument that the Constitution prohibits Congress from imposing a limit on expert witness fees in cases within our original jurisdiction, and Colorado sees no justification for an award of costs for expert witness fees in excess of the limit in § 1821(b). Ill We find it unnecessary to decide whether Congress has attempted to regulate the recovery of expert witness fees by a prevailing party in a case brought under our original jurisdiction. Nor do we decide whether Kansas is correct in contending that Article III of the Constitution does not permit Congress to impose such a restriction. Assuming for the sake of argument that Kansas is correct in arguing that we have the discretion to determine the fees that are recoverable in original actions, we conclude that it is nevertheless appropriate to follow § 1821(b). Congress’ decision not to permit a prevailing party in the lower courts to recover its actual witness fee expenses may be seen as a decision to depart only slightly from the so-called “American Rule,” under which parties generally bear their own expenses. See Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U. S. 240 (1975) (the American Rule applies not only to attorney’s fees but also other costs of litigation, including expert witness fees and miscellaneous costs such as transcripts and duplication). While this policy choice is debatable, we see no good reason why the rule regarding the recovery of expert witness fees should differ markedly depending on whether a case is originally brought in a district court or in this Court. Many cases brought in the district courts are no less complex than those brought originally in this Court. And while the parties in our original cases sometimes are required to incur very substantial expert costs, as happened in the present case, the same is frequently true in lower court litigation. Thus, assuming for the sake of argument that the matter is left entirely to our discretion, we conclude that the best approach is to have a uniform rule that applies in all federal cases. We therefore hold that the expert witness attendance fees that are available in cases brought under our original jurisdiction shall be the same as the expert witness attendance fees that would be available in a district court under § 1821(b). We thus overrule Kansas’ exception to the Report of the Special Master. It is so ordered. JUDGMENT Judgment is awarded against the State of Colorado in favor of the State of Kansas for violations of the Arkansas River Compact resulting from postcompact well pumping in Colorado. Judgment is awarded in the amount of $34,615,146.00 for damages and prejudgment interest, including the required adjustment for inflation, arising from depletions of usable streamflow of the Arkansas River at the Colorado-Kansas Stateline in the amount of 428,005 acre-feet of water during the period 1950-1996. The damages were paid in full on April 29, 2005. Costs through January 31, 2006, including reallocation of Kansas’ share of the Special Master’s fees and expenses, are awarded to Kansas in the amount of $1,109,946.73. These costs were paid in full on June 29, 2006. By Stipulation, $100,000.00 of the Special Master’s fees and expenses are reallocated from the United States to Kansas. Kansas’ claims regarding the Winter Water Storage Program and the operation of Trinidad Reservoir and all Colorado Counterclaims are hereby dismissed. DECREE I. Injunction A. General Provisions 1. It is Ordered, Adjudged, and Decreed that the State of Colorado, its officers, attorneys, agents, and employees are hereby enjoined to comply with Article IV-D of the Arkansas River Compact by not materially depleting the waters of the Arkansas River, as defined in Article III of the Compact, in usable quantity or availability for use to the water users in Kansas under the Compact by Groundwater Pumping, as prescribed in this Decree, and more particularly: a. To prevent Groundwater Pumping in excess of the precompact pumping allowance of 15,000 acre-feet per year without Replacement of depletions to Usable State-line Flow in accordance with this Decree; b. To enforce the Colorado Use Rules with respect to Groundwater Pumping, unless John Martin Reservoir is spilling and Stateline water is passing Garden City, Kansas; and c. To enforce the Colorado Measurement Rules with respect to Groundwater Pumping. 2. Compliance with this Decree shall constitute Compact compliance with respect to Groundwater Pumping. B. Determination of Compact Compliance With Respect to Groundwater Pumping 1. Compact compliance with respect to Groundwater Pumping shall be determined using the results of the H-I Model over a moving ten-year period beginning with 1997, in accordance with the Compact Compliance Procedures described in Appendix A. Any Shortfall shall be made up by Colorado as specified in Section I.C of this Decree. 2. Annual Calculations of depletions and accretions to Usable Stateline Flow shall be determined using the H-I Model, in accordance with the procedures described in Appendix B and the Durbin usable flow method with the Larson coefficients, which is documented in Appendix C. Annual Calculations shall be done on a calendar year basis unless the States agree to a different year for the calculations. Accumulation of accretions shall be limited as described in Appendix D. The Annual Calculations for each of the years 1997-2006, found in Appendix E, are final, except as set forth in Section III of this Decree. Similarly, the results of Annual Calculations for years after 2006 shall be final for use in the ten-year Compact compliance accounting, when determined as provided in Appendices A and B, subject to the same provisos applicable to the 1997-2006 Annual Calculations. 3. Colorado shall be entitled to credit for Replacement of depletions to Usable Stateline Flow. The credit for Replacement shall be determined using the H-I Model, except for credit derived from operation of the Offset Account, which shall be determined as set out in Appendix F, and except for credit for direct deliveries of water to the State-line if the Offset Account does not exist, which shall be determined as set out in Appendix A. 4. The H-I Model may be improved by agreement of the States or pursuant to the Dispute Resolution Procedure contained in Appendix H. C. Repayment of Shortfalls 1. If there is a Shortfall, Colorado shall make up the Shortfall in accordance with the provisions of Appendix A. 2. Colorado shall make up a Shortfall by delivering water to the Offset Account in John Martin Reservoir to the extent that space is available. To the extent that space is not initially available in the Offset Account, Colorado shall make up the rest of such Shortfall by delivering water to the Offset Account as space becomes available. The timing, accounting, crediting, notice, and other matters related to deliveries of water to make up a Shortfall shall be accomplished pursuant to Appendix A. II. Dispute Resolution The States shall work together informally to the maximum extent possible to resolve any disagreements regarding implementation of this Decree. Disagreements that cannot be so resolved shall be submitted to the stipulated Dispute Resolution Procedure contained in Appendix H. III. Modification of Appendices to the Decree Appendices A-J may be modified only: (a) by agreement of the States or (b) pursuant to the Dispute Resolution Procedure, provided that the Colorado Measurement Rules and Colorado Use Rules may be amended by Colorado to the extent that Colorado can demonstrate that any such amendments will adequately protect Kansas’ rights under the Compact, and further provided that Appendix E shall not be modified except that it shall be subject to later determinations of Replacement credits to be applied toward Colorado's Compact obligations by the Colorado Division 2 Water Court and any appeals therefrom, and farther subject to the right of Kansas to seek relief from such Colorado Water Court determinations under the Court’s original jurisdiction. Disputes arising under this Section III shall be subject to the Dispute Resolution Procedure. IV. Retention of Jurisdiction A. The Court retains jurisdiction for a limited period of time after the end of the initial ten-year startup period (ending in 2006) for the purpose of evaluating the sufficiency of the Colorado Use Rules and their administration and whether changes to this Decree are needed to ensure Compact compliance. The procedures to be followed are set out in Appendix B.l, Part VII. B. The retained jurisdiction provided in Section IV.A of this Decree shall terminate at the end of 2008, unless, prior to December 31, 2008, either State has notified the Special Master that there is a dispute concerning the sufficiency or administration of the Use Rules that has been submitted to the Dispute Resolution Procedure. If either State notifies the Special Master as provided herein, the retained jurisdiction shall continue, and the States, within 60 days from the conclusion of the Dispute Resolution Procedure, shall request either further proceedings before the Special Master or termination of the retained jurisdiction provided for in Section IV.A of this Decree. The Special Master shall recommend to the Court such action as he deems appropriate. The Special Master shall be discharged upon termination of the retained jurisdiction provided for in Section IV.A of this Decree. C. Any of the parties may apply at the foot of this Decree for its amendment or for further relief. The Court retains jurisdiction of this suit for the purpose of any order, direction, or modification of the Decree, or any supplementary decree, that may at any time be deemed proper in relation to the subject matter in controversy. D. No application for relief under the retained jurisdiction in this Section IV shall be accepted unless the dispute has first been submitted to the Dispute Resolution Procedure. V. Definitions Whenever used in this Judgment and Decree, including Appendices, terms defined in the Compact shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Compact; in addition, the following terms shall mean: Acre-foot: The volume of water required to cover one acre of land to a depth of one foot, which is equal to 825,851 gallons; Annual Calculations: The calculation for each year of depletions and accretions to Usable Stateline Flow using the H-I Model, as described in Appendix B; Appendix: One of the Appendices listed in Section VI of this Decree and included in Volumes II and III of the Special Master's Fifth and Final Report in this case; Acceptable Sources of Water: As defined in Appendix G; ARCA: The Arkansas River Compact Administration created by Article VIII of the Compact; Colorado Measurement Rules: Amended Rules Governing the Measurement of Tributary Ground Water Diversions Located in the Arkansas River Basin, revised November 30, 2005, contained in Appendix 1.1, as they may be amended from time to time in accordance with Article III of this Decree; Colorado Use Rules: Amended Rules and Regulations Governing the Diversion and Use of Tributary Ground Water in the Arkansas River Basin, Colorado, Kan. Exh. 1123, contained in Appendix J.l, as they may be amended from time to time in accordance with Article III of this Decree; Compact: The Arkansas River Compact, 63 Stat. 145 (1949); Kan. Stat. Ann. §82a-520; Colo. Rev. Stat. §37-69-101; Dispute Resolution Procedure: As set out in Appendix H; Groundwater Pumping: Pumping of water from wells (other than the Wiley/Sapp Wells) in excess of 50 gallons per minute, from the alluvial and surficial aquifers along the mainstem of the Arkansas River between Pueblo, Colorado, and the Stateline within the domain of the H-I Model described in Appendix C.l; H-I Model: The Hydrologic-Institutional Model as described and documented in Appendix C.l; John Martin Reservoir: The reservoir constructed and operated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers on the mainstem of the Arkansas River approximately 58 miles upstream from the Stateline, as referred to in the Compact; Offset Account: The storage account established in John Martin Reservoir and operated in accordance with the ARCA Resolution Concerning an Offset Account in John Martin Reservoir for Colorado Pumping, dated March 17, 1997, as amended twice on March 30, 1998, and contained in Appendix L, as the same may be further amended by the ARCA; Replacement: Delivery of water from Acceptable Sources of Water to prevent depletions caused by Groundwater Pumping; Shortfall: A net depletion to Usable Stateline Flow based on the results of the H-I Model over a ten-year period using the Compact Compliance Accounting Procedures described in Appendix A; Usable Stateline Flow: Stateline flow as simulated by the H-I Model and determined to be usable pursuant to the Durbin usable flow method with the Larson coefficients, as set out in Appendix C.2; and Wiley/Sapp Wells: Wells decreed as alternate points of diversion for precompact surface water rights in Colorado by the District Court, Water Div. 2, State of Colorado, Case Nos. 82CW115 (W-4496), 82CW125 (W-4497), and 89CW82; see App. to Third Report of the Special Master 59-61. Chief Justice Roberts, with whom Justice Souter joins, concurring. I join the opinion of the Court in full. I do so only, however, because the opinion expressly and carefully makes clear that it in no way infringes this Court’s authority to decide on its own, in original cases, whether there should be witness fees and what they should be. Our appellate jurisdiction is, under the Constitution, subject to “such Exceptions, and . . . such Regulations as the Congress shall make.” Art. Ill, §2. Our original jurisdiction is not. The Framers presumably “act[ed] intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion” of these terms. INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U. S. 421, 432 (1987) (internal quotation marks omitted). It is accordingly our responsibility to determine matters related to our original jurisdiction, including the availability and amount of witness fees. For the reasons given by the Court, I agree that $40 is a reasonable choice for the fees at issue here. But the choice is ours. The Compact, which was approved by negotiators for the States of Kansas and Colorado in 1948, allows post-Compact development in Colorado provided that such development does not cause material depletions of usable stateline flows. The recommendations we approved in 2004 were: (1) that the Court not appoint a River Master; (2) that the amount of prejudgment interest be set; (3) that calculations regarding river depletions be made on a 10-year basis in order to even out possible inaccuracies in computer modeling; and (4) that a Colorado Water Court be given the authority to make certain determinations relevant to continuing implementation of agreements reached through this litigation. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy 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. Mr. Justice Douglas delivered the opinion of the Court. Petitioner was a member of one of respondent’s section crews and while in the course of his employment severely injured his back. He brought this action for damages in the Missouri courts under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 35 Stat. 65, 36 Stat. 291, 53 Stat. 1404, 45 U. S. C. § 51 et seq. There was a jury trial and a verdict for petitioner. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed, holding that plaintiff had not made out a sub-missible case either as to negligence or as to causation. 249 S. W. 2d 442. The case is here on certiorari. 344 U. S. 863. At the time of the injury petitioner was removing old or worn track ties. The rails would be jacked up, the spikes that held the rails pulled, the plates removed, and the tie pulled. The ties were usually pulled with tongs by two men. If there were any old spikes protruding downward from the tie into the ground, three or four men would usually be required to pull the tie. There were three other ways to remove a stubborn tie. One was to dig a trench beside the tie and then roll the tie into the trench. Another method was to jack the rail up high enough so the tie would come free. The objection to that method was that the ballast would run under the other ties and produce a hump in the track. Another way was to free the rail from the ties a half-rail length on each side of the tie to be removed and then to jack the rail up, freeing the tie sufficiently so that it could easily be moved. This method had disadvantages on a track as active as this one in that it meant putting up a flag and stopping trains. This day Stoughton, the straw boss, used only the first method. Petitioner and one Fish together were unable to remove a tie because, as it turned out, a spike was driven through it into the ground. Stoughton told petitioner he was not pulling hard enough. Stoughton put a bar under the far end of the tie while petitioner and Fish pulled again. Still the tie would not come. Stough-ton told petitioner to pull harder. Petitioner said he was pulling as hard as he could. Stoughton then said, “If you can’t pull any harder I will get somebody that will.” So petitioner, with Fish, gave a hard pull and hurt his back. The tie was finally pulled by four men— two pulling, one prying with a crowbar, one hammering with a maul; and it turned out that the tie had a spike driven through it and extending into the ground. We think the case was peculiarly one for the jury. The standard of liability is negligence. The question is what a reasonable and prudent person would have done under the circumstances. Wilkerson v. McCarthy, 336 U. S. 53, 61. The straw boss had additional men to put on the tongs. He also had three alternative methods for removing stubborn ties. This was not the first difficult tie encountered by the section crew in this stretch of track. The likelihood of injury to men pulling or lifting beyond their capacity is obvious. Whether the straw boss in light of the risks should have used another or different method to remove the tie or failing to do so was culpable is the issue. To us it appears to be a debatable issue on which fair-minded men would differ. Cf. Bailey v. Central Vermont R. Co., 319 U. S. 350, 353; Urie v. Thompson, 337 U. S. 163, 178. The experience with stubborn ties, the alternative ways of removing them, the warning by petitioner that he had been pulling as hard as he could, the command of his superior to pull harder, the fact that more than two men were usually used in these circumstances — all these facts comprise the situation to be appraised in determining whether respondent was negligent. Those circumstances were for the trier of facts to appraise. Cf. Blair v. B. & O. R. Co., 323 U. S. 600, 604. The fact that the employee, commanded to do the act that caused the injury, first protested does not place the risk of injury on him. Id., p. 605. We think there was evidence of a causal connection between the order of Stoughton to pull harder and petitioner’s back injury. The fact that fair-minded men might likewise reach different conclusions on this branch of the case emphasizes the appropriateness of also leaving it to the jury. Ellis v. Union Pacific R. Co., 329 U. S. 649, 653; Coray v. Southern Pacific Co., 335 U. S. 520, 523; Carter v. Atlanta & St. A. B. R. Co., 338 U. S. 430, 433. Reversed. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

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 Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court. This case concerns the authority the Constitution assigns to Congress to prescribe the duration of copyrights. The Copyright and Patent Clause of the Constitution, Art. I, §8, cl. 8, provides as to copyrights: “Congress shall have Power... [t]o promote the Progress of Science... by securing [to Authors] for limited Times... the exclusive Right to their... Writings.” In 1998, in the measure here under inspection, Congress enlarged the duration of copyrights by 20 years. Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA), Pub. L. 105-298, §§ 102(b) and (d), 112 Stat. 2827-2828 (amending 17 U. S. C. §§ 302, 304). As in the case of prior extensions, principally in 1831, 1909, and 1976, Congress provided for application of the enlarged terms to existing and future copyrights alike. Petitioners are individuals and businesses whose products or services build on copyrighted works that have gone into the public domain. They seek a determination that the CTEA fails constitutional review under both the Copyright Clause’s “limited Times” prescription and the First Amendment’s free speech guarantee. Under the 1976 Copyright Act, copyright protection generally lasted from the work’s creation until 50 years after the author’s death. Pub. L. 94-553, § 302(a), 90 Stat. 2572 (1976 Act). Under the CTEA, most copyrights now run from creation until 70 years after the author’s death. 17 U. S. C. § 302(a). Petitioners do not challenge the “life-plus-70-years” timespan itself. “Whether 50 years is enough, or 70 years too much,” they acknowledge, “is not a judgment meet for this Court.” Brief for Petitioners 14. Congress went awry, petitioners maintain, not with respect to newly created works, but in enlarging the term for published works with existing copyrights. The “limited Tim[e]” in effect when a copyright is secured, petitioners urge, becomes the constitutional boundary, a clear line beyond the power of Congress to extend. See ibid. As to the First Amendment, petitioners contend that the CTEA is a content-neutral regulation of speech that fails inspection under the heightened judicial scrutiny appropriate for such regulations. In accord with the District Court and the Court of Appeals, we reject petitioners’ challenges to the CTEA. In that 1998 legislation, as in all previous copyright term extensions, Congress placed existing and future copyrights in parity. In prescribing that alignment, we hold, Congress acted within its authority and did not transgress constitutional limitations. I A We evaluate petitioners’ challenge to the constitutionality of the CTEA against the backdrop of Congress’ previous exercises of its authority under the Copyright Clause. The Nation’s first copyright statute, enacted in 1790, provided a federal copyright term of 14 years from the date of publication, renewable for an additional 14 years if the author survived the first term. Act of May 31, 1790, ch. 15, § 1, 1 Stat. 124 (1790 Act). The 1790 Act’s renewable 14-year term applied to existing works (i. e., works already published and works created but not yet published) and future works alike. Ibid. Congress expanded the federal copyright term to 42 years in 1831 (28 years from publication, renewable for an additional 14 years), and to 56 years in 1909 (28 years from publication, renewable for an additional 28 years). Act of Feb. 3, 1831, ch. 16, §§ 1, 16, 4 Stat. 436, 439 (1831 Act); Act of Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 320, §§23-24, 35 Stat. 1080-1081 (1909 Act). Both times, Congress applied the new copyright term to existing and future works, 1831 Act §§ 1, 16; 1909 Act §§23-24; to qualify for the 1831 extension, an existing work had to be in its initial copyright term at the time the Act became effective, 1831 Act §§ 1, 16. In 1976, Congress altered the method for computing federal copyright terms. 1976 Act §§ 302-304. For works created by identified natural persons, the 1976 Act provided that federal copyright protection would run from the work’s creation, not — as in the 1790, 1831, and 1909 Acts — its publication; protection would last until 50 years after the author’s death. § 302(a). In these respects, the 1976 Act aligned United States copyright terms with the then-dominant international standard adopted under the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. See H. R. Rep. No. 94-1476, p. 135 (1976). For anonymous works, pseudonymous works, and works made for hire, the 1976 Act provided a term of 75 years from publication or 100 years from creation, whichever expired first. § 302(c). These new copyright terms, the 1976 Act instructed, governed all works not published by its effective date of January 1, 1978, regardless of when the works were created. §§ 302-303. For published works with existing copyrights as of that date, the 1976 Act granted a copyright term of 75 years from the date of publication, §§ 304(a) and (b), a 19-year increase over the 56-year term applicable under the 1909 Act. The measure at issue here, the CTEA, installed the fourth major duration extension of federal copyrights. Retaining the general structure of the 1976 Act, the CTEA enlarges the terms of all existing and future copyrights by 20 years. For works created by identified natural persons, the term now lasts from creation until 70 years after the author’s death. 17 U. S. C. § 302(a). This standard harmonizes the baseline United States copyright term with the term adopted by the European Union in 1993. See Council Directive 93/98/EEC of 29 October 1993 Harmonizing the Term of Protection of Copyright and Certain Related Rights, 1993 Official J. Eur. Corns. (L 290), p. 9 (EU Council Directive 93/ 98). For anonymous works, pseudonymous works, and works made for hire, the term is 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first. 17 U. S. C. § 302(c). Paralleling the 1976 Act, the CTEA applies these new terms to all works not published by January 1, 1978. §§ 302(a), 303(a). For works published before 1978 with existing copyrights as of the CTEA’s effective date, the CTEA extends the term to 95 years from publication. §§ 304(a) and (b). Thus, in common with the 1831, 1909, and 1976 Acts, the CTEA’s new terms apply to both future and existing copyrights. B Petitioners’ suit challenges the CTEA’s constitutionality under both the Copyright Clause and the First Amendment. On cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings, the District Court entered judgment for the Attorney General (respondent here). 74 F. Supp. 2d 1 (DC 1999). The court held that the CTEA does not violate the “limited Times” restriction of the Copyright Clause because the CTEA’s terms, though longer than the 1976 Act’s terms, are still limited, not perpetual, and therefore fit within Congress’ discretion. Id., at 3. The court also held that “there are no First Amendment rights to use the copyrighted works of others.” Ibid. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed. 239 F. 3d 372 (2001). In that court’s unanimous view, Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U. S. 539 (1985), foreclosed petitioners’ First Amendment challenge to the CTEA. 239 F. 3d, at 375. Copyright, the court reasoned, does not impermissibly restrict free speech, for it grants the author an exclusive right only to the specific form of expression; it does not shield any idea or fact contained in the copyrighted work, and it allows for “fair use” even of the expression itself. Id., at 375-376. A majority of the Court of Appeals also upheld the CTEA against petitioners’ contention that the measure exceeds Congress’ power under the Copyright Clause. Specifically, the court rejected petitioners’ plea for interpretation of the “limited Times” prescription not discretely but with a view to the “preambular statement of purpose” contained in the Copyright Clause: “To promote the Progress of Science.” Id., at 377-378. Circuit precedent, Schnapper v. Foley, 667 F. 2d 102 (CADC 1981), the court determined, precluded that plea. In this regard, the court took into account petitioners’ acknowledgment that the preamble itself places no substantive limit on Congress’ legislative power. 239 F. 3d, at 378. The appeals court found nothing in the constitutional text or its history to suggest that “a term of years for a copyright is not a ‘limited Time’ if it may later be extended for another ‘limited Time.’ ” Id., at 379. The court recounted that “the First Congress made the Copyright Act of 1790 applicable to subsisting copyrights arising under the copyright laws of the several states.” Ibid. That construction of Congress’ authority under the Copyright Clause “by [those] contemporary with [the Constitution’s] formation,” the court said, merited “very great” and in this ease “almost conclusive” weight. Ibid. (quoting Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U. S. 53, 57 (1884)). As early as McClurg v. Kingsland, 1 How. 202 (1843), the Court of Appeals added, this Court had made it “plain” that the same Clause permits Congress to “amplify the terms of an existing patent.” 239 F. 3d, at 380. The appeals court recognized that this Court has been similarly deferential to the judgment of Congress in the realm of copyright. Ibid. (citing Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U. S. 417 (1984); Stewart v. Abend, 495 U. S. 207 (1990)). Concerning petitioners’ assertion that Congress might evade the limitation on its authority by stringing together “an unlimited number of ‘limited Times,’ ” the Court of Appeals stated that such legislative misbehavior “clearly is not the situation before us.” 239 F. 3d, at 379. Rather, the court noted, the CTEA “matches” the baseline term for “United States copyrights [with] the terms of copyrights granted by the European Union.” Ibid. “[I]n an era of multinational publishers and instantaneous electronic transmission,” the court said, “harmonization in this regard has obvious practical benefits” and is “a ‘necessary and proper’ measure to meet contemporary circumstances rather than a step on the way to making copyrights perpetual.” Ibid. Judge Sentelle dissented in part. He concluded that Congress lacks power under the Copyright Clause to expand the copyright terms of existing works. Id., at 380-384. The Court of Appeals subsequently denied rehearing and rehearing en banc. 255 F. 3d 849 (2001). We granted certiorari to address two questions: whether the CTEA’s extension of existing copyrights exceeds Congress’ power under the Copyright Clause; and whether the CTEA’s extension of existing and future copyrights violates the First Amendment. 534 U. S. 1126 and 1160 (2002). We now answer those two questions in the negative and affirm. II A We address first the determination of the courts below that Congress has authority under the Copyright Clause to extend the terms of existing copyrights. Text, history, and precedent, we conclude, confirm that the Copyright Clause empowers Congress to prescribe “limited Times” for copyright protection and to secure the same level and duration of protection for all copyright holders, present and future. The CTEA’s baseline term of life plus 70 years, petitioners concede, qualifies as a “limited Tim[e]” as applied to future copyrights. Petitioners contend, however, that existing copyrights extended to endure for that same term are not “limited.” Petitioners’ argument essentially reads into the text of the Copyright Clause the command that a time prescription, once set, becomes forever “fixed” or “inalterable.” The word “limited,” however, does not convey a meaning so constricted. At the time of the Framing, that word meant what it means today: “confine[d] within certain bounds,” “restrain[ed],” or “circumscribe[d].” S. Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language (7th ed. 1785); see T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (6th ed. 1796) (“confine[d] within certain bounds”); Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1312 (1976) (“confined within limits”; “restricted in extent, number, or duration”). Thus understood, a timespan appropriately “limited” as applied to future copyrights does not automatically cease to be “limited” when applied to existing copyrights. And as we observe, infra, at 209-210, there is no cause to suspect that a purpose to evade the “limited Times” prescription prompted Congress to adopt the CTEA. To comprehend the scope of Congress’ power under the Copyright Clause, “a page of history is worth a volume of logic.” New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U. S. 345, 349 (1921) (Holmes, J.). History reveals an unbroken congressional practice of granting to authors of works with existing copyrights the benefit of term extensions so that all under copyright protection will be governed evenhandedly under the same regime. As earlier recounted, see supra, at 194, the First Congress accorded the protections of the Nation’s first federal copyright statute to existing and future works alike. 1790 Act §1. Since then, Congress has regularly applied duration extensions to both existing and future copyrights. 1831 Act §§ 1, 16; 1909 Act §§23-24; 1976 Act §§302-303; 17 U. S. C. §§302-304. Because the Clause empowering Congress to confer copyrights also authorizes patents, congressional practice with respect to patents informs our inquiry. We count it significant that early Congresses extended the duration of numerous individual patents as well as copyrights. See, e. g., Act of Jan. 7, 1808, ch. 6, 6 Stat. 70 (patent); Act of Mar. 3, 1809, ch. 35, 6 Stat. 80 (patent); Act of Feb. 7, 1815, ch. 36, 6 Stat. 147 (patent); Act of May 24, 1828, ch. 145, 6 Stat. 389 (copyright); Act of Feb. 11, 1830, ch. 13, 6 Stat. 403 (copyright); see generally Ochoa, Patent and Copyright Term Extension and the Constitution: A Historical Perspective, 49 J. Copyright Soc. 19 (2001). The courts saw no “limited Times” impediment to such extensions; renewed or extended terms were upheld in the early days, for example, by Chief Justice Marshall and Justice Story sitting as circuit justices. See Evans v. Jordan, 8 F. Cas. 872, 874 (No. 4,564) (CC Va. 1813) (Marshall, J.) (“Th[e] construction of the constitution which admits the renewal of a patent, is not controverted. A renewed patent... confers the same rights, with an original.”), aff’d, 9 Cranch 199 (1815); Blanchard v. Sprague, 3 F. Cas. 648, 650 (No. 1,518) (CC Mass. 1839) (Story, J.) (“I never have entertained any doubt of the constitutional authority of congress” to enact a 14-year patent extension that “operates retrospectively”); see also Evans v. Robinson, 8 F. Cas. 886, 888 (No. 4,571) (CC Md. 1813) (Congresses “have the exclusive right... to limit the times for which a patent right shall be granted, and are not restrained from renewing a patent or prolonging” it.). Further, although prior to the instant case this Court did not have occasion to decide whether extending the duration of existing copyrights complies with the “limited Times” prescription, the Court has found no constitutional barrier to the legislative expansion of existing patents. McClurg v. Kingsland, 1 How. 202 (1843), is the pathsetting precedent. The patentee in that case was unprotected under the law in force when the patent issued because he had allowed his employer briefly to practice the invention before he obtained the patent. Only upon enactment, two years later, of an exemption for such allowances did the patent become valid, retroactive to the time it issued. McClurg upheld retroactive application of the new law. The Court explained that the legal regime governing a particular patent “depend[s] on the law as it stood at the emanation of the patent, together with such changes as have been since made; for though they may be retrospective in their operation, that is not a sound objection to their validity.” Id., at 206. Neither is it a sound objection to the validity of a copyright term extension, enacted pursuant to the same constitutional grant of authority, that the enlarged term covers existing copyrights. Congress’ consistent historical practice of applying newly enacted copyright terms to future and existing copyrights reflects a judgment stated concisely by Representative Huntington at the time of the 1831 Act: “[J]ustice, policy, and equity alike forb[id]” that an “author who had sold his [work] a week ago, be placed in a worse situation than the author who should sell his work the day after the passing of [the] act.” 7 Cong. Deb. 424 (1831); accord, Symposium, The Constitutionality of Copyright Term Extension, 18 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L. J. 651, 694 (2000) (Prof. Miller) (“[S]ince 1790, it has indeed been Congress’s policy that the author of yesterday’s work should not get a lesser reward than the author of tomorrow’s work just because Congress passed a statute lengthening the term today.”). The CTEA follows this historical practice by keeping the duration provisions of the 1976 Act largely in place and simply adding 20 years to each of them. Guided by text, history, and precedent, we cannot agree with petitioners’ submission that extending the duration of existing copyrights is categorically beyond Congress’ authority under the Copyright Clause. Satisfied that the CTEA complies with the “limited Times” prescription, we turn now to whether it is a rational exercise of the legislative authority conferred by the Copyright Clause. On that point, we defer substantially to Congress. Sony, 464 U. S., at 429 (“[I]t is Congress that has been assigned the task of defining the scope of the limited monopoly that should be granted to authors... in order to give the public appropriate access to their work product.”). The CTE A reflects judgments of a kind Congress typically makes, judgments we cannot dismiss as outside the Legislature’s domain. As respondent describes, see Brief for Respondent 37-38, a key factor in the CTEA’s passage was a 1993 European Union (EU) directive instructing EU members to establish a copyright term of life plus 70 years. EU Council Directive 93/98, Art. 1(1), p. 11; see 144 Cong. Rec. S12377-S12378 (daily ed. Oct. 12, 1998) (statement of Sen. Hatch). Consistent with the Berne Convention, the EU directed its members to deny this longer term to the works of any non-EU country whose laws did not secure the same extended term. See Berne Conv. Art. 7(8); R Goldstein, International Copyright § 5.3, p. 239 (2001). By extending the baseline United States copyright term to life plus 70 years, Congress sought to ensure that American authors would receive the same copyright protection in Europe as their European counterparts. The CTEA may also provide greater incentive for American and other authors to create and disseminate their work in the United States. See Perlmutter, Participation in the International Copyright System as a Means to Promote the Progress of Science and Useful Arts, 36 Loyola (LA) L. Rev. 823, 330 (2002) (“Matching th[e] level of [copyright] protection in the United States [to that in the EU] can ensure stronger protection for U. S. works abroad and avoid competitive disadvantages vis-á-vis foreign rightholders.”); see also id., at 332 (the United States could not “play a leadership role” in the give-and-take evolution of the international copyright system, indeed it would “lose all flexibility,” “if the only way to promote the progress of science were to provide incentives to create new works”). In addition to international concerns, Congress passed the CTEA in light of demographic, economic, and technological changes, Brief for Respondent 25-26, 38, and nn. 23 and 24, and rationally credited projections that longer terms would encourage copyright holders to invest in the restoration and public distribution of their works, id., at 34-37; see H. R. Rep. No. 105-452, p. 4 (1998) (term extension “provide[s] copyright owners generally with the incentive to restore older works and further disseminate them to the public”). In sum, we find that the CTEA is a rational enactment; we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be. Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the CTEA — which continues the unbroken congressional practice of treating future and existing copyrights in parity for term extension purposes — is an impermissible exercise of Congress’ power under the Copyright Clause. B Petitioners’ Copyright Clause arguments rely on several novel readings of the Clause. We next address these arguments and explain why we find them unpersuasive. 1 Petitioners contend that even if the CTEA’s 20-year term extension is literally a “limited Tim[e],” permitting Congress to extend existing copyrights allows it to evade the “limited Times” constraint by creating effectively perpetual copyrights through repeated extensions. We disagree. As the Court of Appeals observed, a regime of perpetual copyrights “clearly is not the situation before us.” 239 F. 3d, at 379. Nothing before this Court warrants construction of the CTEA’s 20-year term extension as a congressional attempt to evade or override the “limited Times” constraint. Critically, we again emphasize, petitioners fail to show how the CTEA crosses a constitutionally significant threshold with respect to “limited Times” that the 1831, 1909, and 1976 Acts did not. See supra, at 194-196; Austin, supra n. 13, at 56 (“If extending copyright protection to works already in existence is constitutionally suspect,” so is “extending the protections of U. S. copyright law to works by foreign authors that had already been created and even first published when the federal rights attached.”). Those earlier Acts did not create perpetual copyrights, and neither 'does the CTEA. 2 Petitioners dominantly advance a series of arguments all premised on the proposition that Congress may not extend an existing copyright absent new consideration from the author. They pursue this main theme under three headings. Petitioners contend that the CTEA’s extension of existing copyrights (1) overlooks the requirement of “originality,” (2) fails to “promote the Progress of Science,” and (3) ignores copyright’s quid pro quo. Petitioners’ “originality” argument draws on Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U. S. 340 (1991). In Feist, we observed that “[t]he sine qua non of copyright is originality,” id., at 345, and held that copyright protection is unavailable to “a narrow category of works in which the creative spark is utterly lacking or so trivial as to be virtually nonexistent,” id., at 359. Relying on Feist, petitioners urge that even if a work is sufficiently “original” to qualify for copyright protection in the first instance, any extension of the copyright’s duration is impermissible because, once published, a work is no longer original. Feist, however, did not touch on the duration of copyright protection. Rather, the decision addressed the core question of copyrightability, i. e., the “creative spark” a work must have to be eligible for copyright protection at all. Explaining the originality requirement, Feist trained on the Copyright Clause words “Authors” and “Writings.” Id., at 346-347. The decision did not construe the “limited Times” for which a work may be protected, and the originality requirement has no bearing on that prescription. More forcibly, petitioners contend that the CTEA’s extension of existing copyrights does not “promote the Progress of Science” as contemplated by the preambular language of the Copyright Clause. Art. I, § 8, cl. 8. To sustain this objection, petitioners do not argue that the Clause’s preamble is an independently enforceable limit on Congress’ power. See 239 F. 3d, at 378 (Petitioners acknowledge that “the preamble of the Copyright Clause is not a substantive limit on Congress’ legislative power.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Rather, they maintain that the preambular language identifies the sole end to which Congress may legislate; accordingly, they conclude, the meaning of “limited Times” must be “determined in light of that specified end.” Brief for Petitioners 19. The CTEA’s extension of existing copyrights categorically fails to “promote the Progress of Science,” petitioners argue, because it does not stimulate the creation of new works but merely adds value to works already created. As petitioners point out, we have described the Copyright Clause as “both a grant of power and a limitation,” Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U. S. 1, 5 (1966), and have said that “[t]he primary objective of copyright” is “[t]o promote the Progress of Science,” Feist, 499 U. S., at 349. The “constitutional command,” we have recognized, is that Congress, to the extent it enacts copyright laws at all, create a “system” that “promotefs] the Progress of Science.” Graham, 383 U. S., at 6. We have also stressed, however, that it is generally for Congress, not the courts, to decide how best to pursue the Copyright Clause’s objectives. See Stewart v. Abend, 495 U. S., at 230 (“Th[e] evolution of the duration of copyright protection tellingly illustrates the difficulties Congress faces.... [I]t is not our role to alter the delicate balance Congress has labored to achieve.”); Sony, 464 U. S., at 429 (“[I]t is Congress that has been assigned the task of defining the scope of [rights] that should be granted to authors or to inventors in order to give the public appropriate access to their work product.”); Graham, 383 U. S., at 6 (“Within the limits of the constitutional grant, the Congress may, of course, implement the stated purpose of the Framers by selecting the policy which in its judgment best effectuates the constitutional aim.”). The justifications we earlier set out for Congress’ enactment of the CTEA, supra, at 205-207, provide a rational basis for the conclusion that the CTEA “promote[s] the Progress of Science.” On the issue of copyright duration, Congress, from the start, has routinely applied new definitions or adjustments of the copyright term to both future works and existing works not yet in the public domain. Such consistent congressional practice is entitled to “very great weight, and when it is remembered that the rights thus established have not been disputed during a period of [over two] centur[ies], it is almost conclusive.” Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U. S., at 57. Indeed, “[t]his Court has repeatedly laid down the principle that a contemporaneous legislative exposition of the Constitution when the founders of our Government and framers of our Constitution were actively participating in public affairs, acquiesced in for a long term of years, fixes the construction to be given [the Constitution’s] provisions.” Myers v. United States, 272 U. S. 52, 175 (1926). Congress’ unbroken practice since the founding generation thus overwhelms petitioners’ argument that the CTEA’s extension of existing copyrights fails per se to “promote the Progress of Science.” Closely related to petitioners’ preambular argument, or a variant of it, is their assertion that the Copyright Clause “imbeds a quid pro quo.” Brief for Petitioners 23. They contend, in this regard, that Congress may grant to an “Au-tho[r]” an “exclusive Right” for a “limited Tim[e],” but only in exchange for a “Writinfg].” Congress’ power to confer copyright protection, petitioners argue, is thus contingent upon an exchange: The author of an original work receives an “exclusive Right” for a “limited Tim[e]” in exchange for a dedication to the public thereafter. Extending an existing copyright without demanding additional consideration, petitioners maintain, bestows an unpaid-for benefit on copyright holders and their heirs, in violation of the quid pro quo requirement. We can demur to petitioners’ description of the Copyright Clause as a grant of legislative authority empowering Congress “to secure a bargain — this for that.” Id., at 16; see Mazer v. Stein, 347 U. S. 201, 219 (1954) (“The economic philosophy behind the clause empowering Congress to grant patents and copyrights is the conviction that encouragement of individual effort by personal gain is the best way to advance public welfare through the talents of authors and inventors in ‘Science and useful Arts.’”). But the legislative evolution earlier recalled demonstrates what the bargain entails. Given the consistent placement of existing copyright holders in parity with future holders, the author of a work created in the last 170 years would reasonably comprehend, as the “this” offered her, a copyright not only for the time in place when protection is gained, but also for any renewal or extension legislated during that time. Congress could, rationally seek to “promote... Progress” by including in every copyright statute an express guarantee that authors would receive the benefit of any later legislative extension of the copyright term. Nothing in the Copyright Clause bars Congress from creating the same incentive by adopting the same position as a matter of unbroken practice. See Brief for Respondent 31-32. Neither Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co., 376 U. S. 225 (1964), nor Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U. S. 141 (1989), is to the contrary. In both cases, we invalidated the application of certain state laws as inconsistent with the federal patent regime. Sears, 376 U. S., at 231-233; Bonito, 489 U. S., at 152. Describing Congress’ constitutional authority to confer patents, Bonito Boats noted: “The Patent Clause itself reflects a balance between the need to encourage innovation and the avoidance of monopolies which stifle competition without any concomitant advance in the ‘Progress of Science and useful Arts.’” Id., at 146. Sears similarly stated that “[p]atents are not given as favors... but are meant to encourage invention by rewarding the inventor with the right, limited to a term of years fixed by the patent, to exclude others from the use of his invention.” 376 U. S., at 229. Neither case concerned the extension of a patent’s duration. Nor did either suggest that such an extension might be constitutionally infirm. Rather, Bonito Boats reiterated the Court’s unclouded understanding: “It is for Congress to determine if the present system” effectuates the goals of the Copyright and Patent Clause. 489 U. S., at 168. And as we have documented, see supra, at 201-204, Congress has many times sought to effectuate those goals by extending existing patents. We note, furthermore, that patents and copyrights do not entail the same exchange, and that our references to a quid pro quo typically appear in the patent context. See, e. g., J. E. M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., 534 U. S. 124, 142 (2001) (“The disclosure required by the Patent Act is ‘the quid pro quo of the right to exclude.’” (quoting Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 U. S. 470, 484 (1974))); Bonito Boats, 489 U. S., at 161 (“the quid pro quo of substantial creative effort required by the federal [patent] statute”); Brenner v. Manson, 383 U. S. 519, 534 (1966) (“The basic quid pro quo... for granting a patent monopoly is the benefit derived by the public from an invention with substantial utility.”); Pennock v. Dialogue, 2 Pet. 1, 23 (1829) (If an invention is already commonly known and used when the patent is sought, “there might be sound reason for presuming, that the legislature did not intend to grant an exclusive right,” given the absence of a “quid pro quo. ”). This is understandable, given that immediate disclosure is not the objective of, but is exacted from, the patentee. It is the price paid for the exclusivity secured. See J. E. M. Ag Supply, 534 U. S., at 142. For the author seeking copyright protection, in contrast, disclosure is the desired objective, not something exacted from the author in exchange for the copyright. Indeed, since the 1976 Act, copyright has run from creation, not publication. See 1976 Act § 302(a); 17 U. S. C. § 302(a). Further distinguishing the two kinds of intellectual property, copyright gives the holder no monopoly on any knowledge. A reader of an author’s writing may make full use of any fact or idea she acquires from her reading. See § 102(b). The grant of a patent, on the other hand, does prevent full use by others of the inventor’s knowledge. See Brief for Respondent 22; Alfred Bell & Co. v. Catalda Fine Arts, 191 F. 2 Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy 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. Almost three years after he was charged and 28 months after he first demanded that Arizona either extradite him from California, where he was serving a prison term, or drop a detainer against him, petitioner was tried for murder in Arizona. Prior to trial, he filed a state habeas corpus application, alleging a deprivation of his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to a speedy trial. In affirming the denial of the petition, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that under this Court’s decisions in Dickey v. Florida, 398 U. S. 30 (1970), and Barker v. Wingo, 407 U. S. 514 (1972), a showing of prejudice to the defense at trial was essential to establish a federal speedy trial claim. The state court found no such prejudice here because petitioner was afforded a preliminary hearing and allowed to subpoena witnesses. 109 Ariz. 111, 506 P. 2d 242 (1973). The state court was in fundamental error in its reading of Barker v. Wingo and in the standard applied in judging petitioner’s speedy trial claim. Barker v. Wingo expressly rejected the notion that an affirmative demonstration of prejudice was necessary to prove a denial of the constitutional right to a speedy trial: “We regard none of the four factors identified above [length of delay, reason for delay, defendant’s assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant] as either a necessary or sufficient condition to the finding of a deprivation of the right of speedy trial. Rather, they are related factors and must be considered together with such other circumstances as may be relevant. In sum, these factors have no talismanic qualities; courts must still engage in a difficult and sensitive balancing process. But, because we are dealing with a fundamental right of the accused, this process must be carried out with full recognition that the accused’s interest in a speedy trial is specifically affirmed in the Constitution.” 407 U. S., at 533 (footnote omitted). In addition to possible prejudice, any court must thus carefully weigh the reasons for the delay in bringing an incarcerated defendant to trial. In the face of petitioner’s repeated demands, did the State discharge its “constitutional duty to make a diligent, good-faith effort to bring him [to trial]”? Smith v. Hooey, 393 U. S. 374, 383 (1969). Moreover, prejudice to a defendant caused by delay in bringing him to trial is not confined to the possible prejudice to his defense in those proceedings. Inordinate delay, “wholly aside from possible prejudice to a defense on the merits, may 'seriously interfere with the defendant’s liberty, whether he is free on bail or not, and . . . may disrupt his employment, drain his financial resources, curtail his associations, subject him to public obloquy, and create anxiety in him, his family and his friends.’ United States v. Marion, 404 U. S. 307, 320 (1971). These factors are more serious for some than for others, but they are inevitably present in every case to some extent, for every defendant will either be incarcerated pending trial or on bail subject to substantial restrictions on his liberty.” Barker v. Wingo, supra, at 537 (White, J., concurring). See also id., at 532-533 (majority opinion). Some of these factors may carry quite different weight where a defendant is incarcerated after conviction in another State, but no court should overlook the possible impact pending charges might have on his prospects for parole and meaningful rehabilitation. Strunk v. United States, 412 U. S. 434, 439 (1973). The State of Arizona itself has conceded that this is a close case under Barker v. Wingo and that it is arguable whether the three-year delay was excusable. Because we agree and because “the right to a speedy trial is as fundamental as any of the rights secured by the Sixth Amendment,” Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U. S. 213, 223 (1967), we grant the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition, vacate the judgment, and remand to the Arizona Supreme Court to reassess petitioner's case under the standards mandated by Smith, Barker, and Dickey. So ordered. The court did not mention the unavailability of one of the two key witnesses as the result of her deportation 18 months after the charge had been filed against petitioner. The examples of possible trial prejudice recited in Barker bear directly on this case: “If witnesses die or disappear during a delay, the prejudice is obvious. There is also prejudice if defense witnesses are unable to recall accurately events of the distant past. Loss of memory, however, is not always reflected in the record because what has been forgotten can rarely be shown.” Barker v. Wingo, 407 U. S. 514, 532 (1972). Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy 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. In order to combat child pornography, Ohio enacted Rev. Code Ann. § 2907.323(A)(3) (Supp. 1989), which provides in pertinent part: “(A) No person shall do any of the following: “(3) Possess or view any material or performance that shows a minor who is not the person’s child or ward in a state of nudity, unless one of the following applies: “(a) The material or performance is sold, disseminated, displayed, possessed, controlled, brought or caused to be brought into this state, or presented for a bona fide artistic, medical, scientific, educational, religious, governmental, judicial, or other proper purpose, by or to a physician, psychologist, sociologist, scientist, teacher, person pursuing bona fide studies or research, librarian, clergyman, prosecutor, judge, or other person having a proper interest in the material or performance. “(b) The person knows that the parents, guardian, or custodian has consented in writing to the photographing or use of the minor in a state of nudity and to the manner in which the material or performance is used or transferred.” Petitioner, Clyde Osborne, was convicted of violating this statute and sentenced to six months in prison, after the Columbus, Ohio, police, pursuant to a valid search, found four photographs in Osborne’s home. Each photograph depicts a nude male adolescent posed in a sexually explicit position. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed Osborne’s conviction, after an intermediate appellate court did the same. State v. Young, 37 Ohio St. 3d 249, 525 N. E. 2d 1363 (1988). Relying on one of its earlier decisions, the court first rejected Osborne’s contention that the First Amendment prohibits the States from proscribing the private possession of child pornography. Next, the court found that § 2907.323(A)(3) is not unconstitutionally overbroad. In so doing, the court, relying on the statutory exceptions, read § 2907.323(A)(3) as only applying to depictions of nudity involving a lewd exhibition or graphic focus on a minor’s genitals. The court also found that scienter is an essential element of a §2907.323(A)(3) offense. Osborne objected that the trial judge had not insisted that the government prove lewd exhibition and scienter as elements of his crime. The Ohio Supreme Court rejected these contentions because Osborne had failed to object to the jury instructions given at his trial and the court did not believe that the failures of proof amounted to plain error. The Ohio Supreme Court denied a motion for rehearing, and granted a stay pending appeal to this Court. We noted probable jurisdiction last June. 492 U. S. 904. I The threshold question in this case is whether Ohio may constitutionally proscribe the possession and viewing of child pornography or whether, as Osborne argues, our decision in Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U. S. 557 (1969), compels the contrary result. In Stanley, we struck down a Georgia law outlawing the private possession of obscene material. We recognized that the statute impinged upon Stanley’s right to receive information in the privacy of his home, and we found Georgia’s justifications for its law inadequate. Id., at 564-568. Stanley should not be read too broadly. We have previously noted that Stanley was a narrow holding, see United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film, 413 U. S. 123, 127 (1973), and, since the decision in that case, the value of permitting child pornography has been characterized as “exceedingly modest, if not de minimis.” New York v. Ferber, 458 U. S. 747, 762 (1982). But assuming, for the sake of argument, that Osborne has a First Amendment interest in viewing and possessing child pornography, we nonetheless find this case distinct from Stanley because the interests underlying child pornography prohibitions far exceed the interests justifying the Georgia law at issue in Stanley. Every court to address the issue has so concluded. See, e. g., People v. Geever, 122 Ill. 2d 313, 327-328, 522 N. E. 2d 1200, 1206-1207 (1988); Felton v. State, 526 So. 2d 635, 637 (Ala. Ct. Crim. App.), aff’d sub nom. Ex parte Felton, 526 So. 2d 638, 641 (Ala. 1988); State v. Davis, 53 Wash. App. 502, 505, 768 P. 2d 499, 501 (1989); Savery v. State, 767 S. W. 2d 242, 245 (Tex. App. 1989); United States v. Boffardi, 684 F. Supp. 1263, 1267 (SDNY 1988). In Stanley, Georgia primarily sought to proscribe the private possession of obscenity because it was concerned that obscenity would poison the minds of its viewers. 394 U. S., at 565. We responded that “[wjhatever the power of the state to control public dissemination of ideas inimical to the public morality, it cannot constitutionally premise legislation on the desirability of controlling a person’s private thoughts.” Id., at 566. The difference here is obvious: The State does not rely on a paternalistic interest in regulating Osborne’s mind. Rather, Ohio has enacted §2907.323(A)(3) in order to protect the victims of child pornography; it hopes to destroy a market for the exploitative use of children. “It is evident beyond the need for elaboration that a State’s interest in ‘safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of a minor’ is ‘compelling.’... The legislative judgment, as well as the judgment found in relevant literature, is that the use of children as subjects of pornographic materials is harmful to the physiological, emotional, and mental health of the child. That judgment, we think, easily passes muster under the First Amendment.” Ferber, 458 U. S., at 756-758 (citations omitted). It is also surely reasonable for the State to conclude that it will decrease the production of child pornography if it penalizes those who possess and view the product, thereby decreasing demand. In Ferber, where we upheld a New York statute outlawing the distribution of child pornography, we found a similar argument persuasive: “The advertising and selling of child pornography provide an economic motive for and are thus an integral part of the production of such materials, an activity illegal throughout the Nation. Tt rarely has been suggested that the constitutional freedom for speech and press extends its immunity to speech or writing used as an integral part of conduct in violation of a valid criminal statute.’” Id., at 761-762, quoting Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U. S. 490, 498 (1949). Osborne contends that the State should use other measures, besides penalizing possession, to dry up the child pornography market. Osborne points out that in Stanley we rejected Georgia’s argument that its prohibition on obscenity possession was a necessary incident to its proscription on obscenity distribution. 394 U. S., at 567-568. This holding, however, must be viewed in light of the weak interests asserted by the State in that case. Stanley itself emphasized that we did not “mean to express any opinion on statutes making criminal possession of other types of printed, filmed, or recorded materials.... In such cases, compelling reasons may exist for overriding the right of the individual to possess those materials.” Id., at 568, n. 11. Given the importance of the State’s interest in protecting the victims of child pornography, we cannot fault -Ohio for attempting to stamp out this vice at all levels in the distribution chain. According to the State, since the time of our decision in Ferber, much of the child pornography market has been driven underground; as a result, it is now difficult, if not impossible, to solve the child pornography problem by only attacking production and distribution. Indeed, 19 States have found it necessary to proscribe the possession of this material. Other interests also support the Ohio law. First, as Ferber recognized, the materials produced by child pornographers permanently record the victim’s abuse. The pornography’s continued existence causes the child victims continuing harm by haunting the children in years to come. 458 U. S., at 759. The State’s ban on possession and viewing encourages the possessors of these materials to destroy them. Second, encouraging the destruction of these materials is also desirable because evidence suggests that pedophiles use child pornography to seduce other children into sexual activity. Given the gravity of the State’s interests in this context, we find that Ohio may constitutionally proscribe the possession and viewing of child pornography. II Osborne next argues that even if the State may constitutionally ban the possession of child pornography, his conviction is invalid because §2907.323(A)(3) is unconstitutionally overbroad in that it criminalizes an intolerable range of constitutionally protected conduct. In our previous decisions discussing the First Amendment overbreadth doctrine, we have repeatedly emphasized that where a statute regulates expressive conduct, the scope of the statute does not render it unconstitutional unless its overbreadth is not only “real, but substantial as well, judged in relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep. ” Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U. S. 601, 615 (1973). Even where a statute at its margins infringes on protected expression, “facial invalidation is inappropriate if the ‘remainder of the statute... covers a whole range of easily identifiable and constitutionally proscribable... conduct....’” New York v. Ferber, 458 U. S., at 770, n. 25. The Ohio statute, on its face, purports to prohibit the possession of “nude” photographs of minors. We have stated that depictions of nudity, without more, constitute protected expression. See Ferber, supra, at 765, n. 18. Relying on this observation, Osborne argues that the statute as written is substantially overbroad. We are skeptical of this claim because, in light of the statute’s exemptions and “proper purposes” provisions, the statute may not be substantially overbroad under our cases. However that may be, Osborne’s overbreadth challenge, in any event, fails because the statute, as construed by the Ohio Supreme Court on Osborne’s direct appeal, plainly survives overbreadth scrutiny. Under the Ohio Supreme Court reading, the statute prohibits “the possession or viewing of material or performance of a minor who is in a state of nudity, where such nudity constitutes a lewd exhibition or involves a graphic focus on the genitals, and where the person depicted is neither the child nor the ward of the person charged.” 37 Ohio St. 3d, at 252, 525 N. E. 2d, at 1368. By limiting the statute’s operation in this manner, the Ohio Supreme Court avoided penalizing persons for viewing or possessing innocuous photographs of naked children. We have upheld similar language against overbreadth challenges in the past. In Ferber, we affirmed a conviction under a New York statute that made it a crime to promote the “ ‘lewd exhibition of [a child’s] genitals.’ ” 458 U. S., at 751. We noted that “[t]he term ‘lewd exhibition of the genitals’ is not unknown in this area and, indeed, was given in Miller [v. California, 413 U. S. 15 (1973),] as an example of a permissible regulation.” Id., at 765. The Ohio Supreme Court also concluded that the State had to establish scienter in order to prove a violation of § 2907.323 (A)(3) based on the Ohio default statute specifying that recklessness applies when another statutory provision lacks an intent specification. See n. 9, supra. The statute on its face lacks a mens rea requirement, but that omission brings into play and is cured by another law that plainly satisfies the requirement laid down in Ferber that prohibitions on child pornography include some element of scienter. 458 U. S., at 765. Osborne contends that it was impermissible for the Ohio Supreme Court to apply its construction of §2907.323(A)(3) to him — i. e., to rely on the narrowed construction of the statute when evaluating his overbreadth claim. Our cases, however, have long held that a statute as construed “may be applied to conduct occurring prior to the construction, provided such application affords fair warning to the defendant.” Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U. S. 479, 491, n. 7 (1965) (citations omitted). In Hamling v. United States, 418 U. S. 87 (1974), for example, we reviewed the petitioners’ convictions for mailing and conspiring to mail an obscene advertising brochure under 18 U. S. C. § 1461. That statute makes it a crime to mail an “obscene, lewd, lascivious, indecent, filthy or vile article, matter, thing, device, or substance.” In Hamling, for the first time, we construed the term “obscenity” as used in § 1461 “to be limited to the sort of ‘patently offensive representations or depictions of that specific “hard core” sexual conduct given as examples in Miller v. California.’” In light of this construction, we rejected the petitioners’ facial challenge to the statute as written, and we affirmed the petitioners’ convictions under the section after finding that the petitioners had fair notice that their conduct was criminal. 418 U. S., at 114-116. Like the Hamling petitioners, Osborne had notice that his conduct was proscribed. It is obvious from the face of §2907.323(A) (3) that the goal of the statute is to eradicate child pornography. The provision criminalizes the viewing and possessing of material depicting children in a state of nudity for other than “proper purposes.” The provision appears in the “Sex Offenses” chapter of the Ohio Code. Section 2907.323 is preceded by §2907.322, which proscribes “[p]andering sexually oriented matter involving a minor,” and followed by §2907.33, which proscribes “[deception to obtain matter harmful to juveniles.” That Osborne’s photographs of adolescent boys in sexually explicit situations constitute child pornography hardly needs elaboration. Therefore, although § 2907.323(A)(3) as written may have been imprecise at its fringes, someone in Osborne’s position would not be surprised to learn that his possession of the four photographs at issue in this case constituted a crime. Because Osborne had notice that his conduct was criminal, his case differs from three cases upon which he relies: Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U. S. 347 (1964), Rabe v. Washing ton, 405 U. S. 313 (1972), and Marks v. United States, 430 U. S. 188 (1977). In Bouie, the petitioners had refused to leave a restaurant after being asked to do so by the restaurant’s manager. Although the manager had not objected when the petitioners entered the restaurant, the petitioners were convicted of violating a South Carolina trespass statute proscribing “ ‘entry upon the lands of another... after notice from the owner or tenant prohibiting such entry.’” 378 U. S., at 349. Affirming the convictions, the South Carolina Supreme Court construed the trespass law as also making it a crime for an individual to remain on another’s land after being asked to leave. We reversed the convictions on due process grounds because the South Carolina Supreme Court’s expansion of the statute was unforseeable and therefore the petitioners had no reason to suspect that their conduct was criminal. Id., at 350-352. Likewise, in Rabe v. Washington, supra, the petitioner had been convicted of violating a Washington obscenity statute that, by its terms, did not proscribe the defendant’s conduct. On the petitioner’s appeal, the Washington Supreme Court nevertheless affirmed the petitioner’s conviction, after construing the Washington obscenity statute to reach the petitioner. We overturned the conviction because the Washington Supreme Court’s broadening of the statute was unexpected; therefore the petitioner had no warning that his actions were proscribed. Id., at 315. And, in Marks v. United States, supra, we held that the retroactive application of the obscenity standards announced in Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15 (1973), to the potential detriment of the defendant violated the Due Process Clause because, at the time that the defendant committed the challenged conduct, our decision in Memoirs v. Attorney General of Massachusetts, 383 U. S. 413 (1966), provided the governing law. The defendant could not suspect that his actions would later become criminal when we expanded the range of constitutionally proscribable conduct in Miller. Osborne suggests that our decision here is inconsistent with Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 382 U. S. 87 (1965). We disagree. In Shuttlesworth, the defendant had been convicted of violating an Alabama ordinance that, when read literally, provided that “a person may stand on a public sidewalk in Birmingham only at the whim of any police officer of that city.” Id., at 90. We stated that “[t]he constitutional vice of so broad a provision needs no demonstration.” Ibid. As subsequently construed by the Alabama Supreme Court, however, the ordinance merely made it criminal for an individual who was blocking free passage along a public street to disobey a police officer's order to move. We noted that “[i]t is our duty, of course, to accept this state judicial construction of the ordinance.... As so construed, we cannot say that the ordinance is unconstitutional, though it requires no great feat of imagination to envisage situations in which such an ordinance might be unconstitutionally applied.” Id., at 91. We nevertheless reversed the defendant’s conviction because it was not clear that the State had convicted the defendant under the ordinance as construed rather than as written. Id., at 91-92. Shuttlesworth, then, stands for the proposition that where a State Supreme Court narrows an unconstitutionally overbroad statute, the State must ensure that defendants are convicted under the statute as it is subsequently construed and not as it was originally written; this proposition in no way conflicts with our holding in this case. Finally, despite Osborne’s contention to the contrary, we do not believe that Massachusetts v. Oakes, 491 U. S. 576 (1989), supports his theory of this case. In Oakes, the petitioner challenged a Massachusetts pornography statute as overbroad; since the time of the defendant’s alleged crime, however, the State had substantially narrowed the statute through a subsequent legislative enactment — an amendment to the statute. In a separate opinion, five Justices agreed that the state legislature could not cure the potential over-breadth problem through the subsequent legislative action; the statute was void as written. Id., at 585-586. Osborne contends that Oakes stands for a similar but distinct proposition that, when faced with a potentially overinclusive statute, a court may not construe the statute to avoid overbreadth problems and then apply the statute, as construed, to past conduct. The implication of this argument is that if a statute is overbroad as written, then the statute is void and incurable. As a result, when reviewing a conviction under a potentially overbroad statute, a court must either affirm or strike down the statute on its face, but the court may not, as the Ohio Supreme Court did in this case, narrow the statute, affirm on the basis of the narrowing construction, and leave the statute in full force. We disagree. First, as indicated by our earlier discussion, if we accepted this proposition, it would require a radical reworking of our law. Courts routinely construe statutes so as to avoid the statutes’ potentially overbroad reach, apply the statute in that case, and leave the statute in place. In Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476 (1957), for example, the Court construed the open-ended terms used in 18 U. S. C. § 1461, which prohibits the mailing of material that is “obscene, lewd, lascivious, indecent, filthy or vile.” Justice Harlan characterized Roth in this way: “The words of §1461, ‘obscene, lewd, lascivious, indecent, filthy or vile,’ connote something that is portrayed in a manner so offensive as to make it unacceptable under current community mores. While in common usage the words have different shades of meaning, the statute since its inception has always been taken as aimed at obnoxiously debasing portrayals of sex. Although the statute condemns such material irrespective of the effect it may have upon those into whose hands it falls, the early case of United States v. Bennet, 24 Fed. Cas. 1093 (No. 14571), put a limiting gloss upon the statutory language: the statute reaches only indecent material which, as now expressed in Roth v. United States, supra, at 489, ‘taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest.’” Manuel Enterprises, Inc. v. Day, 370 U. S. 478, 482-484 (1962) (footnotes omitted; emphasis in original). See also, Hamling, 418 U. S., at 112 (quoting the above). The petitioner’s conviction was affirmed in Roth, and federal obscenity law was left in force. 354 U. S., at 494. We, moreover, have long respected the State Supreme Courts’ ability to narrow state statutes so as to limit the statute’s, scope to unprotected conduct. See, e. g., Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U. S. 629 (1968). Second, we do not believe that Oakes compels the proposition that Osborne urges us to accept. In Oakes, Justice Scalia, writing for himself and four others, reasoned: “The overbreadth doctrine serves to protect constitutionally legitimate speech not merely ex post, that is, after the offending statute is enacted, but also ex ante, that is, when the legislature is contemplating what sort of statute to enact. If the promulgation of overbroad laws affecting speech was cost free... that is, if no conviction of constitutionally proscribable conduct would be lost, so long as the offending statute was narrowed before the final appeal... then legislatures would have significantly reduced incentive to stay within constitutional bounds in the first place. When one takes ac-' count of those overbroad statutes that are never challenged, and of the time that elapses before the ones that are challenged are amended to come within constitutional bounds, a substantial amount of legitimate speech would be ‘chilled’....” 491 U. S., at 586 (emphasis in original). In other words, five of the Oakes Justices feared that if we allowed a legislature to correct its mistakes without paying for them (beyond the inconvenience of passing a new law), we would decrease the legislature’s incentive to draft a narrowly tailored law in the first place. Legislators who know they can cure their own mistakes by amendment without significant cost may not be as careful to avoid drafting overbroad statutes as they might otherwise be. But a similar effect will not be likely if a judicial construction of a statute to eliminate overbreadth is allowed to be applied in the case before the court. This is so primarily because the legislatures cannot be sure that the statute, when examined by a court, will be saved by a narrowing construction rather than invalidated for overbreadth. In the latter event, there could be no convictions under that law even of those whose own conduct is unprotected by the First Amendment. Even if construed to obviate overbreadth, applying the statute to pending cases might be barred by the Due Process Clause. Thus, careless drafting cannot be considered to be cost free based on the power of the courts to eliminate overbreadth by statutory construction. There are also other considerations. Osborne contends that when courts construe statutes so as to eliminate over-breadth, convictions of those found guilty of unprotected conduct covered by the statute must be reversed and any further convictions for prior reprehensible conduct are barred. Furthermore, because he contends that overbroad laws implicating First Amendment interests are nullities and incapable of valid application from the outset, this would mean that judicial construction could not save the statute even as applied to subsequent conduct unprotected by the First Amendment. The overbreadth doctrine, as we have recognized, is indeed “strong medicine,” Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U. S., at 613, and requiring that statutes be facially invalidated whenever overbreadth is perceived would very likely invite reconsideration or redefinition of the doctrine in a way that would not serve First Amendment interests. III Having rejected Osborne’s Stanley and overbreadth arguments, we now reach Osborne’s final objection to his conviction: his contention that he was denied due process because it is unclear that his conviction was based on a finding that each of the elements of § 2907.323(A)(3) was present. According to the Ohio Supreme Court, in order to secure a conviction under § 2907.323(A)(3), the State must prove both scienter and that the defendant possessed material depicting a lewd exhibition or a graphic focus on genitals. The jury in this case was not instructed that it could convict Osborne only for conduct that satisfied these requirements. The State concedes the omissions in the jury instructions, but argues that Osborne waived his right to assert this due process challenge because he failed to object when the instructions were given at his trial. The Ohio Supreme Court so held, citing Ohio law. The question before us now, therefore, is whether we are precluded from reaching Osborne’s due process challenge because counsel’s failure to comply with the procedural rule constitutes an independent state-law ground adequate to support the result below. We have no difficulty agreeing with the State that Osborne’s counsel’s failure to urge that the court instruct the jury on scienter constitutes an independent and adequate state-law ground preventing us from reaching Osborne’s due process contention on that point. Ohio law states that proof of scienter is required in instances, like the present one, where a criminal statute does not specify the applicable mental state. See n. 9, supra. The state procedural rule, moreover, serves the State’s important interest in ensuring that counsel do their part in preventing trial courts from providing juries with erroneous instructions. With respect to the trial court’s failure to instruct on lewdness, however, we reach a different conclusion: Based upon our review of the record, we believe that counsel’s failure to object on this point does not prevent us from considering Osborne’s constitutional claim. Osborne’s trial was brief: The State called only the two arresting officers to the stand; the defense summoned only Osborne himself. Right before trial, Osborne’s counsel moved to dismiss the case, contending that § 2907.323(A)(3) is unconstitutionally overbroad. Counsel stated: “I’m filing a motion to dismiss based on the fact that [the] statute is void for vagueness, overbroad... The statute’s overbroad because... a person couldn’t have pictures of his own grandchildren; probably couldn’t even have nude photographs of himself. “Judge, if you had some nude photos of yourself when you were a child, you would probably be violating the law.... “So grandparents, neighbors, or other people who happen to view the photograph are criminally liable under the statute. And on that basis I’m going to ask the Court to dismiss the case.” Tr. 3-4. The prosecutor informed the trial judge that a number of Ohio state courts had recently rejected identical motions challenging § 2907.323(A)(3). Tr. 5-6. The court then overruled the motion. Id., at 7. Immediately thereafter, Osborne’s counsel proposed various jury instructions. Ibid. Given this sequence of events, we believe that we may reach Osborne’s due process claim because we are convinced that Osborne’s attorney pressed the issue of the State’s failure of proof on lewdness before the trial court and, under the circumstances, nothing would be gained by requiring Osborne’s lawyer to object a second time, specifically to the jury instructions. The trial judge, in no uncertain terms, rejected counsel’s argument that the statute as written was overbroad. The State contends that counsel should then have insisted that the court instruct the jury on lewdness because, absent a finding that this element existed, a conviction would be unconstitutional. Were we to accept this position, we would “Torce resort to an arid ritual of meaningless form,’... and would further no perceivable state interest.” James v. Kentucky, 466 U. S. 341, 349 (1984), quoting Staub v. City of Baxley, 355 U. S. 313, 320 (1958), and citing Henry v. Mississippi, 379 U. S. 443, 448-449 (1965). As Justice Holmes warned us years ago, “[w]hatever 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). Our decision here is analogous to our decision in Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U. S. 415 (1965). In that case, the Alabama Supreme Court had held that a defendant had waived his Confrontation Clause objection to the reading into evidence of a confession that he had given. Although not following the precise procedure required by Alabama law, the defendant had unsuccessfully objected to the prosecution’s use of the confession. We followed “our consistent holdings that the adequacy of state procedural bars to the assertion of federal questions is itself a federal question” and stated that “[i]n determining the sufficiency of objections we have applied the general principle that an objection which is ample and timely to bring the alleged federal error to the attention of the trial court and enable it to take appropriate corrective action is sufficient to serve legitimate state interests, and therefore sufficient to preserve the claim for review here.” Id., at 422. Concluding that “[n]o legitimate state interest would have been served by requiring repetition of a patently futile objection,” we held that the Alabama procedural ruling did not preclude our consideration of the defendant’s constitutional claim. Id., at 421-422. We reach a similar conclusion in this case. IV To conclude, although we find Osborne’s First Amendment arguments unpersuasive, we reverse his conviction and remand for a new trial in order to ensure that Osborne’s conviction stemmed from a finding that the State had proved each of the elements of § 2907.323(A)(3). So ordered. Osborne contends that the subject in all of the pictures is the same boy; Osborne testified at trial that he was told that the youth was 14 at the time that the photographs were taken. App. 16. The government maintains that three of the pictures are of one boy and one of the pictures is of another. Three photographs depict the same boy in different positions: sitting with his legs over his head and his anus exposed; lying down with an erect penis and with an electrical object in his hand; and lying down with a plastic object which appears to be inserted in his anus. The fourth photograph depicts a nude standing boy; it is unclear whether this subject is the same boy photographed in the other pictures because the photograph only depicts the boy’s torso. Osborne also unsuccessfully raised a number of other challenges that are not at issue before this Court. We have since indicated that our decision in Stanley was “firmly grounded in the First Amendment.” Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U. S. 186, 195 (1986). Georgia also argued that its ban on possession was a necessary complement to its ban on distribution (see discussion infra, at 110) and that the possession law benefited the public because, according to the State, exposure to obscene material might lead to deviant sexual behavior or crimes of sexual violence. 394 U. S., at 566. We found a lack of empirical evidence supporting the latter claim and stated that “ ‘[a]mong free men, the deterrents ordinarily to be applied to prevent crime are education and punishment for violations of the law....”’ Id., at 566-567 (citation omitted). As the dissent notes, see post, at 141, n. 16, the Stanley Court cited illicit possession of defense information as an example of the type of offense for which compelling state interests might justify a ban on possession. Stanley, however, did not suggest that this crime exhausted the entire category of proscribable offenses. Ala. Code § 13A-12-192 (1988); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-3553 (1989); Colo. Rev. Stat. §18-6-403 (Supp. 1989); Fla. Stat. §827.071 (1989); Ga. Code Ann. § 16-12-100 (1989); Idaho Code § 18-1507 (1987); 111. Rev. Stat., eh. 38, ¶ 11-20- 1 (1987); Kans. Stat. Ann. §21-3516 (Supp. 1989); Minn. Stat. §617.247 (1988); Mo. Rev. Stat. §573.037 (Supp. 1989); Neb. Rev. Stat. §28-809 (1989); Nev. Rev. Stat. §200.730 (1987); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§2907.322 and 2907.323 (Supp. 1989); Okla. Stat., Tit. 21, §1021.2 (Supp. 1989); S. D. Codified Laws Ann. §§22-22-23, 22-22-23.1 (1988); Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 43.26 (1989 and Supp. 1989-1990); Utah Code Ann. § 76-5a-3(l)(a) (Supp. 1989); Wash. Rev. Code §9.68A.070 (1989); W. Va. Code § 61-8C-3 (1989). The Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography, for example, states: “Child pornography is often used as part of a method of seducing child victims. A child who is reluctant to engage in sexual activity with an adult or to pose for sexually explicit photos can sometimes be convinced by viewing other children having ‘fun’ participating in the activity.” 1 Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography, Final Report 649 (1986) (footnotes omitted). See also, D. Campagna and D. Poffenberger, Sexual Trafficking in Children 118 (1988); S. O’Brien, Child Pornography 89 (1983). In the First Amendment context, we permit defendants to challenge statutes on overbreadth grounds, regardless of whether the individual defendant’s conduct is constitutionally protected. “The First Amendment doctrine of substantial overbreadth is an exception to the general rule that a person to whom a statute may be constitutionally applied cannot challenge the statute on the ground that it may be unconstitutionally applied to others.” Massachusetts v. Oakes, 491 U. S. 576, 581 (1989). The statute applies only where an individual possesses or views the depiction of a minor “who is not the person’s child or ward.” The State, moreover, does not impose criminal liability if either “[t]he material or performance is sold, disseminated, displayed, possessed, controlled, brought 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:

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 Blackmun announced the judgment of the Court and an opinion, in which The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice White, and Mr. Justice Rehnquist join. This case presents the question whether a city which operates a public rapid transit system and sells advertising space for car cards on its vehicles is required by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to accept paid political advertising on behalf of a candidate for public office. In 1970, petitioner Harry J. Lehman was a candidate for the office of State Representative to the Ohio General Assembly for District 56. The district includes the city of Shaker Heights. On July 3, 1970, petitioner sought to promote his candidacy by purchasing car card space on the Shaker Heights Rapid Transit System for the months of August, September, and October. The general election was scheduled for November 3. Petitioner’s proposed copy contained his picture and read: “HARRY J. LEHMAN IS OLD-FASHIONED! ABOUT HONESTY, INTEGRITY AND GOOD GOVERNMENT “State Representative — District 56 [X] Harry J. Lehman.” App. 39A. Advertising space on the city’s transit system is managed by respondent Metromedia, Inc., as exclusive agent under contract with the city. The agreement between the city and Metromedia provides: “15. . . . The Contractor shall not place political advertising in or upon any of the said Cars or in, upon or about any other additional and further space granted hereunder.” When petitioner applied for space, he was informed by Metromedia that, although space was then available, the management agreement with the city did not permit political advertising. The system, however, accepted ads from cigarette companies, banks, savings and loan associations, liquor companies, retail and service establishments, churches, and civic and public-service oriented groups. There was uncontradicted testimony at the trial that during the 26 years of public operation, the Shaker Heights system, pursuant to city council action, had not accepted or permitted any political or public issue advertising on its vehicles. App. 30A-32A. When petitioner did not succeed in his effort to have his copy accepted, he sought declaratory and injunctive relief in the state courts of Ohio without success. The Supreme Court of Ohio concluded that “the constitutionally protected right of free speech with respect to forums for oral speech, or the dissemination of literature on a city’s streets, does not extend to commercial or political advertising on rapid transit vehicles.” 34 Ohio St. 2d 143, 145-146, 296 N. E. 2d 683, 685 (1973). There was no equal protection violation, the court said, because, “[a]s a class, all candidates for political office are treated alike under the Shaker Heights Rapid Transit System’s commercial advertising policy.” Id., at 148, 296 N. E. 2d, at 686. The three dissenting justices viewed the transit system’s advertising space as a free speech forum and would have held that no valid governmental interest was furthered by the differential treatment between political and other advertising. A policy excluding political advertisements, in their view, would therefore deny political advertisers the equal protection of the law. We granted certiorari in order to consider the important First and Fourteenth Amendment question the case presented. 414 U. S. 1021 (1973). It is urged that the car cards here constitute a public forum protected by the First Amendment, and that there is a guarantee of nondiscriminatory access to such publicly owned and controlled areas of communication “regardless of the primary purpose for which the area is dedicated.” Brief for Petitioner 14. We disagree. In Packer Corp. v. Utah, 285 U. S. 105, 110 (1932), Mr. Justice Brandéis, in speaking for a unanimous Court, recognized that “there is a difference which justifies the classification between display advertising and that in periodicals or newspapers.” In Packer the Court upheld a Utah statute that made it a misdemeanor to advertise cigarettes on “ ‘any bill board, street car sign, street car, placard/ ” but exempted dealers' signs on their places of business and cigarette advertising “ ‘in any newspaper, magazine, or periodical.' ” Id., at 107. The Court found no equal protection violation. It reasoned that viewers of billboards and streetcar signs had no “choice or volition” to observe such advertising and had the message “thrust upon them by all the arts and devices that skill can produce. . . . The radio can be turned off, but not so the billboard or street car placard.” Id., at 110. “The streetcar audience is a captive audience. It is there as a matter of necessity, not of choice.” Public Utilities Comm'n v. Pollak, 343 U. S. 451, 468 (1952) (Douglas, J., dissenting). In such situations, “[t]he legislature may recognize degrees of evil and adapt its legislation accordingly.” Packer Corp. v. Utah, 285 U. S., at 110. Cf. Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U. S. 622 (1951). These situations are different from the traditional settings where First Amendment values inalterably prevail. Lord Dunedin, in M’Ara v. Magistrates of Edinburgh, [1913] Sess. Cas. 1059, 1073-1074, said: “[T]he truth is that open spaces and public places differ very much in their character, and before you could say whether a certain thing could be done in a certain place you would have to know the history of the particular place.” Although American constitutional jurisprudence, in the light of the First Amendment, has been jealous to preserve access to public places for purposes of free speech, the nature of the forum and the conflicting interests involved have remained important in determining the degree of protection afforded by the Amendment to the speech in question. See, e. g., Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U. S. 569 (1941); Breard v. Alexandria, supra; Poulos v. New Hampshire, 345 U. S. 395 (1953); Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 559 (1965); Adderley v. Florida, 385 U. S. 39 (1966); Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U. S. 367 (1969); Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U. S. 92 (1972); Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U. S. 104 (1972); Columbia Broadcasting v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U. S. 94 (1973); Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm’n on Human Relations, 413 U. S. 376 (1973). Here, we have no open spaces, no meeting hall, park, street corner, or other public thoroughfare. Instead, the city is engaged in commerce. It must provide rapid, convenient, pleasant, and inexpensive service to the commuters of Shaker Heights. The car card space, although incidental to the provision of public transportation, is a part of the commercial venture. In much the same way that a newspaper or periodical, or even a radio or television station, need not accept every proffer of advertising from the general public, a city transit system has discretion to develop and make reasonable choices concerning the type of advertising that may be displayed in its vehicles. In making these choices, this Court has held that a public utility “will be sustained in its protection of activities in public places when those activities do not interfere with the general public convenience, comfort and safety.” Public Utilities Comm’n v. Pollak, 343 U. S., at 464-465. Because state action exists, however, the policies and practices governing access to the transit system’s advertising space must not be arbitrary, capricious, or invidious. Here, the city has decided that “[pjurveyors of goods and services saleable in commerce may purchase advertising space on an equal basis, whether they be house builders or butchers.” 34 Ohio St. 2d, at 146, 296 N. E. 2d, at 685. This decision is little different from deciding to impose a 10-, 25-, or 35-cent fare, or from changing schedules or the location of bus stops, Public Utilities Comm’n v. Poliak, 343 U. S., at 465. Revenue earned from long-term commercial advertising could be jeopardized by a requirement that short-term candidacy or issue-oriented advertisements be displayed on car cards. Users would be subj ected to the blare of political propaganda. There could be lurking doubts about favoritism, and sticky administrative problems might arise in parceling out limited space to eager politicians. In these circumstances-, the managerial decision to limit car card space to innocuous and less controversial commercial and service oriented advertising does not rise to the dignity of a First Amendment violation. Were we to hold to the contrary, display cases in public hospitals, libraries, office buildings, military compounds, and other public facilities immediately would become Hyde Parks open to every would-be pamphleteer and politician. This the Constitution does not require. No First Amendment forum is here to be found. The city consciously has limited access to its transit system advertising space in order to minimize chances of abuse, the appearance of favoritism, and the risk of imposing upon a captive audience. These are reasonable legislative objectives advanced by the city in a proprietary capacity. In these circumstances, there is no First or Fourteenth Amendment violation. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio is affirmed. It is so ordered. Metromedia has a written Metro Transit Advertising Copy Policy setting forth the following criteria: “(1) Metro Transit Advertising will not display advertising copy that is false, misleading, deceptive and/or offensive to the moral standards of the community, or contrary to good taste. Copy which might be contrary to the best interests of the transit systems, or which might result in public criticism of the advertising industry and/or transit advertising will not be acceptable. “(2) Metro Transit Advertising will not accept any political copy that pictorially, graphically or otherwise states or suggests that proponents or opponents of the persons or measures advertised are vulgar, greedy, immoral, monopolistic, illegal or unfair. “(10) Political advertising will not be accepted on following systems: Shaker Rapid — Maple Heights — North Olmsted — Euclid, Ohio.” Shaker Heights’ Exhibit A. Mr. Lehman testified: “We are using various methods [of pro-promoting my candidacy], including newspaper advertising . . . . We plan to use direct mail advertising, postcards, and circulars of various types.” App. 14A. The system operated only 55 cars, App. 15A, each with 20 advertising spaces. Tr. of Oral Arg. 23-24. Receipts from the sale of advertising amounted to $12,000 annually. Tr. of Oral Arg. 27. These receipts supplemented operating revenues generated from the fares paid by the passengers who used the system daily. Cf. Wirta v. Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, 68 Cal. 2d 51, 434 P. 2d 982 (1967); Kissinger v. New York City Transit Authority, 274 F. Supp. 438 (SDNY 1967); Hillside Community Church v. City of Tacoma, 76 Wash. 2d 63, 455 P. 2d 350 (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. Justice Brennan delivered the opinion of the Court. The question in this case is under what conditions attorneys for the Civil Division of the Justice Department, their paralegal and secretarial staff, and all other necessary assistants, may obtain access to grand jury materials, compiled with the assistance and knowledge of other Justice Department attorneys, for the purpose of preparing and pursuing a civil suit. We hold that such access is permissible only when the Government moves for court-ordered disclosure under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(3)(C)(i) and makes the showing of particularized need required by that Rule. Respondents Peter A. Sells and Fred R. Witte were officers of respondent Sells Engineering, Inc. That company had contracts with the United States Navy to produce airborne electronic devices designed to interfere with enemy radar systems. In 1974, a Special Agent of the Internal Revenue Service began a combined criminal and civil administrative investigation of respondents. The Agent issued administrative summonses for certain corporate records of Sells Engineering. When the corporation refused to comply, the Agent obtained a District Court order enforcing the summonses. Enforcement was stayed, however, pending appeal. While the enforcement case was pending in the Court of Appeals, a federal grand jury was convened to investigate charges of criminal fraud on the Navy and of evasion of federal income taxes. The grand jury subpoenaed, and respondents produced, many of the same materials that were the subject of the IRS administrative summonses. The grand jury indicted all three respondents on two counts of conspiracy to defraud the United States and nine counts of tax fraud. Respondents moved to dismiss the indictment, alleging grand jury misuse for civil purposes. Before the motion was decided, however, the parties reached a plea bargain. The individual respondents each pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to defraud the Government by obstructing an IRS investigation. All other counts were dismissed, and respondents withdrew their charges of grand jury misuse. Thereafter, the Government moved for disclosure of all grand jury materials to attorneys in the Justice Department’s Civil Division, their paralegal and secretarial assistants, and certain Defense Department experts, for use in preparing and conducting a possible civil suit against respondents under the False Claims Act, 31 U. S. C. §231 et seq Respondents opposed the disclosure, renewing their allegations of grand jury misuse. The District Court granted the requested disclosure, concluding that attorneys in the Civil Division are entitled to disclosure as a matter of right under Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(i). The court also stated that disclosure to Civil Division attorneys and their nonattorney assistants was warranted because the Government had shown particularized need for disclosure. The Court of Appeals vacated and remanded, holding that Civil Division attorneys could obtain disclosure only by showing particularized need under Rule 6(e)(3)(C)(i), and that the District Court had not applied a correct standard of particularized need. In re Grand Jury Investigation No. 78-184 (Sells, Inc.), 642 F. 2d 1184 (CA9 1981). We granted certiorari, 456 U. S. 960 (1982). We now affirm. H > The grand jury has always occupied a high place as an instrument of justice in our system of criminal law — so much so that it is enshrined in the Constitution. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. United States, 360 U. S. 395, 399 (1959); Costello v. United States, 350 U. S. 359, 361-362 (1956). It serves the “dual function of determining if there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and of protecting citizens against unfounded criminal prosecutions.” Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U. S. 665, 686-687 (1972) (footnote omitted). It has always been extended extraordinary powers of investigation and great responsibility for directing its own efforts: “Traditionally the grand jury has been accorded wide latitude to inquire into violations of criminal law. No judge presides to monitor its proceedings. It deliberates in secret and may determine alone the course of its inquiry. The grand jury may compel the production of evidence or the testimony of witnesses as it considers appropriate, and its operation generally is unrestrained by the technical procedural and evidentiary rules governing the conduct of criminal trials. Tt is a grand inquest, a body with powers of investigation and inquisition, the scope of whose inquiries is not to be limited narrowly by questions of propriety or forecasts of the probable result of the investigation, or by doubts whether any particular individual will be found properly subject to an accusation of crime.’ ” United States v. Calandra, 414 U. S. 338, 343 (1974), quoting Blair v. United States, 250 U. S. 273, 282 (1919). These broad powers are necessary to permit the grand jury to carry out both parts of its dual function. Without thorough and effective investigation, the grand jury would be unable either to ferret out crimes deserving of prosecution, or to screen out charges not warranting prosecution. Branzburg, supra, at 688; Calandra, supra, at 343. See also United States v. Dionisio, 410 U. S. 1, 12-13 (1973); United States v. Johnson, 319 U. S. 503, 510-512 (1943); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43, 59-66 (1906). The same concern for the grand jury’s dual function underlies the “long-established policy that maintains the secrecy of the grand jury proceedings in the federal courts.” United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U. S. 677, 681 (1958) (footnote omitted). “We consistently have recognized that the proper functioning of our grand jury system depends upon the secrecy of grand jury proceedings. In particular, we have noted several distinct interests served by safeguarding the confidentiality of grand jury proceedings. First, if preindictment proceedings were made public, many prospective witnesses would be hesitant to come forward voluntarily, knowing that those against whom they testify would be aware of that testimony. Moreover, witnesses who appeared before the grand jury would be less likely to testify fully and frankly, as they would be open to retribution as well as to inducements. There also would be the risk that those about to be indicted would flee, or would try to influence individual grand j urors to vote against indictment. Finally, by preserving the secrecy of the proceedings, we assure that persons who are accused but exonerated by the grand jury will not be held up to public ridicule.” Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U. S. 211, 218-219 (1979) (footnotes and citation omitted). Grand jury secrecy, then, is “as important for the protection of the innocent as for the pursuit of the guilty.” Johnson, supra, at 513. Both Congress and this Court have consistently stood ready to defend it against unwarranted intrusion. In the absence of a clear indication in a statute or Rule, we must always be reluctant to conclude that a breach of this secrecy has been authorized. See Illinois v. Abbott & Associates, Inc., 460 U. S. 557, 572-573 (1983). B Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure codifies the traditional rule of grand jury secrecy. Paragraph 6(e)(2) provides that grand jurors, Government attorneys and their assistants, and other personnel attached to the grand jury are forbidden to disclose matters occurring before the grand jury. Witnesses are not under the prohibition unless they also happen to fit into one of the enumerated classes. Paragraph 6(e)(3) sets forth four exceptions to this nondisclosure rule. Subparagraph 6(e)(3)(A) contains two authorizations for disclosure as a matter of course, without any court order. First, under subparagraph 6(e)(3)(A)(i), disclosure may be made without a court order to “an attorney for the government for use in the performance of such attorney’s duty” (referred to hereinafter as “(A)(i) disclosure”). “Attorney for the government” is defined in Rule 54(c) in such broad terms as potentially to include virtually every attorney in the Department of Justice. Second, under subparagraph 6(e)(3)(A)(ii), grand jury materials may likewise be provided to “government personnel... [who] assist an attorney for the government in the performance of such attorney’s duty to enforce federal criminal law” (“(A)(ii) disclosure”). Subparagraph 6(e)(3)(B) further regulates (A)(ii) disclosure, forbidding use of grand jury materials by “government personnel” for any purpose other than assisting an attorney for the Government in his enforcement of criminal law, and requiring that the names of such personnel be provided to the district court. Subparagraph 6(e)(3)(C) also authorizes courts to order disclosure. Under subparagraph 6(e)(3)(C)(i), a court may order disclosure “preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding” (a “(C)(i) order”). Under subparagraph 6(e)(3)(C)(ii), a court may order disclosure under certain conditions at the request of a defendant. See also n. 7, swpra. The main issue in this case is whether attorneys in the Justice Department may obtain automatic (A)(i) disclosure of grand jury materials for use in a civil suit, or whether they must seek a (C)(i) court order for access. If a (C)(i) order is necessary, we must address the dependent question of what standards should govern issuance of the order. I — I HH HH The Government contends that all attorneys in the Justice Department qualify for automatic disclosure of grand jury materials under (A)(i), regardless of the nature of the litigation in which they intend to use the materials. We hold that (A)(i) disclosure is limited to use by those attorneys who conduct the criminal matters to which the materials pertain. This conclusion is mandated by the general purposes and policies of grand jury secrecy, by the limited policy reasons why Government attorneys are granted access to grand jury materials for criminal use, and by the legislative history of Rule 6(e). A The Government correctly contends that attorneys for the Civil Division of the Justice Department are within the class of “attorneys for the government” to whom (A)(i) allows disclosure without a court order. Rule 54(c) defines the phrase expansively, to include “authorized assistants] of the Attorney General”; 28 U. S. C. § 515(a) provides that the Attorney General may direct any attorney employed by the Department to conduct “any kind of legal proceeding, civil or criminal, including grand jury proceedings... See also § 518(b). In short, as far as Rules 6 and 54 are concerned, it is immaterial that certain attorneys happen to be assigned to a unit called the Civil Division, or that their usual duties involve only civil cases. If, for example, the Attorney General (for whatever reason) were to detail a Civil Division attorney to conduct a criminal grand jury investigation, nothing in Rule 6 would prevent that attorney from doing so; he need not secure a transfer out of the Civil Division. It does not follow, however, that any Justice Department attorney is free to rummage through the records of any grand jury in the country, simply by right of office. Disclosure under (A)(i) is permitted only “in the performance of such attorney’s duty.” The heart of the primary issue in this case is whether performance of duty, within the meaning of (A)(i), includes preparation and litigation of a civil suit by a Justice Department attorney who had no part in conducting the related criminal prosecution. Given the strong historic policy of preserving grand jury secrecy, one might wonder why Government attorneys are given any automatic access at all. The draftsmen of the original Rule 6 provided the answer: “Government attorneys are entitled to disclosure of grand jury proceedings, other than the deliberations and the votes of the jurors, inasmuch as they may be present in the grand jury room during the presentation of evidence. The rule continues this practice.” Advisory Committee’s Notes on Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), 18 U. S. C. App., p. 1411. This is potent evidence that Rule 6(e) was never intended to grant free access to grand jury materials to attorneys not working on the criminal matters to which the materials pertain. The Advisory Committee’s explanation strongly suggests that automatic access to grand jury materials is available only to those attorneys for the Government who would be entitled to appear before the grand jury. But Government attorneys are allowed into grand jury rooms, not for the general and multifarious purposes of the Department of Justice, but because both the grand jury’s functions and their own prosecutorial duties require it. As the Advisory Committee suggested, the same reasoning applies to disclosure of grand jury materials outside the grand jury room. The purpose of the grand jury requires that it remain free, within constitutional and statutory limits, to operate “independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge.” Stirone v. United States, 361 U. S. 212, 218 (1960) (footnote omitted). Nevertheless, a modern grand jury would be much less effective without the assistance of the prosecutor’s office and the investigative resources it commands. The prosecutor ordinarily brings matters to the attention of the grand jury and gathers the evidence required for the jury’s consideration. Although the grand jury may itself decide to investigate a matter or to seek certain evidence, it depends largely on the prosecutor’s office to secure the evidence or witnesses it requires. The prosecutor also advises the lay jury on the applicable law. The prosecutor in turn needs to know what transpires before the grand jury in order to perform his own duty properly. If he considers that the law and the admissible evidence will not support a conviction, he can be expected to advise the grand jury not to indict. He must also examine indictments, and the basis for their issuance, to determine whether it is in the interests of justice to proceed with prosecution. None of these considerations, however, provides any support for breaching grand jury secrecy in favor of Government attorneys other than 'prosecutors — either by allowing them into the grand jury room, or by granting them uncontrolled access to grand jury materials. An attorney with only civil duties lacks both the prosecutor’s special role in supporting the grand jury, and the prosecutor’s own crucial need to know what occurs before the grand jury. Of course, it would be of substantial help to a Justice Department civil attorney if he had free access to a storehouse of evidence compiled by a grand jury; but that is of a different order from the prosecutor’s need for access. The civil lawyer’s need is ordinarily nothing more than a matter of saving time and expense. The same argument could be made for access on behalf of any lawyer in another Government agency, or indeed, in private practice. We have consistently rejected the argument that such savings can justify a breach of grand jury secrecy. E. g., Procter & Gamble, 356 U. S., at 682-683; Smith v. United States, 423 U. S. 1303, 1304 (1975) (Douglas, J., in chambers); see also Abbott, 460 U. S., at 565-573. In most cases, the same evidence that could be obtained from the grand jury will be available through ordinary discovery or other routine avenues of investigation. If, in a particular case, ordinary discovery is insufficient for some reason, the Government may request disclosure under a (C)(i) court order. See Part IV, infra. Not only is disclosure for civil use unjustified by the considerations supporting prosecutorial access, but also it threatens to do affirmative mischief. The problem is threefold. First, disclosure to Government bodies raises much the same concerns that underlie the rule of secrecy in other contexts. Not only does disclosure increase the number of persons to whom the information is available (thereby increasing the risk of inadvertent or illegal release to others), but also it renders considerably more concrete the threat to the willingness of witnesses to come forward and to testify fully and candidly. If a witness knows or fears that his testimony before the grand jury will be routinely available for use in governmental civil litigation or administrative action, he may well be less willing to speak for fear that he will get himself into trouble in some other forum. Cf. Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy, 459 U. S. 248, 263, n. 23 (1983). Second, because the Government takes an active part in the activities of the grand jury, disclosure to Government attorneys for civil use poses a significant threat to the integrity of the grand jury itself. If prosecutors in a given case knew that their colleagues would be free to use the materials generated by the grand jury for a civil case, they might be tempted to manipulate the grand jury’s powerful investigative tools to root out additional evidence useful in the civil suit, or even to start or continue a grand jury inquiry where no criminal prosecution seemed likely. Any such use of grand jury proceedings to elicit evidence for use in a civil case is improper per se. Procter & Gamble, supra, at 683-684. We do not mean to impugn the professional characters of Justice Department lawyers in general; nor do we express any view on the allegations of misuse that have been made in this case, see n. 36, infra. Our concern is based less on any belief that grand jury misuse is in fact widespread than on our concern that, if and when it does occur, it would often be very difficult to detect and prove. Moreover, as the legislative history discussed infra, Part III-B, shows, our concern over possible misappropriation of the grand jury itself was shared by Congress when it enacted the present version of Rule 6(e). Such a potential for misuse should not be allowed absent a clear mandate in the law. Third, use of grand jury materials by Government agencies in civil or administrative settings threatens to subvert the limitations applied outside the grand jury context on the Government’s powers of discovery and investigation. While there are some limits on the investigative powers of the grand jury, there are few if any other forums- in which a governmental body has such relatively unregulated power to compel other persons to divulge information or produce evidence. Other agencies, both within and without the Justice Department, operate under specific and detailed statutes, rules, or regulations conferring only limited authority to require citizens to testify or produce evidence. Some agencies have been granted special statutory powers to obtain information and require testimony in pursuance of their duties. Others (including the Civil Division) are relegated to the usual course of discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In either case, the limitations imposed on investigation and discovery exist for sound reasons — ranging from fundamental fairness to concern about burdensomeness and intrusiveness. If Government litigators or investigators in civil matters enjoyed unlimited access to grand jury material, though, there would be little reason for them to resort to their usual, more limited avenues of investigation. To allow these agencies to circumvent their usual methods of discovery would not only subvert the limitations and procedural requirements built into those methods, but also would grant to the Government a virtual ex parte form of discovery, from which its civil litigation opponents are excluded unless they make a strong showing of particularized need. In civil litigation as in criminal, “it is rarely justifiable for the [Government] to have exclusive access to a storehouse of relevant fact.” Dennis v. United States, 384 U. S. 855, 873 (1966) (footnote omitted). We are reluctant to conclude that the draftsmen of Rule 6 intended so remarkable a result. In short, if grand juries are to be granted extraordinary powers of investigation because of the difficulty and importance of their task, the use of those powers ought to be limited as far as reasonably possible to the accomplishment of the task. The policies of Rule 6 require that any disclosure to attorneys other than prosecutors be judicially supervised rather than automatic. B The Government argues that its reading of Rule 6 is compelled by a textual comparison of subparagraph 6(e)(3)(A)(i) with subparagraph 6(e)(3)(A)(ii). It points out that the former restricts a Government attorney’s use of grand jury materials to “the performance of such attorney’s duty,” while the latter refers more specifically to “performance of such attorney’s duty to enforce federal criminal law” (emphasis added). The inclusion in (A)(ii) of an express limitation to criminal matters, and the absence of that limitation in the otherwise similar language of (A)(i), the Government argues, show that Congress intended to place the limitation to criminal matters on (A)(ii) disclosure but not on (A)(i) disclosure. The argument is admittedly a plausible one. If we had nothing more to go on than the bare text of the Rule, and if the subject matter at hand were something less sensitive than grand jury secrecy, we might well adopt that reasoning. The argument is not so compelling, nor the language so plain, however, as to overcome the strong arguments to the contrary drawn both from policy, supra, Part III-A, and from legislative history. It is material in this connection that the two subparagraphs are not of contemporaneous origin. The present (A)(i) language has been in the Rule since its inception in 1946; the (A)(ii) provision was added by Congress in 1977. The Government’s argument, at base, is that when Congress added the (A)(ii) provision containing an express limitation to criminal use, but did not add a similar limitation to (A)(i), it must have intended that no criminal-use limitation be applied to (A)(i) disclosure. The legislative history, although of less than perfect clarity, leads to the contrary conclusion. It appears instead that when Congress included the criminal-use limitation in the new (A)(ii), it was merely making explicit what it believed to be already implicit in the existing (A)(i) language. Rule 6(e), as it stood from 1946 to 1977, contained no provision for access to grand jury materials by nonattomeys assisting Government attorneys. The only provision for automatic access was one substantially the same as the language presently in (A)(i): “Disclosure... may be made to... the attorney[s] for the government for use in the performance of [their] dut[ies].” This became something of a problem in practice, because Justice Department attorneys found that they often needed active assistance from outside personnel— not only investigators from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, IRS, and other law enforcement agencies, but also accountants, handwriting experts, and other persons with special skills. Hence, despite the seemingly clear prohibition of the Rule, it became common in some Districts for nonattorneys to be shown grand jury materials. This practice sparked some controversy and litigation. Accordingly, when in 1976 this Court transmitted to the Congress several proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 425 U. S. 1159, a proposal was included to add one sentence to Rule 6(e), immediately following the provision for disclosure to attorneys for the Government: “For purposes of [Rule 6(e)], ‘attorneys for the government’ includes those enumerated in Rule 54(c); it also includes such other government personnel as are necessary to assist the attorneys for the government in the performance of their duties.” 425 U. S., at 1161. The accompanying Notes of the Advisory Committee on Rules, 18 U. S. C. App., p. 1024 (1976 ed., Supp. V), explained that the amendment was “designed to facilitate an increasing need, on the part of government attorneys, to make use of outside expertise in complex litigation.” Ibid. The Committee noted, however, that under its proposal, disclosure to nonattorneys would be “subject to the qualification that the matters disclosed be used only for the purposes of the grand jury investigation.” Id., at 1025 (emphasis added). Yet there was no express language in the proposed Rule clearly imposing this criminal-use limitation; the only limitation on use of grand jury materials was the double reference to “the performance of [Government attorneys’] duties.” It appears, then, that the Advisory Committee took that phrase to mean that use of grand jury materials was limited to criminal matters, absent a court order allowing civil use — a construction that would apply equally to Justice Department attorneys and their nonattomey assistants. The proposed amendment to Rule 6(e) met a mixed reception in Congress. Congress first acted to postpone the effective date of the amendment to Rule 6(e) so that it might study the proposal. The House, after hearings, voted to disapprove the amendment. Members of the responsible Subcommittee stated that they were in general sympathy with the purpose of the proposal, but that they were concerned that it was not sufficiently clear to protect adequately against use of grand jury materials for improper purposes by Government personnel. They were unable to agree on a substitute draft. The Senate Judiciary Committee was more hospitable to the original proposal. After consultation with House Members, however, the Committee undertook to redraft Rule 6(e) to accommodate both the purpose of the proposed amendment and the concerns of the House. The result was Rule 6(e) in substantially its present form, passed by both Houses without significant opposition. Congressional criticism of the proposed amendment focused on two problems: disclosure of grand jury materials to agencies outside the Department of Justice, and use of grand jury materials for non-grand-jury purposes. The two were closely related, however; the primary objection to granting access to employees of outside agencies, such as the IRS, was a concern that they would use the information to pursue civil investigations or unrelated criminal matters, in derogation of the limitations on their usual avenues of investigation. Little attention was paid to the prospect that other attorneys within the Justice Department, as much as other agencies, might use grand jury materials for civil purposes — presumably because the proposed amendment did not purport to alter the text governing access by Justice Department attorneys in any way. The only participant to address that aspect of the problem directly was Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Thornburgh, testifying on behalf of the Justice Department at the House Hearings. Thornburgh acknowledged that it would be a bad idea to allow agency personnel to use grand jury materials for civil purposes, but he contended that neither the proposal as drafted nor current practice would allow such use. Materials, he said, should be available to “every legitimate member of [the] team” conducting the criminal investigation, including “the assistant U. S. attorney who is probably conducting the investigation.” He continued: “Now, when you begin to move beyond the parameters of that particular investigation, we get to the point that you and I both have some trouble with. The cleanest example I can think of where a 6(e) order [i. e., a court order under what is now (C)(i)] is clearly required is where a criminal fraud investigation before a grand jury fails to produce enough legally admissible evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that criminal fraud ensued. “It would be the practice of the Department at that time to seek a 6( e) order from the court in order that that evidence could be made available for whatever civil consequences might ensue. “If there were fraud against the Government!,] for example, there would be a civil right of the Government to recover penalties with respect to the fraud that took place.” The rest of the legislative history is consistent with this view that no disclosure of grand jury materials for civil use should be permitted without a court order. Congress’ expressions of concern about civil use of grand jury materials did not distinguish in principle between such use by outside agencies and by the Department; rather, the key distinction was between disclosure for criminal use, as to which access should be automatic, and for civil use, as to which a court order should be required. The Senate Report, for example, explained its redraft thus: “The Rule as redrafted is designed to accommodate the belief on the one hand that Federal prosecutors should be able, without the time-consuming requirement of prior judicial interposition, to make such disclosures of grand jury information to other government personnel as they deem necessary to facilitate the performance of their duties relating to criminal law enforcement. On the other hand, the Rule seeks to allay the concerns of those who fear that such prosecutorial power will lead to misuse of the grand jury to enforce non-criminal Federal laws by (1) providing a clear prohibition, subject to the penalty of contempt and (2) requiring that a court order under paragraph (C) be obtained to authorize such a disclosure. There is, however, no intent to preclude the use of grand jury-developed evidence for civil law enforcement purposes. On the contrary, there is no reason why such use is improper, assuming that the grand jury was utilized for the legitimate purpose of a criminal investigation. Accordingly, the Committee believes and intends that the basis for a court’s refusal to issue an order under paragraph (C) to enable the government to disclose grand jury information in a non-criminal proceeding should be no more restrictive than is the case today under prevailing court decisions. ” S. Rep. No. 95-354, p. 8 (1977) (footnote omitted). This paragraph reflects the distinction the Senate Committee had in mind: “Federal prosecutors” are given a free hand concerning use of grand jury materials, at least pursuant to their “duties relating to criminal law enforcement”; but disclosure of “grand jury-developed evidence for civil law enforcement purposes” requires a (C)(i) court order. We conclude, then, that Congress did not intend that “attorneys for the government” should be permitted free civil use of grand jury materials. Congress was strongly concerned with assuring that prosecutors would not be free to turn over grand jury materials to others in the Government for civil uses without court supervision, and that statutory limits on civil discovery not be subverted — concerns that apply to civil use by attorneys within the Justice Department as fully as to similar use by persons in other Government agencies. Both the Advisory Committee Notes and the testimony of the Justice Department’s own representative suggested that even under the old Rule such disclosure for civil use would not have been permissible; indeed, the latter gave a hypothetical illustration closely similar to this very case. The express addition of a “criminal-use” limitation in (A)(ii) appears to have been prompted by an abundance of caution, owing to Congress’ special concern that nonattomeys were the ones most likely to pose a danger of unauthorized use. IV Since we conclude that the Government must obtain a (C)(i) court order to secure the disclosure it seeks in this case, we must consider what standard should govern the issuance of such an order. Rule 6(e)(3)(C)(i) simply authorizes a court to order disclosure “preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding.” Neither the text of the Rule nor the accompanying commentary describes any substantive standard governing issuance of such orders. We have consistently construed the Rule, however, to require a strong showing of particularized need for grand jury materials before any disclosure will be permitted. Abbott, 460 U. S., at 566-567; Douglas Oil, 441 U. S., at 217-224; Dennis, 384 U. S., at 869-870; Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., 360 U. S., at 398-401; Procter & Gamble, 356 U. S., at 681-683. We described the standard in detail in Douglas Oil: “Parties seeking grand jury transcripts under Rule 6(e) must show that the material they seek is needed to avoid a possible injustice in another judicial proceeding, that the need for disclosure is greater than the need for continued secrecy, and that their request is structured to cover only material so needed..., “It is clear from Procter & Gamble and Dennis that disclosure is appropriate only in those cases where the need for it outweighs the public interest in secrecy, and that the burden of demonstrating this balance rests upon the private party seeking disclosure. It is equally clear that as the considerations justifying secrecy become less relevant, a party asserting a need for grand jury transcripts will have a lesser burden in showing justification. In sum,... the court’s duty in a case of this kind is to weigh carefully the competing interests in light of the relevant circumstances and the standards announced by this Court. And if disclosure is ordered, the court may include protective limitations on the use of the disclosed material....” 441 U. S., at 222-223 (citations omitted). The Government points out that Douglas Oil and its forerunners all involved private parties seeking access to grand jury materials. It contends that the Douglas Oil standard ought not be applied when Government officials seek access “in furtherance of their responsibility to protect the public weal.” Brief for United States 43. Earlier this Term, however, we rejected a similar argument in Abbott, supra. At issue there was an antitrust statute requiring the United States Attorney General to turn over to state attorneys general certain investigative files and materials, “to the extent permitted by law.” 15 U. S. C. § 15f(b). We assumed that grand jury records are among the materials to be disclosed under the statute, 460 U. S., at 566, n. 10. We held nevertheless that the particularized-need standard applies to disclosure to state attorneys general, and that Congress did not intend to legislate to the contrary when it enacted the statute in question. Id., at 566-568, and nn. 14-16. Our conclusion that Douglas Oil governs disclosure to public parties as well as private ones is bolstered by the legislative history of the 1977 amendment of Rule 6(e), supra, Part III-B. That amendment was not directed at the provision for court-ordered disclosure (now (C)(i)), which remained textually unchanged. The Senate Committee that drafted the present Rule noted the importance of that provision, however, pointing out that it would continue to govern disclosure to Government parties for civil use under prevailing court interpretations. Moreover, if we were to agree with the Government that disclosure is permissible if the grand jury materials are “relevant to matters within the duties of the attorneys for the government,” Brief for United States 13, a (C)(i) court order would be a virtual rubber-stamp for the Government’s assertion that it desires disclosure. Thus, under the Government’s argument, it would get under subparagraph (C)(i) precisely what Congress in 1977 intended to deny it under subparagraphs (A) and (B)— unlimited and unregulated access to grand jury materials for civil use. The Government further argues that “disclosure of grand jury materials to government attorneys typically implicates few, if any, of the concerns that underlie the policy of grand jury secrecy.” Brief for United States 45. The contention is overstated, see supra, at 431-434, but it has some validity. Nothing in Douglas Oil, however, requires a district court to pretend that there are no differences between governmental bodies and private parties. The Douglas Oil standard is a highly flexible one, adaptable to different circumstances and sensitive to the fact that the requirements of secrecy are greater in some situations than in others. Hence, although Abbott and the legislative history foreclose any special dispensation from the Douglas Oil standard for Government agencies, the standard itself accommodates any relevant considerations, peculiar to Government movants, that weigh for or against disclosure in a given case. For example, a district court might reasonably consider that disclosure to Justice Department attorneys poses less risk of further leakage or improper use than would disclosure to private parties or the general public. Similarly, we are informed that it is the usual policy of the Justice Department not to seek civil use of grand jury materials until the criminal aspect of the matter is closed. Cf. Douglas Oil, supra, at 222-223. And “under the particularized-need standard, the district court may weigh the public interest, if any, served by disclosure to a governmental body....” Abbott, supra, at 567-568, n. 15. On the other hand, for example, in weighing the need for disclosure, the court could take into account any alternative discovery tools available by statute or regulation to the agency seeking disclosure. In this case, the District Court asserted that it had found particularized need for disclosure, but its explanation of that conclusion amounted to little more than its statement that the grand Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy 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 was tried on charges of violating a number of federal criminal statutes penalizing fraud. It is agreed that the District Court erred in refusing to submit the issue of materiality to the jury with respect to those charges involving tax fraud. See United States v. Gaudin, 515 U. S. 506 (1995). We hold that the harmless-error rule of Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18 (1967), applies to this error. We also hold that materiality is an element of the federal mail fraud, wire fraud, and bank fraud statutes under which petitioner was also charged. I In the mid-1980’s, petitioner Ellis E. Neder, Jr., an attorney and real estate developer in Jacksonville, Florida, engaged in a number of real estate transactions financed by fraudulently obtained bank loans. Between 1984 and 1986, Neder purchased 12 parcels of land using shell corporations set up by his attorneys and then immediately resold the land at much higher prices to limited partnerships that he eon-trolled. Using inflated appraisals, Neder secured bank loans that typically amounted to 70% to 75% of the inflated resale price of the land. In so doing, he concealed from lenders that he controlled the shell corporations, that he had purchased the land at prices substantially lower than the inflated resale prices, and that the limited partnerships had not made substantial down payments as represented. In several cases, Neder agreed to sign affidavits falsely stating that he had no relationship to the shell corporations and that he was not sharing in the profits from the inflated land sales. By keeping for himself the amount by which the loan proceeds exceeded the original purchase price of the land, Neder was able to obtain more than $7 million. He failed to report nearly all of this money on his personal income tax returns. He eventually defaulted on the loans. Neder also engaged in a number of schemes involving land development fraud. In 1985, he obtained a $4,150,000 construction loan to build condominiums on a project known as Cedar Creek. To obtain the loan, he falsely represented to the lender that he had satisfied a condition of the loan by making advance sales of 20 condominium units. In fact, he had been unable to meet the condition, so he secured additional buyers by making their down payments himself. He then had the down payments transferred back to him from the escrow accounts into which they had been placed. Neder later defaulted on the loan without repaying any of the principal. He employed a similar scheme to obtain a second construction loan of $5,400,000, and unsuccessfully attempted to obtain an additional loan in the same manner. Neder also obtained a consolidated $14 million land acquisition and development loan for a project known as Reddie Point. Pursuant to the loan, Neder could request funds for work actually performed on the project. Between September 1987 and March 1988, he submitted numerous requests based on false invoices, the lender approved the requests, and he obtained almost $8 million unrelated to any work actually performed. Neder was indicted on, among other things, 9 counts of mail fraud, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1341; 9 counts of wire fraud, in violation of § 1343; 12 counts of bank fraud, in violation of § 1344; and 2 counts of filing a false income tax return, in violation of 26 U. S. C. § 7206(1). The fraud counts charged Neder with devising and executing various schemes to defraud lenders in connection with the land acquisition and development loans, totaling over $40 million. The tax counts charged Neder with filing false statements of income on his tax returns. According to the Government, Neder failed to report more than $1 million in income for 1985 and more than $4 million in income for 1986, both amounts reflecting profits Neder obtained from the fraudulent real estate loans. In accordance with then-extant Circuit precedent and over Neder’s objection, the District Court instructed the jury that, to convict on the tax offenses, it “need not consider” the materiality of any false statements “even though that language is used in the indictment.” App. 256. The question of materiality, the court instructed, “is not a question for the jury to decide.” Ibid. The court gave a similar instruction on bank fraud, id., at 249, and subsequently found, outside the presence of the jury, that the evidence established the materiality of all the false statements at issue, id., at 167. In instructing the jury on mail fraud and wire fraud, the District Court did not include materiality as an element of either offense. Id., at 253-255. Neder again objected to the instruction. The jury convicted Neder of the fraud and tax offenses, and he was sentenced to 147 months’ imprisonment, 5 years’ supervised release, and $25 million in restitution. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the conviction. 136 F. 3d 1459 (1998). It held that the District Court erred under our intervening decision in United States v. Gaudin, 515 U. S. 506 (1995), in failing to submit the materiality element of the tax offense to the jury. It concluded, however, that the error was subject to harmless-error analysis and, further, that the error was harmless because “materiality was not in dispute,” 136 F. 3d, at 1465, and thus the error “‘did not contribute to the verdict obtained,’” ibid. (quoting Yates v. Evatt, 500 U. S. 391, 403 (1991)). The Court of Appeals also held that materiality is not an element of the mail fraud, wire fraud, and bank fraud statutes, and thus the District Court did not err in failing to submit the question of materiality to the jury. We granted certiorari, 525 U. S. 928 (1998), to resolve a conflict in the Courts of Appeals on two questions: (1) whether, and under what circumstances, the omission of an element from the judge’s charge to the jury can be harmless error, and (2) whether materiality is an element of the federal mail fraud, wire fraud, and bank fraud statutes. hH Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which governs direct appeals from judgments of conviction in the federal system, provides that “[a]ny error, defect, irregularity or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.” Although this Rule by its terms applies to all errors where a proper objection is made at trial, we have recognized a limited class of fundamental constitutional errors that “defy analysis by ‘harmless error’ standards.” Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U. S. 279, 309 (1991); see Chapman v. California, 386 U. S., at 23. Errors of this type are so intrinsically harmful as to require automatic reversal (i. e., “affect substantial rights”) without regard to their effect on the outcome. For all other constitutional errors, reviewing courts must apply Rule 52(a)’s harmless-error analysis and must “disregar[d]” errors that are harmless “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id., at 24. In this ease the Government does not dispute that the District Court erred under Gaudin in deciding the materiality element of a §7206(1) offense itself, rather than submitting the issue to the jury. See Brief for United States 10, and n. 1. We must decide whether the error here is subject to harmless-error analysis and, if so, whether the error was harmless. A We have recognized that “most constitutional errors can be harmless.” Fulminante, supra, at 306. “[I]f the defendant had counsel and was tried by an impartial adjudicator, there is a strong presumption that any other [constitutional] errors that may have occurred are subject to harmless-error analysis.” Rose v. Clark, 478 U. S. 570, 579 (1986). Indeed, we have found an error to be “structural,” and thus subject to automatic reversal, only in a “very limited class of cases.” Johnson v. United States, 520 U. S. 461, 468 (1997) (citing Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 (1963) (complete denial of counsel); Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U. S. 510 (1927) (biased trial judge); Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U. S. 254 (1986) (racial discrimination in selection of grand jury); McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U. S. 168 (1984) (denial of self-representation at trial); Waller v. Georgia, 467 U. S. 39 (1984) (denial of public trial); Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U. S. 275 (1993) (defective reasonable-doubt instruction)). The error at issue here — a jury instruction that omits an element of the offense — differs markedly from the constitutional violations we have found to defy harmless-error review. Those eases, we have explained, contain a “defect affecting the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself,” Fulminante, supra, at 310. Such errors “infect the entire trial process,” Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U. S. 619, 630 (1993), and “necessarily render a trial fundamentally unfair,” Rose, 478 U. S., at 577. Put another way, these errors deprive defendants of “basic protections” without which “a criminal trial cannot reliably serve its function as a vehicle for determination of guilt or innocence... and no criminal punishment may be regarded as fundamentally fair.” Id., at 577-578. Unlike such defects as the complete deprivation of counsel or trial before a biased judge, an instruction that omits an element of the offense does not necessarily render a criminal trial fundamentally unfair or an unreliable vehicle for determining guilt or innocence. Our decision in Johnson v. United States, supra, is instructive. Johnson was a perjury prosecution in which, as here, the element of materiality was decided by the judge rather than submitted to the jury. The defendant failed to object at trial, and we thus reviewed her claim for "plain error.” Although reserving the question whether the omission of an element ipso facto “ ‘affect[s] substantial rights/ ” 520 U. S., at 468-469, we concluded that the error did not warrant correction in light of the “ ‘overwhelming’ ” and “uncontroverted” evidence supporting materiality, id., at 470. Based on this evidence, we explained, the error did not “‘seriously affeeft] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” Id., at 469 (quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U. S. 725, 736 (1993)). That conclusion cuts against the argument that the omission of an element will always render a trial unfair. In fact, as this case shows, quite the opposite is true: Neder was tried before an impartial judge, under the correct standard of proof and with the assistance of counsel; a fairly selected, impartial jury was instructed to consider all of the evidence and argument in respect to Néder’s defense against the tax charges. Of course, the court erroneously failed to charge the jury on the element of materiality, but that error did not render Neder’s trial “fundamentally unfair,” as that term is used in our cases. We have often applied harmless-error analysis to cases involving improper instructions on a single element of the offense. See, e. g., Yates v. Evatt, 500 U. S. 391 (1991) (mandatory rebuttable presumption); Carella v. California, 491 U. S. 263 (1989) (per curiam) (mandatory conclusive presumption); Pope v. Illinois, 481 U. S. 497 (1987) (misstatement of element); Rose, supra (mandatory rebuttable presumption). In other eases, we have recognized that improperly omitting an element from the jury can “easily be analogized to improperly instructing the jury on an element of the offense, an error which is subject to harmless-error analysis.” Johnson, supra, at 469 (citations omitted); see also California v. Roy, 519 U. S. 2, 5 (1996) (per curiam) (“The specific error at issue here — an error in the instruction that defined the crime — is... as easily characterized as a ‘misdescription of an element’ of the crime, as it is characterized as an error of ‘omission’ ”). In both cases — misdescrip-tions and omissions — the erroneous instruction precludes the jury from making a finding on the actual element of the offense. The same, we think, can be said of conclusive presumptions, which direct the jury to presume an ultimate element of the offense based on proof of certain predicate facts (e. g., “You must presume malice if you find an intentional killing”). Like an omission, a conclusive presumption deters the jury from considering any evidence other than that related to the predicate facts (e. g., an intentional killing) and “directly foreclose[s] independent jury consideration of whether the facts proved established certain elements of the offens[e]” (e. g., malice). Carella, 491 U. S., at 266; see id., at 270 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). The conclusion that the omission of an element is subject to harmless-error analysis is consistent with the holding (if not the entire reasoning) of Sullivan v. Louisiana, the case upon which Neder principally relies. In Sullivan, the trial court gave the jury a defective “reasonable doubt” instruction in violation of the defendant’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to have the charged offense proved beyond a reasonable doubt. See Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U. S. 39 (1990) (per curiam). Applying our traditional mode of analysis, the Court concluded that the error was not subject to harmless-error analysis because it “vitiates all the jury’s findings,” 508 U. S., at 281, and produces “consequences that are necessarily unquantifiable and indeterminate,” id., at 282. By contrast, the jury-instruction error here did not “vitiat[e] all the jury’s findings.” Id., at 281; see id., at 284 (Rehnquist, C. J., concurring). It did, of course, prevent the jury from making a finding on the element of materiality. Neder argues that Sullivan’s alternative reasoning pre-. eludes the application of harmless error here. Under that reasoning, harmless-error analysis cannot be applied to a constitutional error that precludes the jury from rendering a verdict of guilty-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt because “the entire premise of Chapman review is simply absent.” Id., at 280. In the absence of an actual verdict of guilty-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt, the Court explained: “[T]he question whether the same verdict of guilty-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt would have been rendered absent the constitutional error is utterly meaningless. There is no object, so to speak, upon which the harmless-error scrutiny can operate.” Ibid.; see Carella, supra, at 268-269 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). Neder argues that this analysis applies with equal force where the constitutional error, as here, prevents the jury from rendering a “complete verdict” on every element of the offense. As in Sullivan, Neder argues, the basis for harmless-error review “‘is simply absent.’ ” Brief for Petitioner 7. Although this strand of the reasoning in Sullivan does provide support for Neder’s position, it cannot be squared with our harmless-error cases. In Pope, for example, the trial court erroneously instructed the jury that it could find the defendant guilty in an obscenity prosecution if it found that the allegedly obscene material lacked serious value under “community standards,” rather than the correct “reasonable person” standard required by the First Amendment. 481 U. S., at 499-501. Because the jury was not properly instructed, and consequently did not render a finding, on the actual element of the offense, the defendant’s trial did not result in a “complete verdict” any more than in this case. Yet we held there that harmless-error analysis was appropriate. Id., at 502-503. Similarly, in Carella, the jury was instructed to presume that the defendant “embezzled [a] vehicle” and “[i]nten[ded] to commit theft” if the jury found that the defendant failed to return a rental car within a certain number of days after the expiration of the rental period. 491 U. S., at 264 (internal quotation marks omitted). Again, the jury’s finding of guilt cannot be seen as a “complete verdict” because the conclusive presumption “directly foreclosed independent jury consideration of whether the facts proved established certain elements of the offenses.” Id., at 266. As in Pope, however, we held that the unconstitutional conclusive presumption was “subject to the harmless-error rule.” 491 U. S., at 266. And in Roy, a federal habeas ease involving a state-court murder conviction, the trial court erroneously failed to instruct the jury that it could convict the defendant as an aider and abettor only if it found that the defendant had the “intent or purpose” of aiding the confederate’s crime. 519 U. S., at 3 (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted). Despite that omission, we held that “[t]he case before us is a case for application of the ‘harmless error’ standard.” Id., at 5. The Government argues, correctly we think, that the absence of a “complete verdict” on every element of the offense establishes no more than that an improper instruction on an element of the offense violates the Sixth Amendment’s jury trial guarantee. The issue here, however, is not whether a jury instruction that omits an element of the offense was error (a point that is uneontested, see supra, at 8), but whether the error is subject to harmless-error analysis. We think our decisions in Pope, Carella, and Roy dictate the answer to that question. Forced to accept that this Court has applied harmless-error review in cases where the jury did not render a “complete verdict” on every element of the offense, Neder attempts to reconcile our eases by offering an approach gleaned from a plurality opinion in Connecticut v. Johnson, 460 U. S. 73 (1988), an opinion concurring in the judgment in Carella, supra, and language in Sullivan, supra. Under this restrictive approach, an instructional omission, mis-description, or conclusive presumption can be subject to harmless-error analysis only in three “rare situations”: (1) where the defendant is acquitted of the offense on which the jury was improperly instructed (and, despite the defendant’s argument that the instruction affected another count, the improper instruction had no bearing on it); (2) where the defendant admitted the element on which the jury was improperly instructed; and (3) where other facts necessarily found by the jury are the “functional equivalent” of the omitted, misdescribed, or presumed element. See Sullivan, supra, at 281; Carella, supra, at 270-271 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment); Johnson, supra, at 87 (plurality opinion). Neder understandably contends that Pope, Carella, and Roy fall within this last exception, which explains why the Court in those cases held that the instructional error could be harmless. We believe this approach is mistaken for more than one reason. As an initial matter, we are by no means certain that the cases just mentioned meet the “functional equivalence” test as Neder at times articulates it. See Brief for Petitioner 29 (“[Ajppellate courts [cannot be] given even the slightest latitude to review the record to ‘fill the gaps’ in a jury verdict, as ‘minor’ as those gaps may seem”). In Pope, for example, there was necessarily a “gap” between what the jury did find (that the allegedly obscene material lacked value under “community standards”) and what it was required to find to convict (that the material lacked value under a national “reasonable person” standard). Petitioner’s submission would have mandated reversal for a new trial in that ease, because a juror in Rockford, Illinois, who found that the material lacked value under community standards, would not necessarily have found that it did so under presumably broader and more tolerant national standards. But • since we held that harmless-error analysis was appropriate in Pope, that case not only does not support petitioner’s approach, but rejects it. Petitioner’s submission also imports into the initial structural-error determination (i. e., whether an error is structural) a case-by-ease approach that is more consistent with our traditional harmless-error inquiry (i e., whether an error is harmless). Under our cases, a constitutional error is either structural or it is not. Thus, even if we were inclined to follow a broader “functional equivalence” test (e. g., where other facts found by the jury are “so closely related” to the omitted element “that no rational jury could find those facts without also finding” the omitted element, Sullivan, 508 U. S., at 281 (internal quotation marks omitted)), such a test would be inconsistent with our traditional categorical approach to structural errors. We also note that the present ease arose in the legal equivalent of a laboratory test tube. The trial court, following existing law, ruled that the question of materiality was for the court, not the jury. It therefore refused a charge on the question of materiality. But future cases are not likely to be so clear cut. In Roy, we said that the error in question could be “as easily characterized as a ‘misdescription of an element’ of the crime, as it is characterized as an error of ‘omission.’ ” 519 U. S., at 5. As petitioner concedes, his submission would thus call into question the far more common subcategory of misdescriptions. And it would require a reviewing court in each case to determine just how serious a “misdescription” it was. Difficult as such issues would be when dealing with the ample volume defining federal crimes, they would be measurably compounded by the necessity for federal courts, reviewing state convictions under 28 U. S. C. §2254, to ascertain the elements of the offense as defined in the laws of 50 different States. It would not be illogical to extend the reasoning of Sullivan from a defective “reasonable doubt” instruction to a failure to instruct on an element of the crime. But, as indicated in the foregoing discussion, the matter is not res nova under our case law. And if the life of the law has not been logic but experience, see 0. Holmes, The Common Law 1 (1881), we are entitled to stand back and see what would be accomplished by such an extension in this case. The omitted element was materiality. Petitioner underreported $5 million on his tax returns, and did not contest the element of materiality at trial. Petitioner does not suggest that he would introduce any evidence bearing upon the issue of materiality if so allowed. Reversal without any consideration of the effect of the error upon the verdict would send the case back for retrial — a retrial not focused at all on the issue of materiality, but on contested issues on which the jury was properly instructed. We do not think the Sixth Amendment requires us to veer away from settled precedent to reach such a result. B Having concluded that the omission of an element is an error that is subject to harmless-error analysis, the question remains whether Neder’s conviction can stand because the error was harmless. In Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18 (1967), we set forth the test for determining whether a constitutional error is harmless. That test, we said, is whether it appears “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” Id., at 24; see Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U. S. 673, 681 (1986) (“[Ajn otherwise valid conviction should not be set aside if the reviewing court may confidently say, on the whole record, that the constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt”). To obtain a conviction on the tax offense at issue, the Government must prove that the defendant filed a tax return “which he does not believe to be true and correct as to every material matter.” 26 U. S. C. § 7206(1). In general, a false statement is material if it has “a natural tendency to influence, or [is] capable of influencing, the decision of the deci-sionmaking body to which it was addressed.” United States v. Gaudin, 515 U. S., at 509 (quoting Kungys v. United States, 485 U. S. 759, 770 (1988) (internal quotation marks omitted)). In a prosecution under § 7206(1), several courts have determined that “any failure to report income is material.” United States v. Holland, 880 F. 2d 1091, 1096 (CA9 1989); see 136 F. 3d, at 1465 (collecting cases). Under either of these formulations, no jury could reasonably find that Ned-er’s failure to report substantial amounts of income on his tax returns was not “a material matter.” At trial, the Government introduced evidence that Neder failed to report over $5 million in income from the loans he obtained. The failure to report such substantial income incontrovertibly establishes that Neder’s false statements were material to a determination of his income tax liability. The evidence supporting materiality was so overwhelming, in fact, that Neder did not argue to the jury — and does not argue here — that his false statements of income could be found immaterial. Instead, he defended against the tax charges by arguing that the loan proceeds were not income because he intended to repay the loans, and that he reasonably believed, based on the advice of his accountant and lawyer, that he need not report the proceeds as income. App. 208-211, 235 (closing argument). In this situation, where a reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that the omitted element was uneontested and supported by overwhelming evidence, such that the jury verdict would have been the same absent the error, the erroneous instruction is properly found to be harmless. We think it beyond cavil here that the error “did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” Chapman, supra, at 24. Neder disputes our conclusion that the error in this case was harmless. Relying on language in our Sullivan and Yates decisions, he argues that a finding of harmless error may be made only upon a determination that the jury rested its verdict on evidence that its instructions allowed it to consider. See Sullivan, 508 U. S., at 279; Yates, 500 U. S., at 404. To rely on overwhelming record evidence of guilt the jury did not actually consider, he contends, would be to dispense with trial by jury and allow judges to direct a guilty verdict on an element of the offense. But at bottom this is simply another form of the argument that a failure to instruct on any element of the crime is not subject to harmless-error analysis. Yates involved constitutionally infirm presumptions on an issue that was the crux of the case — the defendant’s intent. But in the case of an omitted element, as the present one, the jury’s instructions preclude any consideration of evidence relevant to the omitted element, and thus there could be no harmless-error analysis. Since we have previously concluded that harmless-error analysis is appropriate in such a case, we must look to other eases decided under Chapman for the proper mode of analysis. The erroneous admission of evidence in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee against self-incrimination, see Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U. S. 279 (1991), and the erroneous exclusion of evidence in violation of the right to confront witnesses guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, see Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U. S. 673 (1986), are both subject to harmless-error analysis under our cases. Such errors, no less than the failure to instruct on an element in violation of the right to a jury trial, infringe upon the jury’s fact-finding role and affect the jury’s deliberative process in ways that are, strictly speaking, not readily calculable. We think, therefore, that the harmless-error inquiry must be essentially the same: Is it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error? To set a barrier so high that it could never be surmounted would justify the very criticism that spawned the harmless-error doctrine in the first place: “Reversal for error, regardless of its effect on the judgment, encourages litigants to abuse the judicial process and bestirs the public to ridicule it.” R. Traynor, The Riddle of Harmless Error 50 (1970). We believe that where an omitted element is supported by uncontroverted evidence, this approach reaches an appropriate balance between “society’s interest in punishing the guilty [and] the method by which decisions of guilt are to be made.” Connecticut v. Johnson, 460 U. S., at 86 (plurality opinion). The harmless-error doctrine, we have said, “recognizes the principle that the central purpose of a criminal trial is to decide the factual question of the defendant’s guilt or innocence,... and promotes public respect for the criminal process by focusing on the underlying fairness of the trial.” Van Arsdall, supra, at 681. At the same time, we have recognized that trial by jury in serious criminal cases “was designed ‘to guard against a spirit of oppression and tyranny on the part of rulers,’ and ‘was from very early times insisted on by our ancestors in the parent country, as the great bulwark of their civil and political liberties/'” Gaudin, 515 U. S., at 510-511 (quoting 2 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 540-541 (4th ed. 1873)). In a ease such as this one, where a defendant did not, and apparently could not, bring forth facts contesting the omitted element, answering the question whether the jury verdict would have been the same absent the error does not fundamentally undermine the purposes of the jury trial guarantee. Of course, safeguarding the jury guarantee will often require that a reviewing court conduct a thorough examination of the record. If, at the end of that examination, the court cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury verdict would have been the same absent the error — for example, where the defendant contested the omitted element and raised evidence sufficient to support a contrary finding — it should not find the error harmless. A reviewing court making this harmless-error inquiry does not, as Justice Traynor put it, “become in effect a second jury to determine whether the defendant is guilty.” Traynor, supra, at 21. Rather a court, in typical appellate-court fashion, asks whether the record contains evidence that could rationally lead to a contrary finding with respect to the omitted element. If the answer to that question is “no,” holding the error harmless does not “reflee[t] a denigration of the constitutional rights involved.” Rose, 478 U. S., at 577. On the contrary, it “serve[s] a very useful purpose insofar as [it] block[s] setting aside convictions for small errors or defects that have little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial.” Chapman, 386 U. S., at 22. We thus hold that the District Court’s failure to submit the element of materiality to the jury with respect to the tax charges was harmless error. HH w We also granted certiorari in this ease to decide whether materiality is an element of a “scheme or artifice to defraud” under the federal mail fraud (18 U. S. C. § 1341), wire fraud (§ 1343), and bank fraud (§ 1344) statutes. The Court of Appeals concluded that the failure to submit materiality to the jury was not error because’ the fraud statutes do not require that a “scheme to defraud” employ material falsehoods. We disagree. Under the framework set forth in United States v. Wells, 519 U. S. 482 (1997), we first look to the text of the statutes at issue to discern whether they require a showing of materiality. In this case, we need not dwell long on the text because, as the parties agree, none of the fraud statutes defines the phrase “scheme or artifice to defraud,” or even mentions materiality. Although the mail fraud and wire fraud statutes contain different jurisdictional elements (§ 1341 requires use of the mails while § 1343 requires use of interstate wire facilities), they both prohibit, in pertinent part, “any scheme or artifice to defraud” or to obtain money or property “by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.” The bank fraud statute, which was modeled on the mail and wire fraud statutes, similarly prohibits any “scheme or artifice to defraud a financial institution" or to obtain any property of a financial institution “by false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.” Thus, based solely on a “natural reading of the full text," id,, at 490, materiality would not be an element of the fraud statutes. That does not end our inquiry, however, because in interpreting statutory language there is a necessary second step. It is a well-established rule of construction that “ ‘[wjhere Congress uses terms that have accumulated settled meaning under... the common law, a court must infer, unless the statute otherwise dictates, that Congress means to incorporate the established meaning of these terms.’ ” Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U. S. 318, 322 (1992) (quoting Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U. S. 730, 739 (1989)); see Standard Oil Co. of N. J. v. United States, 221 U. S. 1, 59 (1911) (“[W]here words are employed in a statute which had at the time a well-known meaning at common law or in the law of this country, they are presumed to have been used in that sense”). Neder contends that “defraud” is just such a term, and that Congress implicitly incorporated its common-law meaning, including its requirement of materiality, into the statutes at issue. The Government does not dispute that both at the time of the mail fraud statute’s original enactment in 1872, and later when Congress enacted the wire fraud and bank fraud statutes, actionable “fraud” had a well-settled meaning at common law. Nor does it dispute that the well-settled meaning of “fraud” required a misrepresentation or concealment of material fact. Indeed, as the sources we are aware of demonstrate, the common law could not have conceived of “fraud” without proof of materiality. See BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U. S. 559, 579 (1996) (“[Ajctionable fraud requires a material misrepresentation or omission” (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 538 (1977); W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. Keeton, & D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on Law of Torts § 108 (5th ed. 1984))); Smith v. Richards, 13 Pet. 26, 39 (1839) Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

A

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr. Justice Black delivered the opinion of t,he Court. We granted certiorari in this case to consider a single question: “May a defendant be required to stand trial and a conviction be sustained where only hearsay evidence was presented to the grand jury which indicted him?” 350 U. S. 819. Petitioner, Frank Costello, was indicted for wilfully attempting to evade payment of income taxes due the United States for the years 1947, 1948 and 1949. The charge was that petitioner falsely and fraudulently reported less income than he and his wife actually received during the taxable years in question. Petitioner promptly filed a motion for inspection of the minutes of the grand jury and for a dismissal of the indictment. His motion was based on an affidavit stating that he was firmly convinced there could have been no legal or competent evidence before the grand jury which indicted him since he had reported all his income and paid all taxes due. The motion was denied. At the trial which followed the Government offered evidence designed to show increases in Costello’s net worth in an attempt to prove that he had received more income during the years in question than he had reported. To establish its case the Government called and examined 144 witnesses and introduced 368 exhibits. All of the testimony and documents related to business transactions and expenditures by petitioner and his wife. The prosecution concluded its case by calling three government agents. Their investigations had produced the evidence used against petitioner at the trial. They were allowed to summarize the vast amount of evidence already heard and to introduce computations showing, if correct, that petitioner and his wife had received far greater income than they had reported. We have held such summarizations admissible in a “net worth” case like this. United States v. Johnson, 319 U. S.503. Counsel for petitioner asked each government witness at the trial whether he had appeared before the grand jury which returned the indictment. This cross-examination developed the fact that the three investigating officers had been the only witnesses before the grand jury. After the Government concluded its case, petitioner again moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the only evidence before the grand jury was “hearsay,” since the three officers had no firsthand knowledge of the transactions upon which their computations were based. Nevertheless the trial court again refused to dismiss the indictment, and petitioner was convicted. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the indictment was valid even though the sole evidence before the grand jury was hearsay. Petitioner here urges: (1) that an indictment based solely on hearsay evidence violates that part of the Fifth Amendment providing that “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury . . . .” and (2) that if the Fifth Amendment does not invalidate an indictment based solely on hearsay we should now lay down such a rule for the guidance of federal courts. See McNabb v. United States, 318 U. S. 332, 340-341. The Fifth Amendment provides that federal prosecutions for capital or otherwise infamous crimes must be instituted by presentments or indictments of grand juries. But neither the Fifth Amendment nor any other constitutional provision prescribes the kind of evidence upon which grand juries must act. The grand jury is an English institution, brought to this country by the early colonists and incorporated in the Constitution by the Founders. There is every reason to believe that our constitutional grand jury was intended to operate substantially like its English progenitor. The basic purpose of the English grand jury was to provide a fair method for instituting criminal proceedings against persons believed to have committed crimes. Grand jurors were selected from the body of the people and their work was not hampered by rigid procedural or evidential rules. In fact, grand jurors could act on their own knowledge and were free to make their presentments or indictments on such information as they deemed satisfactory. Despite its broad power to institute criminal proceedings the grand jury grew in popular favor with the years. It acquired an independence in England free from control by the Crown or judges. Its adoption in our Constitution as the sole method for preferring charges in serious criminal cases shows the high place it held as an instrument of justice. And in this country as in England of old the grand jury has convened as a body of laymen, free from technical rules, acting in secret, pledged to indict no one because of prejudice and to free no one because of special favor. As late as 1927 an English historian could say that English grand juries were still free to act on their own knowledge if they pleased to do so. And in 1852 Mr. Justice Nelson on circuit could say “No case has been cited, nor have we been able to find any, furnishing an authority for looking into and revising the judgment of the grand jury upon the evidence, for the purpose of determining whether or not the finding was founded upon sufficient proof . . . .” United States v. Reed, 27 Fed. Cas. 727, 738. In Holt v. United States, 218 U. S. 245, this Court had to decide whether an indictment should be quashed because supported in part by incompetent evidence. Aside from the incompetent evidence “there was very little evidence against the accused.” The Court refused to hold that such an indictment should be quashed, pointing out that “The abuses of criminal practice would be enhanced if indictments could be upset on such a ground.” 218 U. S., at 248. The same thing is true where as here all the evidence before the grand jury was in the nature of “hearsay.” If indictments were to be held open to challenge on the ground that there was inadequate or incompetent evidence before the grand jury, the resulting delay would be great indeed. The result of such a rule would be that before trial on the merits a defendant could always insist on a kind of preliminary trial to determine the competency and adequacy of the evidence before the grand jury. This is not required by the Fifth Amendment. An indictment returned by a legally constituted and unbiased grand jury, like an information drawn by the prosecutor, if valid on its face, is enough to call for trial of the charge on the merits. The Fifth Amendment requires nothing more. Petitioner urges that this Court should exercise its power to supervise the administration of justice in federal courts and establish a rule permitting defendants to challenge indictments on the ground that they are not supported by adequate or competent evidence. No persuasive reasons are advanced for establishing such a rule. It would run counter to the whole history of the grand jury institution, in which laymen conduct their inquiries unfettered by technical rules. Neither justice nor the concept of a fair trial requires such a change. In a trial on the merits, defendants are entitled to a strict observance of all the rules designed to bring about a fair verdict. Defendants are not entitled, however, to a rule which would result in interminable delay but add nothing to the assurance of a fair trial. Affirmed Mr. Justice Clark and Mr. Justice Harlan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. The indictment was based on § 145 (b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939. 53 Stat. 63. There was also a count in the indictment for the year 1946 but petitioner was found not guilty of this charge. For discussions of the “net worth method,” see Holland v. United States, 348 U. S. 121; Friedberg v. United States, 348 U. S. 142; Smith v. United States, 348 U. S. 147; and United States v. Calderon, 348 U. S. 160. 221 F. 2d 668. The Court of Appeals reversed petitioner’s conviction on the 1947 count on grounds not material here. Varying views have been expressed concerning whether indictments may be challenged because based in whole or in part on incompetent evidence. See, e. g., Chadwick v. United States, 141 F. 225; United States v. Violon, 173 F. 501; Nanfito v. United States, 20 F. 2d 376, 378; Brady v. United States, 24 F. 2d 405; Banks v. United States, 204 F. 2d 666; Zacher v. United States, 227 F. 2d 219. See also eases collected in 62 Harv. L. Rev. 111; 38 Yale L. J. 680; 71 Cent. L. J. 9; Joyce, Indictments (2d ed., Blakemore, 1924), 166— 168; Note, 24 A. L. R. 1432. 1 Holdsworth, History of English Law (1927), 323. As to the development of the grand jury as an institution here and in England, see Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43, 59; Blair v. United, States, 250 U. S. 273, 282; McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U. S. 135,157; United States v. Johnson, 319 U. S. 503; 4 Blackstone Commentaries 301 et seq.; 1 Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law (1895), 130; 1 Holdsworth, History of English Law (1927), 312-323; Morse, A Survey of the Grand Jury System, 10 Ore. L. Rev. 101, 217, 295. See, e. g., Pierre v. Louisiana, 306 U. S. 354. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy 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. Involved here are questions concerning joinder of defendants under Rule 8 (b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and whether shipments of stolen goods in interstate commerce may be aggregated as to value in order to meet the statutory minimum of $5,000, under 18 U. S. C. § 2314. The indictment charged transportation in interstate commerce of goods known to have been stolen and having a value in excess of $5,000. It contained three substantive counts. Count 1 charged the two Schaffers (petitioners in No. Ill) and the three Stracuzzas (defendants below, who either pleaded guilty or had the charges against them nolle prossed at trial) with transporting stolen ladies’ and children’s wearing apparel from New York to Pennsylvania. Count 2 charged petitioner Marco and the Stracuzzas with a similar movement of stolen goods from New York to West Virginia. Count 3 charged petitioner Karp and the Stracuzzas with like shipments from New York to Massachusetts. The fourth and final count of the indictment charged all of these parties with a conspiracy to commit the substantive offenses charged in the first three counts. The petitioners here were tried on the indictment simultaneously in a single trial. On motion of petitioners for acquittal at the close of the Government’s case, the court dismissed the conspiracy count for failure of proof. This motion was denied, however, as to the substantive counts, the court finding that no prejudice would result from the joint trial. Upon submission of the substantive counts to the jury on a detailed charge, each petitioner was found guilty and thereafter fined and sentenced to prison. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, likewise finding that no prejudice existed by reason of the joint trial. 266 F. 2d 435. We granted certiorari. 361 U. S. 809. The allegations of the indictment having met the explicit provisions of Rule 8 (b) as to joinder of defendants, we cannot find clearly erroneous the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals that no prejudice resulted from the joint trial. As to the requirements of value, we hold that the shipments to a single defendant may be aggregated. The judgments are therefore affirmed. We first consider the question of joinder of defendants under Rule 8 (b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It is clear that the initial joinder of the petitioners was permissible under that Rule, which allows the joinder of defendants “in the same indictment ... if they are alleged to have participated in the same act or transaction or in the same series of acts or transactions constituting an offense or offenses.” It cannot be denied that the petitioners were so charged in the indictment. The problem remaining is whether, after dismissal of the conspiracy count before submission of the cases to the jury, a severance should have been ordered under Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. This Rule requires a separate trial if “it appears that a defendant or the government is prejudiced by a joinder of offenses or of defendants in an indictment or information or by such joinder for trialtogether . . . .” Under the circumstances here, we think there was no such prejudice. It is admitted that the three Stracuzzas were the common center of the scheme to transport the stolen goods. The four petitioners here participated in some steps of the transactions in the stolen goods, although each was involved with separate interstate shipments. The separate substantive charges of the indictment employed almost identical language and alleged violations of the same criminal statute during the same period and in the same manner. This made proof of the over-all operation of the scheme competent as to all counts. The variations in the proof related to the specific shipments proven against each petitioner. This proof was related to each petitioner separately and proven as to each by different witnesses. It included entirely separate invoices and other exhibits, all of which were first clearly identified as applying only to a specific petitioner and were so received and shown to the jury under painstaking instructions to that effect. In short, the proof was carefully compartmentalized as to each petitioner. The propriety of the joinder prior to the failure of proof of conspiracy was not assailed. When the Government rested, however, the petitioners filed their motion for dismissal and it was sustained as to the conspiracy count. The petitioners then pressed for acquittal on the remaining counts, and the court decided that the evidence was sufficient on the substantive counts. The case was submitted to the jufy on each of these counts, and under a charge which w.as characterized by petitioners’ counsel as being “extremely fair.” This charge meticulously set out separately the evidence as to each of the petitioners and admonished the jury that they were “not to take into consideration any proof against one defendant and apply it by inference or otherwise to any other defendant.” Petitioners contend that prejudice would nevertheless be implicit in a continuation of the joint trial after dismissal of the conspiracy count. They say that the resulting prejudice could not be cured by any cautionary instructions, and that therefore the trial judge was left with no discretion. Petitioners overlook, however, that the joinder was authorized under Rule 8 (b) and that subsequent severance was controlled by Rule 14, which provides for separate trials where “it appears that a defendant ... is prejudiced ... by such joinder for trial . . . It appears that not only was no prejudice shown, but both the trial court and the Court of Appeals affirmatively found that none was present. We cannot say to the contrary on this record. Nor can we fashion a hard-and-fast formula that, when a conspiracy count fails, joinder is error as a matter of law. We do emphasize, however, that, in such a situation, the trial judge has a continuing duty at all stages of the trial to grant a severance if prejudice does appear. And where, as here, the charge which originally justified joinder turns out to lack the support of sufficient evidence, a trial judge should be particularly sensitive to the possibility of such prejudice. However, the petitioners here not only failed to show any prejudice that would call Rule 14 into operation but even failed to request a new trial. Instead they relied entirely on their motions for acquittal. Moreover, the judge was acutely aware of the possibility of prejudice and was strict in his charge — not only as to the testimony the jury was not to consider, but also as to that evidence which was available in the consideration of the guilt of each petitioner separately under the respective substantive counts. The terms of Rule 8 (b) having been met and no prejudice under Rule 14 having been shown, there was no misjoinder. This case is not like United States v. Dietrich, where a single-count indictment against two defendants charged only a single conspiracy offense, or McElroy v. United States, where no count linked all the defendants and all the offenses. Neither is Kotteakos v. United States, on which the petitioners place their chief reliance, apposite. That case turned on the harmless-error rule, and its application to a serious variance between the indictment and the proof. There the Court found “it highly probable that the error had substantial and injurious effect.” 328 U. S., at 776. The dissent agreed that the test of injury resulting from joinder “depends on the special circumstances of each case,” id., at 777; but it reasoned that the possibility was “non-existent” that evidence relating to one defendant would be used to convict another, and declared that the “dangers which petitioners conjure up are abstract ones.” Id., at 778. The harmless-error rule, which was the central issue in Kotteakos, is not even reached in the instant case, since here the joinder was proper under Rule 8 (b) and no error was shown. Petitioners also contend that, since the individual shipments with which they were connected amounted to less than $5,000 each, the requirements of the statute as to value were not present. However, it appeared at the trial that the total merchandise shipped to each petitioner during the period charged in the several counts was over $5,000, even though each individual shipment was less. The trial court permitted the aggregation of the value of these shipments to meet the statutory limit, and it is this that is claimed to be error. A sensible reading of the statute properly attributes to Congress the view that where the shipments have enough relationship so that they may properly be charged as a single offense, their value may be aggregated. The Act defines “value” in terms of that aggregate. The legislative history makes clear that the value may be computed on a “series of transactions.” It seems plain that the Stracuzzas and each of the petitioners were engaged in a series of transactions, and therefore there is no error on that phase of the case. Petitioners in No. 122 further contend that certain of the prosecutor’s remarks in his summation to the jury were improper and prejudicial. We agree with the treatment of this issue by the Court of Appeals, and see no need for further elaboration. The judgments are therefore Affirmed. Rule 8 (b) provides: “Two or more defendants may be charged in the same indictment or information if they are alleged to have participated in the same act or transaction or in the same series of acts or transactions constituting an offense or offenses. Such defendants may be charged in one or more counts together or separately and all of the defendants need not be charged in each count.” 18 U. S. C. § 2314 provides in relevant part: “Whoever transports in interstate or foreign commerce any goods, wares, merchandise, securities or money, of the value of $5,000 or more, knowing the same to have been stolen, converted or taken by fraud; ... “Shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” 18 U. S. C. §2311 provides so far as material here: “ 'Value’ means the face, par, or market value, whichever is the greatest, and the aggregate value of all goods, wares, and merchandise, securities, and money referred to in a single indictment shall constitute the value thereof.” Rule 14 provides: “If it appears that a defendant or the government is prejudiced by a joinder of offenses or of defendants in an indictment or information or by such joinder for trial together, the court may order an election or separate trials of counts, grant a severance of defendants or provide whatever other relief justice requires.” A motion of petitioner Karp for a severance on grounds other than those tendered here was denied. 158 F. Supp. 522. 126 F. 664. 164 U. S. 76 (1896). 328 U. S. 750 (1946). See note 2, supra. See note 2, supra. H. R. Rep. No. 1462, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., p. 2; H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 1599, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., p. 3. This is not a case like Andrews v. United States, 108 F. 2d 511, where aggregation of shipments to a number of individuals was justified on the theory of a common design among the recipients. The instant case, unlike Andrews, involves aggregation of a number of shipments to a single defendant, and therefore it was quite unnecessary to justify aggregation on the theory of common design. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

A

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr. Justice White delivered the opinion of the Court. New York General Municipal Law §§ 103-a and 103-b and New York Public Authorities Law §§ 2601 and 2602 require public contracts to provide that if a contractor refuses to waive immunity or to answer questions when called to testify concerning his contracts with the State or any of its subdivisions, his existing contracts may be canceled and he shall be disqualified from further transactions with the State for five years. In addition to specifying these contract terms, the statutes require disqualification from contracting with public authorities upon failure of any person to waive immunity or to answer questions with respect to his transactions with the State or its subdivisions. The issue in this case is whether these sections are consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment insofar as it makes applicable to the States the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination. I Appellees are two architects licensed by the State of New York. They were summoned to testify before a grand jury investigating various charges of conspiracy, bribery, and larceny. They were asked, but refused, to sign waivers of immunity, the effect of which would have been to waive their right not to be compelled in a criminal case to be a witness against themselves. They were then excused and the District Attorney, as directed by law, notified various contracting authorities of appellees’ conduct and called attention to the applicable disqualification statutes. Appellees thereupon brought this action alleging that their existing contracts and future contracting privileges were threatened and asserted that the pertinent statutory provisions were violative of the constitutional privilege against compelled self-incrimination. A three-judge District Court was convened and declared the four statutory provision's at issue unconstitutional under the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments, 342 F. Supp. 544 (WDNY 1972). We noted probable jurisdiction, 410 U. S. 924 (1973). The State appealed pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1253. We affirm the judgment of the District Court. ) — i The Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” The Amendment not only protects the individual against being involuntarily called as a witness against himself in a criminal prosecution but also privileges him not to answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings. McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U. S. 34, 40 (1924), squarely held that “[t]he privilege is not ordinarily dependent upon the nature of the proceeding in which the testimony is sought or is to be used. It applies alike to civil and criminal proceedings, wherever the answer might tend to subject to criminal responsibility him who gives it. The privilege protects a mere witness as fully as it does one who is also a party defendant.” In this respect, McCarthy v. Arndstein reflected the settled view in this Court. The object of the Amendment “was to insure that a person should not be compelled, when acting as a witness in any investigation, to give testimony which might tend to show that he himself had committed a crime.” Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 647, 562 (1892). See also Bram v. United States, 168 U. S. 632, 542-543 (1897); Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591 (1896); Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 634, 637-638 (1886); United States v. Saline Bank, 1 Pet. 100 (1828). This is the rule that is now applicable to the States. Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U. S. 1 (1964). “It must be considered irrelevant that the petitioner was a witness in a statutory inquiry and not a defendant in a criminal prosecution, for it has long been settled that the privilege protects witnesses in similar federal inquiries.” Id., at 11. In any of these contexts, therefore, a witness protected by the privilege may rightfully refuse to answer unless and until he is protected at least against the use of his compelled answers and evidence derived therefrom in any subsequent criminal case in which he is a defendant. Kastigar v. United States, 406 U. S. 441 (1972). Absent such protection, if he is nevertheless compelled to answer, his answers are inadmissible against him in a later criminal prosecution. Bram v. United States, supra; Boyd v. United States, supra. Against this background, there is no room for urging that the Fifth Amendment privilege is inapplicable simply because the issue arises, as it does here, in the context of official inquiries into the job performance of a public contractor. Surely, the ordinary rule is that the privilege is available to witnesses called before grand juries as these appellee architects were. Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43, 66 (1906). It is- true that the State has a strong, legitimate interest in maintaining the integrity of its civil service and of its transactions with independent contractors furnishing a wide range of goods and services; and New York would have it that this interest is sufficiently strong to override the privilege. The suggestion is that the State should be able to interrogate employees and contractors about their job performance without regard to the Fifth Amendment, to discharge those who refuse to answer or to waive the privilege by waiving the immunity to which they would otherwise be entitled, and to use any incriminating answers obtained in subsequent criminal prosecutions. But claims of overriding interests are not unusual in Fifth Amendment litigation and they have not fared well. In McCarthy v. Arndstein, supra, the United States insisted that because of the strong public interest in marshaling and distributing assets of bankrupts, the Fifth Amendment should not protect a bankrupt during the official examinations mandated by the Bankruptcy Act. That position did not prevail. The bankrupt’s testimony could be had, but only if he were afforded sufficient immunity to supplant the privilege. And long before McCarthy v. Arndstein, the Court recognized that without the compelled testimony of knowledgeable and perhaps implicated witnesses, the enforcement of the transportation laws “would become impossible,” but nevertheless proceeded on a basis that witnesses must be granted adequate immunity if their evidence was to be compelled. Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S., at 610. Similarly, the enforcement of the antitrust laws against private corporations was at stake in Hale v. Henkel, supra, but immunity was essential to command the testimony of individual witnesses. Also, it would be difficult to overestimate the importance of the interest of the States in the enforcement of their ordinary criminal laws; but the price for incriminating answers from third-party witnesses is sufficient immunity to satisfy the imperatives of the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination. Finally, in almost the very context here involved, this Court has only recently held that employees of the State do not forfeit their constitutional privilege and that they may be compelled to respond to questions about the performance of their duties but only if their answers cannot be used against them in subsequent criminal prosecutions. Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U. S. 493 (1967); Gardner v. Broderick, 392 U. S. 273 (1968); Sanitation Men v. Sanitation Comm’r, 392 U. S. 280 (1968). Ill In Garrity v. New Jersey, certain police officers were summoned to an inquiry being conducted by the Attorney General concerning the fixing of traffic tickets. They were asked questions following warnings that if they did not answer they would be removed from office and that anything they said might be used against them in any criminal proceeding. No immunity of any kind was offered or available under state law. The questions were answered and the answers later used over their objections, in their prosecutions for conspiracy. The Court held that “the protection of the individual under the Fourteenth Amendment against coerced statements prohibits use in subsequent criminal proceedings of statements obtained under threat of removal from office, and that it extends to all, whether they are policemen or other members of our body politic.” 385 U. S., at 500. The Court also held that in the context of threats of removal from office the act of responding to interrogation was not voluntary and was not an effective waiver of the privilege against self-incrimination, the Court conceding, however, that there might be other situations “where one who is anxious to make a clean breast of the whole affair volunteers the information.” Id., at 499. The issue in Gardner v. Broderick, supra, was whether the State might discharge a police officer who, after he was summoned before a grand jury to testify about the performance of his official duties and was advised of his right against compulsory self-incrimination, then refused to waive that right as requested by the State. Conceding that appellant could be discharged for refusing to answer questions about the performance of his official duties, if not required to waive immunity, the Court held that the officer could not be terminated, as he was, for refusing to waive his constitutional privilege. Although under Garrity any waiver executed may have been invalid and any answers elicited inadmissible in evidence, the State did not purport to recognize as much and instead attempted to coerce a waiver on the penalty of loss of employment. The “testimony was demanded before the grand jury in part so that it might be used to prosecute him, and not solely for the purpose of securing an accounting of his performance of his public trust.” 392 U. S., at 279. Hence, the State’s statutory provision requiring his dismissal for his refusal to waive immunity could not stand. The companion case, Sanitation Men v. Sanitation Comm’r, supra, was to the same effect. Here again, public employees were officially interrogated and advised that refusal to answer and sign waivers of immunity would lead to dismissal. Here again, the Court held that the State presented the employees with “a choice between surrendering their constitutional rights or their jobs,” 392 U. S., at 284, although clearly they would “subject themselves to dismissal if they refuse to account for their performance of their public trust, after proper proceedings, which do not involve an attempt to coerce them to relinquish their constitutional rights.” Id., at 285. These cases, and their predecessors, ultimately rest on a reconciliation of the well-recognized policies behind the privilege of self-incrimination, Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n, 378 U. S. 52, 55 (1964), and the need of the State, as well as the Federal Government, to obtain information “to assure the effective functioning of government,” id., at 93 (White, J., concurring). Immunity is required if there is to be “rational accommodation between the imperatives of the privilege and the legitimate demands of government to compel citizens to testify.” Kastigar v. United States, 406 U. S., at 446. It is in this sense that immunity statutes have “become part of our constitutional fabric.” Ullmann v. United States, 350 U. S. 422, 438 (1956). We agree with the District Court that Garrity, Gardner, and Sanitation Men control the issue now before us. The State sought to interrogate appellees about their transactions with the State and to require them to furnish possibly incriminating testimony by demanding that they waive their immunity and by disqualifying them as public contractors when they refused. It seems to us that the State intended to accomplish what Garrity specifically prohibited — to compel testimony that had not been immunized. The waiver sought by the State, under threat of loss of contracts, would have been no less compelled than a direct request for the testimony without resort to the waiver device. A waiver secured under threat of substantial economic sanction cannot be termed voluntary. As already noted, Oarrity specifically rejected the claim of an effective waiver when the policemen in that case, in the face of possible discharge, proceeded to answer the questions put to them. 385 U. S., at 498. The same holding is implicit in both Gardner and Sanitation Men. The State nevertheless asserts that whatever may be true of state employees, a different rule is applicable to public contractors such as architects. Because independent contractors may not depend entirely on transactions with the State for their livelihood, it is suggested that disqualification from contracting with official agencies for a period of five years is neither compulsion within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment nor a forbidden penalty for refusing to answer questions put to them about their job performance. But we agree with the District Court that “the plaintiffs’ disqualification from public contracting for five years as a penalty for asserting a constitutional privilege is violative of their Fifth Amendment rights.” 342 F. Supp., at 549. We fail to see a difference of constitutional magnitude between the threat of job loss to an employee of the State, and a threat of loss of contracts to a contractor. If the argument is that the cost to a contractor is small in comparison to the cost to an employee of losing his job, the premise must be that it is harder for a state employee to find employment in the private sector, than it is for an architect. An architect lives off his contracting fees as surely as a state employee lives off his salary, and fees and salaries may be equally hard to come by in the private sector after sanctions have been taken by the State. In some sense the plight of the architect may be worse, for under the New York statutes it may be that any firm that employs him thereafter will also be subject to contract cancellation and disqualification. A significant infringement of constitutional rights cannot be justified by the speculative ability of those affected to cover the damage. IV We should make clear, however, what we have said before. Although due regard for the Fifth Amendment forbids the State to compel incriminating answers from its employees and contractors that may be used against them in criminal proceedings, the Constitution permits that very testimony to be compelled if neither it nor its fruits are available for such use. Kastigar v. United States, supra. Furthermore, the accommodation between the interest of the State and the Fifth Amendment requires that the State have means at its disposal to secure testimony if immunity is supplied and testimony is still refused. This is recognized by the power of the courts to. compel testimony, after a grant of immunity, by use of civil contempt and coerced imprisonment. Shillitani v. United States, 384 U. S. 364 (1966). Also, given adequate immunity, the State may plainly insist that employees either answer questions under oath about the performance of their job or suffer the loss of employment. By like token, the State may insist that the architects involved in this case either respond to relevant inquiries about the performance of their contracts or suffer cancellation of current relationships and disqualification from contracting with public agencies for an appropriate time in the future. But the State may not insist that appellees waive their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and consent to the use of the fruits of the interrogation in any later proceedings brought against them. Rather, the State must recognize what our cases hold: that answers elicited upon the threat of the loss of employment are compelled and inadmissible in evidence. Hence, if answers are to be required in such circumstances States must offer to the witness whatever immunity is required to supplant the privilege and may not insist that the employee or contractor waive such immunity. ~ , Affirmed. Mr. Justice Brennan, with whom Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Marshall join. I join the Court’s opinion in all respects but one. It is my view that immunity which permits testimony to be compelled “if neither it nor its fruits are available for . . . use” in criminal proceedings does not satisfy the privilege against self-incrimination. “I believe that the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination requires that any jurisdiction that compels a man to incriminate himself grant him absolute immunity under its laws from prosecution for any transaction revealed in that testimony.” Piccirillo v. New York, 400 U. S. 548, 562 (1971) (Brennan, J., dissenting.) N. Y. Gen. Munic. Law §§ 103-a and 103-b (Supp. 1973-1974) provide: Section 103-a. Ground for cancellation of contract by municipal corporations and fire districts: “A clause shall be inserted in all specifications or contracts made or awarded by a municipal corporation or any public department, agency or official thereof on or after the first day of July, nineteen hundred fifty-nine or by a fire district or any agency or official thereof on or after the first day of September, nineteen hundred sixty, for work or services performed or to be performed, or goods sold or to be sold, to provide that upon the refusal of a person, when called before a grand jury, head of a state department, temporary state commission or other state agency, . . . head of a city department, or other city agency, which is empowered to compel the attendance of witnesses and examine them under oath, to testify in an investigation concerning any transaction or contract had with the state, any political subdivision thereof, a public authority or with any public department, agency or official of the state or of any political subdivision thereof or of a public authority, to sign a waiver of immunity against subsequent criminal prosecution or to answer any relevant question concerning such transaction or contract, “(a) such person, and any firm, partnership or corporation of which he is a member, partner, director or officer shall be disqualified from thereafter selling to or submitting bids to or receiving awards from or entering into any contracts with any municipal corporation, or firé district, or any public department, agency or official thereof, for goods, work or services, for a period of five years after such refusal, and to provide also that “(b) any and all contracts made with any municipal corporation or any public department, agency or official thereof on or after the first day of July, nineteen hundred fifty-nine or with any fire district or any agency or official thereof on or after the first day of September, nineteen hundred sixty, by such person, and by any firm, partnership, or corporation of which he is a member, partner, director or officer may be cancelled or terminated by the municipal corporation or fire district without incurring any penalty or damages on account of such cancellation or termination, but any monies owing by the municipal corporation or fire district for goods delivered or work done prior to the cancellation or termination shall be paid. “The provisions of this section as in force and effect prior to the first day of September, nineteen hundred sixty, shall apply to specifications or contracts made or awarded by a municipal corporation on or after .the first day of July, nineteen hundred fifty-nine, but prior to the first day of September, nineteen hundred sixty.” Section 103-b. Disqualification to contract with municipal corporations and fire districts: “Any person, who, when called before a grand jury, head of a state department, temporary state commission or other state agency, . . . head of a city department or other city agency, which is empowered to compel the attendance of witnesses and examine them under oath, to testify in an investigation concerning any transaction or contract had with the state, any political subdivision thereof, a public authority, or with a public department, agency or official of the state or of any political subdivision thereof or of a public authority, refuses to sign a waiver of immunity against subsequent criminal prosecution or to answer any relevant question concerning such transaction or contract, and any firm, partnership or corporation of which he is a member, partner, director or officer shall be disqualified from thereafter selling to or submitting bids to or receiving awards from or entering into any contracts with any municipal corporation or fire district, or with any public department, agency or official thereof, for goods, work or services, for a period of five years after such refusal or until a disqualification shall be removed pursuant to the provisions of section one hundred three-c of this article. “It shall be the duty of the officer conducting the investigation before the grand jury, the head of a state department, the chairman of the temporary state commission or other state agency,... . the head of a city department or other city agency before which the refusal occurs to send notice of such refusal, together with the names of any firm, partnership, or corporation of which the person so refusing is known to be a member, partner, officer or director, to the commissioner of transportation of the state of New York and the appropriate departments, agencies and officials of the state, political subdivisions thereof or public authorities with whom the person so refusing and any firm, partnership or corporation of which he is a member, partner, director or officer, is known to have a contract. However, when such refusal occurs before a body other than a grand jury, notice of refusal shall not be sent for a period of ten days after such refusal occurs. Prior to the expiration of this ten day period, any person, firm, partnership or corporation which has become liable to the cancellation or termination of a contract or disqualification to contract on account of such refusal may commence a special proceeding at a special term of the supreme court, held within the judicial district in which the refusal occurred, for an order determining whether the questions in response to which the refusal occurred were relevant and material to the inquiry. Upon the commencement of such proceeding, the sending of such notice of refusal to answer shall be subject to order of the court in which the proceeding was brought in a manner and on such terms as the court may deem just. If a proceeding is not brought within ten days, notice of refusal shall thereupon be sent as provided herein.” N. Y. Pub. Auth. Law §§2601 and 2602 (Supp. 1973-1974) provide: Section 2601. Ground for cancellation of contract by public authority: “A clause shall be inserted in all specifications or contracts hereafter made or awarded by any public authority or by any official of any public authority created by the state or any political subdivision, for work or services performed or to be performed or goods sold or to be sold, to provide that upon the refusal by a person, when called before a grand jury, head of a state department, temporary state commission or other state agency,... head of a city department, or other city agency, which is empowered to compel the attendance of witnesses and examine them under oath, to testify in an investigation concerning any transaction or contract had with the state, any political subdivision thereof, a public authority or with any. public department, agency or official of the state or of any political subdivision thereof or of a public authority, to sign a waiver of immunity against subsequent criminal prosecution or to answer any relevant question concerning such transaction or contract, “(a) such person, and any firm, partnership or corporation of which he is a member, partner, director or officer shall be disqualified from thereafter selling to or submitting bids to or receiving awards from or entering into any contracts with any public authority or official thereof, for goods, work or services, for a period of five years after such refusal, and to provide also that “(b) any and all contracts made with any public authority or official thereof, since the effective date of this law, by such person and by any firm, partnership or corporation of which he is a member, partner, director or officer may be cancelled or terminated by the public authority without incurring any penalty or damages on account of such cancellation or termination, but any monies owing by the public authority for goods delivered or work done prior to the cancellation or termination shall be paid.” Section 2602. Disqualification to contract with public authority: “Any person, who, when called before a grand jury, head of a state department, temporary state commission or other state agency, . . . head of a city department, or other city agency, which is empowered to compel the attendance of witnesses and examine them under oath, to testify in an investigation concerning any transaction or contract had with the state, any political subdivision thereof, a public authority or with a public department, agency or official of the state or of any political subdivision thereof or of a public authority, refuses to sign a waiver of immunity against subsequent criminal prosecution or to answer any relevant questions concerning such transaction or contract, and any firm, partnership or corporation, of which he is a member, partner, director, or officer shall be disqualified from thereafter selling to or submitting bids to or receiving awards from or entering into any contracts with any public authority or any official of any public authority created by the state or any political subdivision, for goods, work or services, for a period of five years after such refusal or until a disqualification shall be removed pursuant to the provisions of section twenty-six hundred three of this title. “It shall be the duty of the officer conducting the investigation before the grand jury, the head of a state department, the chairman of the temporary state commission or other state agency,... the head of a city department or other city agency before which the refusal occurs to send notice of such refusal, together with the names of any firm, partnership or corporation of which the person so refusing is known to be a member, partner, officer or director, to the commissioner of transportation of the state of New York, or the commissioner of general services as the case may be, and the appropriate departments, agencies and officials of the state, political subdivisions thereof or public authorities with whom the persons [sic] so refusing and any firm, partnership or corporation of which he is a member, partner, director or officer, is known to have a contract. However, when such refusal occurs before a body other than a grand jury, notice of refusal shall not be sent for a period of ten days after such refusal occurs. Prior to the expiration of this ten day period, any person, firm, partnership or corporation which has become liable to the. cancellation or termination of a contract or disqualification to contract on account of such refusal may commence a special proceeding at a special term of the supreme court, held within the judicial district in which the refusal occurred, for an order determining whether the questions in response to which the refusal occurred were relevant and material to the inquiry. Upon the commencement of such proceeding, the sending of such notice of refusal to answer shall be subject to order of the court in which the proceeding was brought in a manner and on such terms as the court may deem just. If a proceeding is not brought within ten days, notice of refusal shall thereupon be sent as provided herein.” In Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U. S. 83 (1953), a doctor inducted into the Army was denied a commission as an officer after refusing to divulge whether he was a Communist, as required by a loyalty certificate prescribed for commissioned officers. Instead he asserted his “Federal constitutional privilege” when called upon to answer the question. In holding that the Government was justified in refusing the commission because of the failure to answer, the Court had no occasion to consider whether Orloff would have been exposed to criminal prosecution if he had stated that he was a member of the Communist Party. The case differs significantly from the one before us since the State here asks the architects to affirmatively expose themselves to criminal prosecution by waiving their privilege against self-in crimination, or from Garrity, where the threat of criminal prosecution was apparent both from the nature of the proceeding, and the absence of applicable state immunity statutes. Kimm v. Rosenberg, 363 U. S. 405 (1960), is also inapposite. The Court there held that an alien whose deportation had been ordered was ineligible for a discretionary order permitting his voluntary departure, because he had failed to establish that he was not affiliated with the Communist Party. .Petitioner’s imminent departure from the country, whether it was voluntary or compelled, obviously made the threat of criminal prosecution on the basis of his answer remote. As Garrity succinctly put it: “The option to lose their means of livelihood or to pay the penalty of self-incrimination is the antithesis of free choice to speak out or to remain silent.” 385 U. S. 493, 497 (1967). The contract disqualifications apply not only to the person who refuses to waive immunity but also to “any firm, partnership or corporation of which he is a member, partner, director or officer . . . .” Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

A

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court. One century ago, the first Justice Harlan admonished this Court that the Constitution “neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.” Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537, 559 (1896) (dissenting opinion). Unheeded then, those words now are understood to state a commitment to the law’s neutrality where the rights of persons are at stake. The Equal Protection Clause enforces this principle and today requires us to hold invalid a provision of Colorado’s Constitution. I The enactment challenged in this case is an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Colorado, adopted in a 1992 statewide referendum. The parties and the state courts refer to it as “Amendment 2,” its designation when submitted to the voters. The impetus for the amendment and the contentious campaign that preceded its adoption came in large part from ordinances that had been passed in various Colorado municipalities. For example, the cities of Aspen and Boulder and the city and County of Denver each had enacted ordinances which banned discrimination in many transactions and activities, including housing, employment, education, public accommodations, and health and welfare services. Denver Rev. Municipal Code, Art. IV, §§28-91 to 28-116 (1991); Aspen Municipal Code § 13-98 (1977); Boulder Rev. Code §§ 12-1-1 to 12 — 1—11 (1987). What gave rise to the statewide controversy was the protection the ordinances afforded to persons discriminated against by reason of their sexual orientation. See Boulder Rev. Code § 12-1-1 (defining “sexual orientation” as “the choice of sexual partners, i. e., bisexual, homosexual or heterosexual”); Denver Rev. Municipal Code, Art. IV, §28-92 (defining “sexual orientation” as “[t]he status of an individual as to his or her heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality”). Amendment 2 repeals these ordinances to the extent they prohibit discrimination on the basis of “homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships.” Colo. Const., Art. II, § 30b. Yet Amendment 2, in explicit terms, does more than repeal or rescind these provisions. It prohibits all legislative, executive or judicial action at any level of state or local government designed to protect the named class, a class we shall refer to as homosexual persons or gays and lesbians. The amendment reads: “No Protected Status Based on Homosexual, Lesbian or Bisexual Orientation. Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, shall enact, adopt or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of or entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination. This Section of the Constitution shall be in all respects self-executing.” Ibid. Soon after Amendment 2 was adopted, this litigation to declare its invalidity and enjoin its enforcement was commenced in the District Court for the City and County of Denver. Among the plaintiffs (respondents here) were homosexual persons, some of them government employees. They alleged that enforcement of Amendment 2 would subject them to immediate and substantial risk of discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation. Other plaintiffs (also respondents here) included the three municipalities whose ordinances we have cited and certain other governmental entities which had acted earlier to protect homosexuals from discrimination but would be prevented by Amendment 2 from continuing to do so. Although Governor Romer had been on record opposing the adoption of Amendment 2, he was named in his official capacity as a defendant, together with the Colorado Attorney General and the State of Colorado. The trial court granted a preliminary injunction to stay enforcement of Amendment 2, and an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of Colorado. Sustaining the interim injunction and remanding the case for further proceedings, the State Supreme Court held that Amendment 2 was subject to strict scrutiny under the Fourteenth Amendment because it infringed the fundamental right of gays and lesbians to participate in the political process. Evans v. Romer, 854 R 2d 1270 (Colo. 1993) (Evans I). To reach this conclusion, the state court relied on our voting rights cases, e. g., Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533 (1964); Carrington v. Rash, 380 U. S. 89 (1965); Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U. S. 663 (1966); Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U. S. 23 (1968), and on our precedents involving discriminatory restructuring of governmental decisionmaking, see, e. g., Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U. S. 385 (1969); Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U. S. 369 (1967); Washington v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, 458 U. S. 457 (1982); Gordon v. Lance, 403 U. S. 1 (1971). On remand, the State advanced various arguments in an effort to show that Amendment 2 was narrowly tailored to serve compelling interests, but the trial court found none sufficient. It enjoined enforcement of Amendment 2, and the Supreme Court of Colorado, in a second opinion, affirmed the ruling. 882 P. 2d 1335 (1994) (Evans II). We granted certiorari, 513 U. S. 1146 (1995), and now affirm the judgment, but on a rationale different from that adopted by the State Supreme Court. II The State’s principal argument in defense of Amendment 2 is that it puts gays and lesbians in the same position as all other persons. So, the State says, the measure does no more than deny homosexuals special rights. This reading of the amendment’s language is implausible. We rely not upon our own interpretation of the amendment but upon the authoritative construction of Colorado’s Supreme Court. The state court, deeming it unnecessary to determine the full extent of the amendment’s reach, found it invalid even on a modest reading of its implications. The critical discussion of the amendment, set out in Evans /, is as follows: “The immediate objective of Amendment 2 is, at a minimum, to repeal existing statutes, regulations, ordinances, and policies of state and local entities that barred ’discrimination based on sexual orientation. See Aspen, Colo., Mun. Code § 13-98 (1977) (prohibiting discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation); Boulder, Colo., Rev. Code §§ 12-1-2 to -4 (1987) (same); Denver, Colo., Rev. Mun. Code art. IV, §§28-91 to -116 (1991) (same); Executive Order No. D0035 (December 10,1990) (prohibiting employment discrimination for ‘all state employees, classified and exempt’ on the basis of sexual orientation); Colorado Insurance Code, § 10-3-1104, 4A C. R. S. (1992 Supp.) (forbidding health insurance providers from determining insurability and premiums based on an applicant’s, a beneficiary’s, or an insured’s sexual orientation); and various provisions prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation at state colleges. “The ‘ultimate effect’ of Amendment 2 is to prohibit any governmental entity from adopting similar, or more protective statutes, regulations, ordinances, or policies in the future unless the state constitution is first amended to permit such measures.” 854 P. 2d, at 1284-1285, and n. 26. Sweeping and comprehensive is the change in legal status effected by this law. So much is evident from the ordinances the Colorado Supreme Court declared would be void by operation of Amendment 2. Homosexuals, by state decree, are put in a solitary class with respect to transactions and relations in both the private and governmental spheres. The amendment withdraws from homosexuals, but no others, specific legal protection from the injuries caused by discrimination, and it forbids reinstatement of these laws and policies. The change Amendment 2 works in the legal status of gays and lesbians in the private sphere is far reaching, both on its own terms and when considered in light of the structure and operation of modern antidiscrimination laws. That structure is well illustrated by contemporary statutes and ordinances prohibiting discrimination by providers of public accommodations. “At common law, innkeepers, smiths, and others who ‘made profession of a public employment,’ were prohibited from refusing, without good reason, to serve a customer.” Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U. S. 557, 571 (1995). The duty was a general one and did not specify protection for particular groups. The common-law rules, however, proved insufficient in many instances, and it was settled early that the Fourteenth Amendment did not give Congress a general power to prohibit discrimination in public accommodations, Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S. 3, 25 (1883). In consequence, most States have chosen to counter discrimination by enacting. detailed statutory schemes. See, e. g., S. D. Codified Laws §§20-13-10, 20-13-22, 20-13-23 (1995); Iowa Code §§216.6-216.8 (1994); Okla. Stat., Tit. 25, §§ 1302,1402 (1987); 43 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§953, 955 (Supp. 1995); N. J. Stat. Ann. §§10:5-3, 10:5-4 (West Supp. 1995); N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 354-A:7, 354-A:10, 354-A:17 (1995); Minn. Stat. §363.03 (1991 and Supp. 1995). Colorado’s state and municipal laws typify this emerging tradition of statutory protection and follow a consistent pattern. The laws first enumerate the persons or entities subject to a duty not to discriminate. The list goes well beyond the entities covered by the common law. The Boulder ordinance, for example, has a comprehensive definition of entities deemed places of “public accommodation.” They include “any place of business engaged in any sales to the general public and any place that offers services, facilities, privileges, or advantages to the general public or that receives financial support through solicitation of the general public or through governmental subsidy of any kind.” Boulder Rev. Code § 12 — 1—l(j) (1987). The Denver ordinance is of similar breadth, applying, for example, to hotels, restaurants, hospitals, dental clinics, theaters, banks, common carriers, travel and insurance agencies, and “shops and stores dealing with goods or services of any kind,” Denver Rev. Municipal Code, Art. IV, §28-92 (1991). These statutes and ordinances also depart from the common law by enumerating the groups or persons within their ambit of protection. Enumeration is the essential device used to make the duty not to discriminate concrete and to provide guidance for those who must comply. In following this approach, Colorado’s state and local governments have not limited antidiscrimination laws to groups that have so far been given the protection of heightened equal protection scrutiny under our cases. See, e. g., J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel. T B., 511 U. S. 127, 135 (1994) (sex); Lalli v. Lalli, 439 U. S. 259, 265 (1978) (illegitimacy); McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U. S. 184, 191-192 (1964) (race); Oyama v. California, 332 U. S. 633 (1948) (ancestry). Rather, they set forth an extensive catalog of traits which cannot be the basis for discrimination, including age, military status, marital status, pregnancy, parenthood, custody of a minor child, political affiliation, physical or mental disability of an individual or of his or her associates — and, in recent times, sexual orientation. Aspen Municipal Code §13-98(a)(1) (1977); Boulder Rev. Code §§ 12-1-1 to 12-1-4 (1987); Denver Rev. Municipal Code, Art. IV, §§28-92 to 28-119 (1991); Colo. Rev. Stat. §§24-34-401 to 24-34-707 (1988 and Supp. 1995). Amendment 2 bars homosexuals from seeming protection against the injuries that these public-accommodations laws address. That in itself is a severe consequence, but there is more. Amendment 2, in addition, nullifies specific legal protections for this targeted class in all transactions in housing, sale of real estate, insurance, health and welfare services, private education, and employment. See, e. g., Aspen Municipal Code §§13-98(b), (c) (1977); Boulder Rev. Code §§ 12-1-2, 12-1-3 (1987); Denver Rev. Municipal Code, Art. IV, §§28-93 to 28-95, 28-97 (1991). Not confined to the private sphere, Amendment 2 also operates to repeal and forbid all laws or policies providing specific protection for gays or lesbians from discrimination by every level of Colorado government. The State Supreme Court cited two examples of protections in the governmental sphere that are now rescinded and may not be reintroduced. The first is Colorado Executive Order D0035 (1990), which forbids employment discrimination against “‘all state employees, classified and exempt’ on the basis of sexual orientation.” 854 R 2d, at 1284. Also repealed, and now forbidden, are “various provisions prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation at state colleges.” Id., at 1284, 1285. The repeal of these measures and the prohibition against their future reenactment demonstrate that Amendment 2 has the same force and effect in Colorado’s governmental sector as it does elsewhere and that it applies to policies as well as ordinary legislation. Amendment 2’s reach may not be limited to specific laws passed for the benefit of gays and lesbians. It is a fair, if not necessary, inference from the broad language of the amendment that it deprives gays and lesbians even of the protection of general laws and policies that prohibit arbitrary discrimination in governmental and private settings. See, e. g., Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-4-106(7) (1988) (agency action subject to judicial review under arbitrary and capricious standard); § 18-8-405 (making it a criminal offense for a public servant knowingly, arbitrarily, or capriciously to refrain from performing a duty imposed on him by law); § 10 — 3—1104(l)(f) (prohibiting “unfair discrimination” in insurance); 4 Colo. Code of Regulations 801-1, Policy 11-1 (1983) (prohibiting discrimination in state employment on grounds of specified traits or “other non-merit factor”). At some point in the systematic administration of these laws, an official must determine whether homosexuality is an arbitrary and, thus, forbidden basis for decision. Yet a decision to that effect would itself amount to a policy prohibiting discrimination on the basis of homosexuality, and so would appear to be no more valid under Amendment 2 than the specific prohibitions against discrimination the state court held invalid. If this consequence follows from Amendment 2, as its broad language suggests, it would compound the constitutional difficulties the law creates. The state court did not decide whether the amendment has this effect, however, and neither need we. In the course of rejecting the argument that Amendment 2 is intended to conserve resources to fight discrimination against suspect classes, the Colorado Supreme Court made the limited observation that the amendment is not intended to affect many antidiscrimination laws protecting nonsuspect classes, Romer II, 882 P. 2d, at 1346, n. 9. In our view that does not resolve the issue. In any event, even if, as we doubt, homosexuals could find some safe harbor in laws of general application, we cannot accept the view that Amendment 2’s prohibition on specific legal protections does no more than deprive homosexuals of special rights. To the contrary, the amendment imposes a special disability upon those persons alone. Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint. They can obtain specific protection against discrimination only by enlisting the citizenry of Colorado to amend the State Constitution or perhaps, on the State’s view, by trying to pass helpful laws of general applicability. This is so no matter how local or discrete the harm, no matter how public and widespread the injury. We find nothing special in the protections Amendment 2 withholds. These are protections taken for granted by most people either because they already have them or do not need them; these are protections against exclusion from an almost limitless number of transactions and endeavors that constitute ordinary civic life in a free society. Ill The Fourteenth Amendment’s promise that no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws must coexist with the practical necessity that most legislation classifies for one purpose or another, with resulting disadvantage to various groups or persons. Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U. S. 256, 271-272 (1979); F. S. Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia, 253 U. S. 412, 415 (1920). We have attempted to reconcile the principle with the reality by stating that, if a law neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class, we will uphold the legislative classification so long as it bears a rational relation to some legitimate end. See, e. g., Heller v. Doe, 509 U. S. 312, 319-320 (1993). Amendment 2 fails, indeed defies, even this conventional inquiry. First, the amendment has the peculiar property of imposing a broad and undifferentiated disability on a single named group, an exceptional and, as we shall explain, invalid form of legislation. Second, its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests. Taking the first point, even in the ordinary equal protection case calling for the most deferential of standards, we insist on knowing the relation between the classification adopted and the object to be attained. The search for the link between classification and objective gives substance to the Equal Protection Clause; it provides guidance and discipline for the legislature, which is entitled to know what sorts of laws it can pass; and it marks the limits of our own authority. In the ordinary case, a law will be sustained if it can be said to advance a legitimate government interest, even if the law seems unwise or works to the disadvantage of a particular group, or if the rationale for it seems tenuous. See New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U. S. 297 (1976) (tourism benefits justified classification favoring pushcart vendors of certain longevity); Williamson v. Lee Optical of Okla., Inc., 348 U. S. 483 (1955) (assumed health concerns justified law favoring optometrists over opticians); Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. New York, 336 U. S. 106 (1949) (potential traffic hazards justified exemption of vehicles advertising the owner’s products from general advertising ban); Kotch v. Board of River Port Pilot Comm’rs for Port of New Orleans, 330 U. S. 552 (1947) (licensing scheme that disfavored persons unrelated to current river boat pilots justified by possible efficiency and safety benefits of a closely knit pilotage system). The laws challenged in the cases just cited were narrow enough in scope and grounded in a sufficient factual context for us to ascertain some relation between the classification and the purpose it served. By requiring that the classification bear a rational relationship to an independent and legitimate legislative end, we ensure that classifications are not drawn for the purpose of disadvantaging the group burdened by the law. See Railroad Retirement Bd. v. Fritz, 449 U. S. 166, 181 (1980) (Stevens, J., concurring) (“If the adverse impact on the disfavored class is an apparent aim of the legislature, its impartiality would be suspect”). Amendment 2 confounds this normal process of judicial review. It is at once too narrow and too broad. It identifies persons by a single trait and then denies them protection across the board. The resulting disqualification of a class of persons from the right to seek specific protection from the law is unprecedented in our jurisprudence. The absence of precedent for Amendment 2 is itself instructive; “[discrimi-nations of an unusual character especially suggest careful consideration to determine whether they are obnoxious to the constitutional provision.” Louisville Gas & Elec. Co. v. Coleman, 277 U. S. 32, 37-38 (1928). It is not within our constitutional tradition to enact laws of this sort. Central both to the idea of the rule of law and to our own Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection is the principle that government and each of its parts remain open on impartial terms to all who seek its assistance. “ ‘Equal protection of the laws is not achieved through indiscriminate imposition of inequalities.’” Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U. S. 629, 635 (1950) (quoting Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U. S. 1, 22 (1948)). Respect for this principle explains why laws singling out a certain class of citizens for disfavored legal status or general hardships are rare. A law declaring that in general it shall be more difficult for one group of citizens than for all others to seek aid from the government is itself a denial of equal protection of the laws in the most literal sense. “The guaranty of ‘equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.’” Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U. S. 535, 541 (1942) (quoting Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 369 (1886)). Davis v. Beason, 133 U. S. 333 (1890), not cited by the parties but relied upon by the dissent, is not evidence that Amendment 2 is within our constitutional tradition, and any reliance upon it as authority for sustaining the amendment is misplaced. In Davis, the Court approved an Idaho territorial statute denying Mormons, polygamists, and advocates of polygamy the right to vote and to hold office because, as the Court construed the statute, it “simply excludes from the privilege of voting, or of holding any office of honor, trust or profit, those who have been convicted of certain offences, and those who advocate a practical resistance to the laws of the Territory and justify and approve the commission of crimes forbidden by it.” Id., at 347. To the extent Davis held that persons advocating a certain practice may be denied the right to vote, it is no longer good law. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U. S. 444 (1969) (per curiam). To the extent it held that the groups designated in the statute may be deprived of the right to vote because of their status, its ruling could not stand without surviving strict scrutiny, a most doubtful outcome. Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U. S. 330, 337 (1972); cf. United States v. Brown, 381 U. S. 437 (1965); United States v. Robel, 389 U. S. 258 (1967). To the extent Davis held that a convicted felon may be denied the right to vote, its holding is not implicated by our decision and is unexceptionable. See Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U. S. 24 (1974). A second and related point is that laws of the kind now before us raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected. “[I]f the constitutional conception of ‘equal protection of the laws’ means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest.” Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U. S. 528, 534 (1973). Even laws enacted for broad and ambitious purposes often can be explained by reference to legitimate public policies which justify the incidental disadvantages they impose on certain persons. Amendment 2, however, in making a general announcement that gays and lesbians shall not have any particular protections from the law, inflicts on them immediate, continuing, and real injuries that outrun and belie any legitimate justifications that may be claimed for it. We conclude that, in addition to the far-reaching deficiencies of Amendment 2 that we have noted, the principles it offends, in another sense, are conventional and venerable; a law must bear a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose, Kadrmas v. Dickinson Public Schools, 487 U. S. 450, 462 (1988), and Amendment 2 does not. The primary rationale the State offers for Amendment 2 is respect for other citizens’ freedom of association, and in particular the liberties of landlords or employers who have personal or religious objections to homosexuality. Colorado also cites its interest in conserving resources to fight discrimination against other groups. The breadth of the amendment is so far removed from these particular justifications that we find it impossible to credit them. We cannot say that Amendment 2 is directed to any identifiable legitimate purpose or discrete objective. It is a status-based enactment divorced from any factual context from which we could discern a relationship to legitimate state interests; it is a classification of persons undertaken for its own sake, something the Equal Protection Clause does not permit. “[C]lass legislation . . . [is] obnoxious to the prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment. . . .” Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S., at 24. We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed. It is so ordered. Metropolitan State College of Denver prohibits college sponsored social clubs from discriminating in membership on the basis of sexual orientation and Colorado State University has an antidiscrimi-nation policy which encompasses sexual orientation. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

E

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Per Curiam. Under 28 U. S. C. § 1257, this Court has jurisdiction to review only “[f]inal judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had.” Because the Colorado Supreme Court remanded this case for trial, its decision is not final “as an effective determination of the litigation.” Market Street R. Co. v. Railroad Comm’n of Cal., 324 U. S. 548, 551 (1945). Although there is a limited set of situations in which we have found finality as to the federal issue despite the ordering of further proceedings in the lower state courts, see Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U. S. 469 (1975), this case does not fit into any of those categories. We therefore dismiss for want of jurisdiction. It is so ordered. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

I

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court. The False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U. S. C. §§3729-3733, prohibits submitting false or fraudulent claims for payment to the United States, § 3729(a), and authorizes qui tam suits, in which private parties bring civil actions in the Government’s name, § 3730(b)(1). This case concerns the FCA’s public disclosure bar, which generally forecloses qui tam suits that are “based upon the public disclosure of allegations or transactions ... in a congressional, administrative, or Government Accounting Office report, hearing, audit, or investigation.” § 3730(e)(4)(A) (footnote omitted). We must decide whether a federal agency’s written response to a request for records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U. S. C. §552, constitutes a “report” within the meaning of the public disclosure bar. We hold that it does. I Petitioner Schindler Elevator Corporation manufactures, installs, and services elevators and escalators. In 1989, Schindler acquired Millar Elevator Industries, Inc., and the two companies merged in 2002. Since 1999, Schindler and the United States have entered into hundreds of contracts that are subject to the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1972 (VEVRAA). That Act requires contractors like Schindler to report certain information to the Secretary of Labor, in-eluding how many of its employees are “qualified covered veterans” under the statute. 38 U. S. C. § 4212(d)(1). VEVRAA regulations required Schindler to agree in each of its contracts that it would “submit VETS-100 Reports no later than September 30 of each year.” 48 CFR §52.222-37(c) (2008); see also § 22.1310(b). Respondent Daniel Kirk, a United States Army veteran who served in Vietnam, was employed by Millar and Schindler from 1978 until 2003. In August 2003, Kirk resigned from Schindler in response to what he saw as Schindler’s efforts to force him out. In March 2005, Kirk filed this action against Schindler under the FCA, which imposes civil penalties and treble damages on persons who submit false or fraudulent claims for payment to the United States. 31 U. S. C. § 3729(a). The FCA authorizes both civil actions by the Attorney General and private qui tam actions to enforce its provisions. §3730. When, as here, the Government chooses not to intervene in a qui tam action, the private relator stands to receive between 25% and 30% of the proceeds of the action. § 3730(d)(2). In an amended complaint filed in June 2007, Kirk alleged that Schindler had submitted hundreds of false claims for payment under its Government contracts. According to Kirk, Schindler had violated VEVRAA’s reporting requirements by failing to file certain required VETS-100 reports and including false information in those it did file. The company’s claims for payment were false, Kirk alleged, because Schindler had falsely certified its compliance -with VEVRAA. Kirk did not specify the amount of damages he sought on behalf of the United States, but he asserted that the value of Schindler’s VEVRAA-covered contracts exceeded $100 million. To support his allegations, Kirk pointed to information his wife, Linda Kirk, received from the Department of Labor (DOL) in response to three FOIA requests. Mrs. Kirk had sought all VETS-100 reports filed by Schindler for the years 1998 through 2006. The DOL responded by letter or e-mail to each request with information about the records found for each year, including years for which no responsive records were located. The DOL informed Mrs. Kirk that it found no VETS-100 reports filed by Schindler in 1998,1999, 2000, 2002, or 2003. For the other years, the DOL provided Mrs. Kirk with copies of the reports filed by Schindler, 99 in all. Schindler moved to dismiss on a number of grounds including that the FCA’s public disclosure bar deprived the District Court of jurisdiction. See § 3730(e)(4)(A). The District Court granted the motion, concluding that most of Kirk’s allegations failed to state a claim and that the remainder were based upon the public disclosure of allegations or transactions in an administrative “report” or “investigation.” 606 F. Supp. 2d 448 (SDNY 2009). The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated and remanded. 601 F. 3d 94 (2010). The court effectively held that an agency’s response to a FOIA request is neither a “report” nor an “investigation” within the meaning of the FCA’s public disclosure bar. See id., at 103-111 (agreeing with United States ex rel. Haight v. Catholic Healthcare West, 445 F. 3d 1147 (CA9 2006), and disagreeing with United States ex rel. Mistick PBT v. Housing Auth. of Pittsburgh, 186 F. 3d 376 (CA3 1999)). We granted certiorari, 561 U. S. 1058 (2010), and now reverse and remand. II Schindler argues that “report” in the FCA’s public disclosure bar carries its ordinary meaning and that the DOL’s written responses to Mrs. Kirk’s FOIA requests are therefore “reports.” We agree. A 1 Adopted in 1986, the FCA’s public disclosure bar provides: “No court shall have jurisdiction over an action under this section based upon the public disclosure of allegations or transactions in a criminal, civil, or administrative hearing, in a congressional, administrative, or Government Accounting Office report, hearing, audit, or investigation, or from the news media, unless the action is brought by the Attorney General or the person bringing the action is an original source of the information.” 31 U. S. C. § 3730(e)(4)(A) (footnote omitted). Because the statute does not define “report,” we look first to the word’s ordinary meaning. See Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U. S. 167, 175 (2009) (“Statutory construction must begin with the language employed by Congress and the assumption that the ordinary meaning of that language accurately expresses the legislative purpose” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Asgrow Seed Co. v. Winterboer, 513 U. S. 179, 187 (1995) (“When terms used in a statute are undefined, we give them their ordinary meaning”). A “report” is “something that gives information” or a “notification,” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1925 (1986), or “[a]n official or formal statement of facts or proceedings,” Black’s Law Dictionary 1300 (6th ed. 1990). See also 13 Oxford English Dictionary 650 (2d ed. 1989) (“[a]n account brought by one person to another”); American Heritage Dictionary 1103 (1981) (“[a]n account or announcement that is prepared, presented, or delivered, usually in formal or organized form”); Random House Dictionary 1634 (2d ed. 1987) (“an account or statement describing in detail an event, situation, or the like”). This broad ordinary meaning of “report” is consistent with the generally broad scope of the FCA’s public disclosure bar. As we explained last Term, to determine the meaning of one word in the public disclosure bar, we must consider the provision’s “entire text,” read as an “integrated whole.” Graham County Soil and Water Conservation Dist. v. United States ex rel Wilson, 559 U. S. 280, 290, 293, n. 12 (2010); see also Tyler v. Cain, 533 U. S. 656, 662 (2001) (“We do not.. . construe the meaning of statutory terms in a vacuum”). The other sources of public disclosure in § 3730(e)(4)(A), especially “news media,” suggest that the public disclosure bar provides “a broa[d] sweep.” Graham County, supra, at 290. The statute also mentions “administrative hearings” twice, reflecting intent to avoid underinclusiveness even at the risk of redundancy. The phrase “allegations or transactions” in § 3730(e)(4)(A) additionally suggests a wide-reaching public disclosure bar. Congress covered not only the disclosure of “allegations” but also “transactions,” a term that courts have recognized as having a broad meaning. See, e. g., Moore v. New York Cotton Exchange, 270 U. S. 593, 610 (1926) (“'Transaction’ is a word of flexible meaning”); Hamilton v. United Healthcare of La., Inc., 310 F. 3d 385, 391 (CA5 2002) (“[T]he ordinary meaning of the term 'transaction’ is a broad reference to many different types of business dealings between parties”). 2 Nor is there any textual basis for adopting a narrower definition of “report. ” The Court of Appeals, in holding that FOIA responses were not “reports,” looked to the words “hearing, audit, or investigation,” and the phrase “criminal, civil, [and] administrative hearing[s].” It concluded that all of these sources “connote the synthesis of information in an investigatory context” to “serve some end of the government.” 601 F. 3d, at 107; cf. Brief for Respondent 30, n. 15 (“Each is part of the government’s ongoing effort to fight fraud”). Applying the noscitur a sociis canon, the Court of Appeals then determined that these “ ‘neighboring words’ ” mandated a narrower meaning for “report” than its ordinary meaning. 601 F. 3d, at 107. The Court of Appeals committed the very error we reversed in Graham, County. Like the Fourth Circuit in that case, the Second Circuit here applied the noscitur a sociis canon only to the immediately surrounding words, to the exclusion of the rest of the statute. See 601 F. 3d, at 107, n. 6. We emphasized in Graham, County that “all of the sources [of public disclosure] listed in ,§3730(e)(4)(A) provide interpretive guidance.” 559 U. S., at 289. When all of the sources are considered, the reference to “news media”— which the Court of Appeals did not consider — suggests a much broader scope. Id., at 290. The Government similarly errs by focusing only on the adjectives “congressional, administrative, or [GAO],” which precede “report.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 18. It contends that these adjectives suggest that the public disclosure bar applies only to agency reports “analogous to those that Congress and the GAO would issue or conduct.” Ibid. As we explained in Graham County, however, those three adjectives tell us nothing more than that a “report” must be governmental. See 559 U. S., at 289, n. 7. The governmental nature of the FOIA responses at issue is not disputed. Finally, applying the ordinary meaning of “report” does not render superfluous the other sources of public disclosure in § 3730(e)(4)(A). Kirk argues that reading “report” to mean “something that gives information” would subsume the other words in the phrase “report, hearing, audit, or investigation.” Brief for Respondent 23. But Kirk admits that hearings, audits, and investigations are processes “to obtain information.” Ibid, (emphasis added). Those processes are thus clearly different from “something that gives information.” Moreover, the statute contemplates some redundancy: An “audit,” for example, will often be a type of “investigation.” We are not persuaded that we should adopt a “different, somewhat special meaning” of “report” over the word’s “primary meaning.” Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125, 130, 128 (1998). Indeed, we have cautioned recently against interpreting the public disclosure bar in a way inconsistent with a plain reading of its text. In Graham County, we rejected several arguments for construing the statute narrowly, twice emphasizing that the sole “touchstone” in the statutory text is “public disclosure.” 559 U. S., at 292, 301. We chose in that case simply to give the text its “most natura[l] reading],” id., at 287, and we do so again here. B A written agency response to a FOIA request falls within the ordinary meaning of “report.” FOIA requires each agency receiving a request to “notify the person making such request of [its] determination and the reasons therefor.” 5 U. S. C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i). When an agency denies a request in whole or in part, it must additionally “set forth the names and titles or positions of each person responsible for the denial,” “make a reasonable effort to estimate the volume of any [denied] matter,” and “provide any such estimate to the person making the request.” §§ 552(a)(6)(C)(i), (F). The DOL has adopted more detailed regulations implementing FOIA and mandating a response in writing. See 29 CFR § 70.21(a) (2009) (requiring written notice of the grant of a FOIA request and a description of the manner in which records will be disclosed); §§70.21(b)-(e) (requiring a “brief statement of the reason or reasons for [a] denial,” as well as written notification if a record “cannot be located or has been destroyed” (emphasis deleted)). So, too, have other federal agencies. See, e. g., 28 CFR § 16.6 (2010) (Dept, of Justice); 43 CFR §2.21 (2009) (Dept, of Interior); 7 CFR §1.7 (2010) (Dept, of Agriculture). Such an agency response plainly is “something that gives information,” a “notification,” and an “official or formal statement of facts.” Any records the agency produces along with its written FOIA response are part of that response, “just as if they had been reproduced as an appendix to a printed report.” Mistick, 186 F. 3d, at 384, n. 5. Nothing in the public disclosure bar suggests that a document and its attachments must be disaggregated and evaluated individually. If an allegation or transaction is disclosed in a record attached to a FOIA response, it is disclosed “in” that FOIA response and, therefore, disclosed “in” a report for the purposes of the public disclosure bar. The DOL’s three written FOIA responses to Mrs. Kirk, along with their attached records, are thus reports within the meaning of the public disclosure bar. Each response was an “official or formal statement” that “[gave] information” and “notified]” Mrs. Kirk of the agency’s resolution of her FOIA request. III A In interpreting a statute, “[o]ur inquiry must cease if the statutory language is unambiguous,” as we have found, and “‘the statutory scheme is coherent and consistent.’” Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519U.S. 337, 340 (1997) (quoting United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 U. S. 235, 240 (1989)). We are not persuaded by assertions that it would be anomalous to read the public disclosure bar to encompass written FOIA responses. 1 The drafting history of the public disclosure bar does not contradict our holding. As originally enacted in 1863, the FCA placed no restriction on the sources from which a qui tarn relator could acquire information on which to base a lawsuit. See Graham County, supra, at 293-294. Accordingly, this Court upheld the recovery of a relator, even though the Government claimed that he had discovered the basis for his lawsuit by reading a federal criminal indictment. See United States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess, 317 U. S. 537 (1943). In response, Congress amended the statute to preclude such “parasitic” qui tam actions based on “evidence or information in the possession of the United States ... at the time such suit was brought.” 559 U. S., at 294 (internal quotation marks omitted). Then, in 1986, Congress replaced the so-called Government knowledge bar with the narrower public disclosure bar. Id., at 294-295. The Court of Appeals concluded that it would be inconsistent with this drafting history to hold that written FOIA responses are reports. The court reasoned that doing so would “essentially resurrect, in a significant subset of cases, the government possession standard ... repudiated in 1986.” 601 F. 3d, at 109. We disagree with the Court of Appeals’ conclusion. As a threshold matter, “the drafting history of the public disclosure bar raises more questions than it answers.” Graham County, 559 U. S., at 296. In any event, it is hardly inconsistent with the drafting history to read the public disclosure bar as operating similarly to the Government knowledge bar in a “subset of cases.” 601 F. 3d, at 109. As we have observed, “[r]ather than simply repeal the Government knowledge bar,” the public disclosure bar was “an effort to strike a balance between encouraging private persons to root out fraud and stifling parasitic lawsuits.” 559 U. S., at 294-295 (emphasis added). If anything, the drafting history supports our holding. The sort of case that Kirk has brought seems to us a classic example of the “opportunistic” litigation that the public disclosure bar is designed to discourage. Id., at 294 (internal quotation marks omitted). Although Kirk alleges that he became suspicious from his own experiences as a veteran working at Schindler, anyone could have filed the same FOIA requests and then filed the same suit. Similarly, anyone could identify a few regulatory filing and certification requirements, submit FOIA requests until he discovers a federal contractor who is out of compliance, and potentially reap a windfall in a qui tarn action under the FCA. See Brief for Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America et al. as Amici Curiae 20 (“Government contractors . . . are required to submit certifications related to everything from how they dispose of hazardous materials to their affirmative action plans” (citing 40 U. S. C. § 3142 and 29 U.S.C. § 793)). 2 Nor will extending the public disclosure bar to written FOIA responses necessarily lead to unusual consequences. FOIA requires agencies to release some records even absent a request. See 5 U. S. C. §§ 552(a)(1), (2). Kirk argues that it would be strange that two relators could obtain copies of the same document but that only the relator who got the document in response to a FOIA request would find his case barred. This argument assumes that records released under FOIA, but not attached to a written FOIA response, do not fall within the public disclosure bar. We do not decide that question. But even assuming, as Kirk does, that such records are not covered by the public disclosure bar, we are not troubled by the different treatment. By its plain terms, the public disclosure bar applies to some methods of public disclosure and not to others. See Graham County, supra, at 285 (“[T]he FCA’s public disclosure bar . . . deprives courts of jurisdiction over qui tarn suits when the relevant information has already entered the public domain through certain channels” (emphasis added)). It would not be anomalous if some methods of FOIA disclosure fell within the scope of the public disclosure bar and some did not. We also are not concerned that potential defendants will now insulate themselves from liability by making a FOIA request for incriminating documents. This argument assumes that the public disclosure of information in a written FOIA response forever taints that information for purposes of the public disclosure bar. But it may be that' a relator who comes by that information from a different source has a legitimate argument that his lawsuit is not “based upon” the initial public disclosure. 31 U. S. C. § 3730(e)(4)(A). That question has divided the Courts of Appeals, and we do not resolve it here. See Glaser v. Wound Care Consultants, Inc., 570 F. 3d 907, 915 (CA7 2009) (describing the split in authority). It may also be that such a relator qualifies for the “original source” exception. In any event, the notion that potential defendants will make FOIA requests to insulate themselves from liability is pure speculation. Cf. Graham County, supra, at 300 (rejecting as “strained speculation” an argument that local governments will manipulate the public disclosure bar to escape liability). There is no suggestion that this has occurred in those Circuits that have long held that FOIA responses are “reports” within the meaning of the public disclosure bar. B Even if we accepted these extratextual arguments, Kirk and his amici have provided no principled way to define “report” to exclude FOIA responses without excluding other documents that are indisputably reports. The Government, for example, struggled to settle on a single definition. Compare Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 19 (“report” must be read to “reflect a focus on situations in which the government is conducting, or has completed, some focused inquiry or analysis concerning the relevant facts”) with id., at 21 (“A FOIA response is not a ‘report’ . . . because the federal agency is not charged with uncovering the truth of any matter”), and Tr. of Oral Arg. 33 (“[T]he way to think about it is whether or not the agency ... is engaging in a substantive inquiry into and a substantive analysis of information”). It is difficult to see how the Department of Justice’s “Annual Report” of FOIA statistics — something that is indisputably a Government report — would qualify under the latter two definitions. See Dept, of Justice, Freedom of Information Act Annual Report, Fiscal Year 2010, http:// www.justice.gov/oip/annual_report/2010/cover.htm (as visited May 12, 2011, and available in Clerk of Court’s case file); see also Tr. of Oral Arg. 19 (Kirk conceding that the DOJ annual report is a report). And even if the first definition arguably encompasses that report, it would seem also to include FOIA responses, which convey the results of a Government agency’s “focused inquiry.” Kirk also was unable to articulate a workable definition. His various proposed definitions suffer the same deficiencies as the Government’s. Compare Brief for Respondent 27 and Tr. of Oral Arg. 17-18 with Brief for Respondent 34-39 and Tr. of Oral Arg. 23. Kirk’s first suggestion would exclude “a lot of things that are labeled . . . report,” id., at 22, and the second — the definition advanced by the Court of Appeals — would seem to include written FOIA responses, id., at 28-29. In the end, it appears that the “only argument is that FOIA is a different kind of mission” — “a special case.” Id., at 31. We see no basis for that distinction and adhere to the principle that undefined statutory terms carry their ordinary meaning. * * * The DOL’s three written FOIA responses in this case, along with the accompanying records produced to Mrs. Kirk, are reports within the meaning of the public disclosure bar. Whether Kirk’s suit is “based upon ... allegations or transactions” disclosed in those reports is a question for the Court of Appeals to resolve on remand. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. During the pendency of this ease, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, 124 Stat. 119, amended the public disclosure bar. Because the amendments are not applicable to pending cases, Graham County Soil and Water Conservation Dist. v. United States ex rel. Wilson, 559 U. S. 280, 283, n. 1 (2010), this opinion refers to the statute as it existed when the suit was filed. The facts in this Part, which we must accept as true, are taken from the amended complaint and the filings submitted in opposition to Schindler’s motion to dismiss. Kirk filed a complaint with the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), claiming that he had been “improperly demoted and constructively terminated by Schindler despite his status as a Vietnam era veteran.” App. 23a. The OFCCP investigated Schindler’s compliance with VEVRAA and found insufficient evidence to support Kirk’s claim. In November 2009, the Department of Labor affirmed the OFCCP’s finding. 601 F. 3d 94, 99 (CA2 2010). Because we conclude that a written response to a FOIA request qualifies as a “report” within the meaning of the public disclosure bar, we need not address whether an agency’s search in response to a FOIA request also qualifies as an “investigation.” Although the statute refers to the “Government Accounting Office,” it is undisputed that Congress meant the General Accounting Office, also known as GAO and now renamed the Government Accountability Office. See Graham County, 559 U. S., at 287, n. 6. It is irrelevant whether a particular record is itself a report. The attached records do not “becomfe]” reports, 601 F. 3d, at 109, but simply are part of a report. There is no merit to the suggestion that the public disclosure bar is intended only to exclude qui tarn suits that “ride the investigatory coattails of the government’s own processes.” Brief for Taxpayers Against Fraud Education Fund as Amicus Curiae 25, 26; see Graham County, 559 U. S., at 300 (rejecting the argument that the public disclosure bar applies only to allegations or transactions that “have landed on the desk of a DOJ lawyer”). An “original source” is “an individual who has direct and independent knowledge of the information on which the allegations are based and has voluntarily provided the information to the Government before filing an action under this section which is based on the information.” § 3730(e)(4)(B). Some Courts of Appeals have narrowly construed the exception to limit “original sources” to those who were the cause of the public disclosure, while others have been more generous. See United States ex rel. Duxbury v. Ortho Biotech Prods., L. P, 579 F. 3d 13, 22 (CA1 2009) (describing a three-way split among the Courts of Appeals). That question is not before us, and we do not decide it. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

E

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr. Justice Blackmun delivered the opinion of the Court. Sections 531-537, inclusive, of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, 26 U. S. C. §§ 531-537, constitute Part I of subchapter G of the Income Tax Subtitle. These sections subject most corporations to an “accumulated earnings tax.” Section 531 imposes the tax upon the “accumulated taxable income” of every corporation that, as § 532 (a) states, is “formed or availed of for the purpose of avoiding the income tax with respect to its shareholders... by permitting earnings and profits to accumulate instead of being divided or distributed.” And § 533 (a) provides that “the fact that the earnings and profits... are permitted to accumulate beyond the reasonable needs of the business shall be determinative of the purpose to avoid the income tax with respect to shareholders, unless the corporation by the preponderance of the evidence shall prove to the contrary.” The issue here is whether, in determining the application of § 533 (a), listed and readily marketable securities owned by the corporation and purchased out of its earnings and profits, are to be taken into account at their cost to the corporation or at their net liquidation value, that is, fair market value less the expenses of, and taxes resulting from, their conversion into cash. I The pertinent facts are admitted by the pleadings or are stipulated: The petitioner, Ivan Allen Company (the taxpayer), is a Georgia corporation incorporated in 1902 and actively engaged in the business of selling office furniture, equipment, and supplies in the metropolitan Atlanta area. It files its federal income tax returns on the accrual basis and for the fiscal year ended June 30. For its fiscal years 1965 and 1966, the taxpayer paid in due course the federal corporation income taxes shown on its returns as filed. Taxable income so reported was $341,045.82 for 1965 and $629,512.19 for 1966. App. 59, 84. During fiscal 1965 the taxpayer paid dividends consisting of cash in the amount of $48,945.30 and 870 shares of Xerox Corporation common that had been carried on its books at a cost of $6,564.34. During fiscal 1966 the taxpayer paid cash dividends of $50,267.49'; it also declared a 10% stock dividend. Id., at 56. The dividends paid were substantially less than taxable income less federal income taxes for those years. Throughout fiscal 1965 and 1966, the taxpayer owned various listed and unlisted marketable securities. Prominent among these were listed shares of common stock and listed convertible debentures of Xerox Corporation that, in prior years, had been purchased out of earnings and profits. Specifically, on June 30, 1965, the corporation owned 11,140 shares of Xerox common, with a cost of $116,701 and a then fair market value of $1,573,525, and $30,600 Xerox convertible debentures, with a cost to it of $30,625 and a then fair market value of $48,424. On June 30, 1966, the corporation owned 10,090 shares of Xerox common, with a cost of $102,479 and a then fair market value of $2,479,617, and the same $30,600 convertible debentures, with their cost of $30,625 and a then fair market value of $69,768. Id., at 55. According to its returns as filed, the taxpayer’s undistributed earnings as of June 30, 1965, and June 30, 1966, were $2,200,184.77 and $2,360,146.52, respectively. Id., at 70, 91. The taxpayer points out that the marketable portfolio assets represented an investment, as measured by cost, of less than 7% of its undistributed earnings and of less than 5% of its total assets. Brief for Petitioner 4. It is also apparent, however, that the Xerox debentures and common shares had proved to be an extraordinarily profitable investment, although, of course, because these securities continued to be retained, the gains thereon were unrealized for federal income tax purposes. The debentures had increased in fair market value more than 50% over cost by the end of June 1965, and more than 100% over cost one year later; the common shares had increased in fair market value more than 13 times their cost by June 30, 1965, and more than 24 times their cost by June 30, 1966. Throughout fiscal 1965 and 1966 the taxpayer’s two major shareholders, Ivan Allen, Sr., and Ivan Allen, Jr., respectively owned 31.20% and 45.46% of the taxpayer’s outstanding voting stock. App. 78, 104. Following an examination of the taxpayer’s federal income tax returns for fiscal 1965 and 1966, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue determined that the taxpayer had permitted its earnings and profits for each of those years to accumulate beyond the reasonable and reasonably anticipated needs of its business, and that one of the purposes of the accumulation for each year was to avoid income tax with respect to its shareholders. Based upon this determination, the Commissioner assessed against the corporation accumulated earnings taxes of $77,383.98 and $73,131.87 for 1965 and 1966, respectively. The taxpayer paid these taxes and thereafter timely filed claims for refund. The claims were not allowed, and the taxpayer then instituted this refund suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. It is agreed that the taxpayer had reasonable business needs for operating capital amounting to $1,198,309 and $1,455,222 at the close of fiscal 1965 and fiscal 1966, respectively. Id., at 56. It is stipulated, in particular, that if the taxpayer’s marketable securities are to be taken into account at cost, its net liquid assets (current assets less current liabilities), at the end of each of those taxable years, and fully available for use in its business, were then exactly equal to its reasonable business needs for operating capital, that is, the above-stated figures of $1,198,309 and $1,455,222. It would follow, accordingly, that the earnings and profits of the two taxable years had not been permitted to accumulate beyond the taxpayer’s reasonable and reasonably anticipated business needs, within the meaning of § 533 (a), App. 57, and no accumulated earnings taxes were incurred. It is still further stipulated, however, that if the taxpayer’s marketable securities are to be taken into account at fair market value (less the cost of converting them into cash), as of the ends of those fiscal years, the taxpayer’s net liquid assets would then be $2,235,029 and $3,152,009, respectively. Id., at 56. From this it would follow that the earnings and profits of the two taxable years had been permitted to accumulate beyond the taxpayer’s reasonable and reasonably anticipated business needs. Then, if those accumulations had been for “the purpose of avoiding the income tax with respect to its shareholders,” under § 532 (a), accumulated earnings taxes would be incurred. The issue, therefore, is clear and precise: whether, for purposes of applying § 533 (a), the taxpayer’s readily marketable securities should be taken into account at cost, as the taxpayer contends, or at net liquidation value, as the Government contends. The District Court held that the taxpayer’s readily marketable securities were to be taken into account at cost. Accordingly, it entered judgment for the petitioner-taxpayer. 349 F. Supp. 1075 (1972). The court observed: “Corporate taxpayers should not be penalized for wise investments; they should be allowed to maximize their capital gains tax advantages in accordance with internal business policies and stock market conditions rather than being forced to sell securities which may have a high value on an arbitrarily selected date merely because the unrealized fair market value of the securities on that date would trigger the accumulated earnings tax.” Id., at 1077. (Footnote omitted.) The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed. 493 F. 2d 426 (1974). It observed: “[T]he securities involved in the case at bar are of such a highly liquid character as to be readily available for business needs that might arise. Thus the appreciated value of these securities should be taken into account when determining whether the corporation has accumulated profits in excess of reasonable business needs. “This decision does not force the corporation to liquidate these securities at any time when a sale would be financially unwise, but only compels the corporation to comply with the proscriptions of the Code and refrain from accumulating excessive earnings and profits.” Id., at 428. The case was remanded, as the parties had agreed, App. 57-58, “for the additional factual determination [under § 532 (a)] of whether one purpose for the accumulation was to avoid income tax on behalf of the shareholders.” 493 F. 2d, at 428. Because this conclusion was claimed by the taxpayer to conflict in principle with American Trading & Production Corp. v. United States, 362 F. Supp. 801 (Md. 1972), aff’d without published opinion, 474 F. 2d 1341 (CA4 1973), and because of the importance of the issue in the administration of the accumulated earnings tax, we granted certiorari. 419 U. S. 1067 (1974). II Under our system of income taxation, corporate earnings are subject to tax at two levels. First, there is the tax imposed upon the income of the corporation. Second, when the corporation, by way of a dividend, distributes its earnings to its shareholders, the distribution is subject to the tax imposed upon the income of the shareholders. Because of the disparity between the corporate tax rates and the higher gradations of the rates on individuals, a corporation may be utilized to reduce significantly its shareholders’ overall tax liability by accumulating earnings beyond the reasonable needs of the business. Without some method to force the distribution of unneeded corporate earnings, a controlling shareholder would be able to postpone the full impact of income taxes on his share of the corporation’s earnings in excess of its needs. See B. Bittker & J. Eustice, Federal Income Taxation of Corporations and Shareholders ¶ 8.01 (3d ed. 1971); B. Wolfman, Federal Income Taxation of Business Enterprise 864 (1971). In order to foreclose this possibility of using the corporation as a means of avoiding the income tax on dividends to the shareholders, every Revenue Act since the adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913 has imposed a tax upon unnecessary accumulations of corporate earnings effected for the purpose of insulating shareholders. The Court has acknowledged the obvious purpose of the accumulation provisions of the successive Acts: “As the theory of the revenue acts has been to tax corporate profits to the corporation, and their receipt only when distributed to the stockholders, the purpose of the legislation is to compel the company to distribute any profits not needed for the conduct of its business so that, when so distributed, individual stockholders will become liable not only for normal but for surtax on the dividends received.” Helvering v. Chicago Stock Yards Co., 318 U. S. 693, 699 (1943). This was reaffirmed in United States v. Donruss Co., 393 U. S. 297, 303 (1969). It is to be noted that the focus and impositions of the accumulated earnings tax are upon “accumulated taxable income,” § 531. This is defined in § 535 (a) to mean the corporation’s “taxable income,” as adjusted. The adjustments consist of the various items described in § 535 (b), including federal income tax, the deduction for dividends paid, defined in § 561, and the accumulated earnings credit defined in § 535 (c). The adjustments prescribed by §§ 535 (a) and (b) are designed generally to assure that a corporation’s “accumulated taxable income” reflects more accurately than “taxable income” the amount actually available to the corporation for business purposes. This explains the deductions for dividends paid and for federal income taxes; neither of these enters into the computation of taxable income. Obviously, dividends paid and federal income taxes deplete corporate resources and must be recognized if the corporation’s economic condition is to be propérly perceived. Conversely, § 535 (b) (3) disallows, for example, the deduction, available to a corporation for income tax purposes under § 243, on account of dividends received ; dividends received are freely available for use in the corporation’s business. The purport of the accumulated earnings tax structure established by §§ 531-537, therefore, is to determine the corporation’s true economic condition before its liability for tax upon “accumulated taxable income” is determined. The tax, although a penalty and therefore to be strictly construed, Commissioner v. Acker, 361 U. S. 87, 91 (1959), is directed at economic reality. It is important to emphasize that we are concerned here with a tax on “accumulated taxable income,” § 531, and that the tax attaches only when a corporation has permitted “earnings and profits to accumulate instead of being divided or distributed,” § 532 (a). What is essential is that there be “income” and “earnings and profits.” This at once eliminates, from the measure of the tax itself, any unrealized appreciation in the value of the taxpayer’s portfolio securities over cost, for any such unrealized appreciation does not enter into the computation of the corporation’s “income” and “earnings and profits.” The corporation’s readily marketable portfolio securities and their unrealized appreciation, nonetheless, are of profound importance in making the entirely discrete determination whether the corporation has permitted what, coneededly, are earnings and profits to accumulate beyond its reasonable business needs. If the securities, as here, are readily available as liquid assets, then the recognized earnings and profits that have been accumulated may well have been unnecessarily accumulated, so far as the reasonable needs of the business are concerned. On the other hand, if those portfolio securities are not liquid and are not readily available for the needs of the business, the accumulation of earnings and profits may be viewed in a different light. Upon this analysis, not only is such accumulation as has taken place important, but the liquidity otherwise available to the corporation is highly significant. In any event — and we repeat — the tax is directed at the accumulated taxable income and at earnings and profits. The tax itself is not directed at the unrealized appreciation of the liquid assets in the securities portfolio. The latter becomes important only-in measuring reasonableness of accumulation of the earnings and profits that otherwise independently exist. What we look at, then, in order to determine its reasonableness or unreasonableness, in the light of the needs of the business, is any failure on the part of the corporation to distribute the earnings and profits it has. Accumulation beyond the reasonable needs of the business, by the language of § 533 (a), is “determinative of the purpose” to avoid tax with respect to shareholders unless the corporation proves the contrary by a preponderance of the evidence. The burden of proof, thus, is on the taxpayer. A rebuttable presumption is statutorily imposed. To be sure, we deal here, in a sense, with a state of mind. But it has been said that the statute, without the support of the presumption, would “be practically unenforceable....” United Business Corp. v. Commissioner, 62 F. 2d 754, 755 (CA2), cert. denied, 290 U. S. 635 (1933). What is required, then, is a comparison of accumulated earnings and profits with “the reasonable needs of the business.” Business needs are critical. And need, plainly, to use mathematical terminology, is a function of a corporation's liquidity, that is, the amount of idle current assets at its disposal. The question, therefore, is not how much capital of all sorts, but how much in the way of quick or liquid assets, it is reasonable to keep on hand for the business. United Block Co. v. Helvering, 123 F. 2d 704, 705 (CA2 1941), cert. denied, 315 U. S. 812 (1942); Smoot Sand & Gravel Corp. v. Commissioner, 274 F. 2d 495, 501 (CA4), cert. denied, 362 U. S. 976 (1960) (liquid assets provide “a strong indication” of the purpose of the accumulation); Electric Regulator Corp. v. Commissioner, 336 F. 2d 339, 344 (CA2 1964); Novelart Mfg. Co. v. Commissioner, 52 T. C. 794, 806 (1969), aff’d, 434 F. 2d 1011 (CA6 1970), cert. denied, 403 U. S. 918 (1971); John P. Scripps Newspapers v. Commissioner, 44 T. C. 453, 467 (1965). The taxpayer itself recognizes, and accepts, the liquidity concept as a basic factor, for it “has agreed that the full amount of its realized earnings invested in its liquid assets — their cost — should be taken into account in determining the applicability of Section 533 (a).” Brief for Petitioner 15. It concedes that if this were not so, “the tax could be avoided by any form of investment of earnings and profits.” Reply Brief for Petitioner 5. But the taxpayer would stop at the point of cost and, when it does so, is compelled to compare earnings and profits— not the amount of readily available liquid assets, net— with reasonable business needs. We disagree with the taxpayer and conclude that cost is not the stopping point; that the application of the accumulated earnings tax, in a given case, may well depend on whether the corporation has available readily marketable portfolio securities; and that the proper measure of those securities, for purposes of the tax, is their net realizable value. Cost of the marketable securities on the assets side of the corporation’s balance sheet would appear to be largely an irrelevant gauge of the taxpayer’s true financial condition. Certainly, a lender would not evaluate a potential borrower’s marketable securities at cost. Realistic financial condition is the focus of the lender’s inquiry. It also must be the focus of the Commissioner’s inquiry in determining the applicability of the accumulated earnings tax. This taxpayer’s securities, being liquid and readily marketable, clearly were available for the business needs of the corporation, and their fair market value, net, was such that, according to the stipulation, the taxpayer’s undistributed earnings and profits for the two fiscal years in question were permitted to accumulate beyond the reasonable and reasonably anticipated needs of the business. Ill Bearing directly upon the issue before us is Helvering v. National Grocery Co., 304 U. S. 282 (1938). There the fact situation was the reverse of the present case inasmuch as that taxpayer corporation had unrealized losses in the value of marketable securities it was continuing to hold. After the Court upheld the accumulated earnings tax against constitutional attack, id., at 286-290, it observed: “Depreciation in any of the assets is evidence to be considered by the Commissioner and the Board [of Tax Appeals] in determining the issue of fact whether the accumulation of profits was in excess of the reasonable needs of the business.” Id., at 291. It went on to hold, however, that such depreciation “does not, as matter of law, preclude a finding that the accumulation of the year’s profits was in excess of the reasonable needs of the business.” Ibid. Indeed, the Court held that the evidence supported the Board’s finding that the accumulation of surplus by the taxpayer was to enable its sole shareholder to escape surtaxes. It focused on bonds and stocks held by the corporation, described them as in no way related to the business, and concluded that “there was no need of accumulating any part of the year’s earnings for the purpose of financing the business.” Id., at 291-292. That language forecloses the present taxpayer’s case. The precedent of National Grocery has been applied in accumulated earnings tax cases, with courts taking into account the fair market value of liquid, appreciated securities. Battelstein Investment Co. v. United States, 442 F. 2d 87, 89 (CA5 1971); Cheyenne Newspapers, Inc. v. Commissioner, 494 F. 2d 429, 434-435 (CA10 1974); Henry Van Hummell, Inc. v. Commissioner, 23 T. C. M. 1765, 1779 (1964), aff’d, 364 F. 2d 746 (CA10 1966), cert. denied, 386 U. S. 956 (1967); Golconda Mining Corp. v. Commissioner, 58 T. C. 139, supplemental opinion, 58 T. C. 736, 737-739 (1972), rev’d on other grounds, 507 F. 2d 594 (CA9 1974); Ready Paving & Constr. Co. v. Commissioner, 61 T. C. 826, 840-841 (1974). But see Harry A. Koch Co. v. Vinal, 228 F. Supp. 782, 784 (Neb. 1964). American Trading & Production Corp. v. United States, 362 F. Supp. 801 (Md. 1972), aff’d without pub-fished opinion, 474 F. 2d 1341 (CA4 1973), which the taxpayer continues to assert is in conflict with the present case, deserves mention. The taxpayer there had accumulated earnings and profits of something less than $10 million. Its anticipated business needs were about $12 million. But it owned stocks, primarily oil shares, having a total cost of $5,593,319 and an aggregate current market value in excess of $100 million. The District Court excluded these stocks in making its determination whether earnings had accumulated in excess of reasonable business needs. It did so on several grounds: that the shares constituted “original capital,” a term the court used in the sense that the stocks “were properly held and retained as an integral part of [the taxpayer’s] business and were utilized... as a base for borrowings for the needs of other parts of its business,” 362 F. Supp., at 810; that the statute was not intended to require the conversion of assets of that kind into cash in order to meet business needs, even though that capital “has explosively increased in value,” id., at 808; and that “there was substantial evidence” that the stocks “were not readily saleable,” id., at 809. Whatever may be the merit or demerit of the other grounds asserted by the District Court in American Trading — and we express no view thereon — we are satisfied that the court’s determination as to the absence of ready salability, under all the circumstances, provides a sufficient point of distinction of that case from this one, so that it provides meager, if any, contrary precedent of substance to our conclusion here. IV The arguments advanced by the taxpayer do not persuade us: 1. The taxpayer, of course, quite correctly insists that unrealized appreciation of portfolio securities does not enter into the determination of “earnings and profits,” within the meaning of § 533 (a). As noted above, we agree. The Government does not contend otherwise. It does not follow, however, that unrealized appreciation is never to be taken into account for purposes of the accumulated earnings tax. As has been pointed out, the tax is imposed only upon accumulated taxable income, and this is defined to mean taxable income as adjusted by factors that have been described. The question is not whether unrealized appreciation enters into the determination of earnings and profits, which it does not, but whether the accumulated taxable income, in the determination of which earnings and profits have entered, justifiably may be retained rather than distributed as dividends. The tax focuses, therefore, on current income and its retention or distribution. If the corporation has freely available liquid assets in excess of its reasonable business needs, then accumulation of taxable income may be unreasonable and the tax may attach. Utilizable availability of the portfolio assets is measured realistically only at net realizable value. The fact that this value is not included in earnings and profits does not foreclose its being considered in determining whether the corporation is subject to the accumulated earnings tax. 2. We see nothing in the “realization of income” concept of Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U. S. 189 (1920), that has significance for the issue presently under consideration. There the Court held that a dividend of common shares issued by a corporation having only common outstanding was not includable in the shareholder’s gross income for income tax purposes. The decision may have prompted the shift, noted above and effected by the Revenue Act of 1921, of the incidence of the accumulated earnings tax from the shareholders to the corporation. The case also emphasizes the realization of income with respect to a tax on the shareholder. We note again, however, that the accumulated earnings tax is not on unrealized appreciation of the portfolio securities. It rests upon, and only upon, the corporation's current taxable income adjusted to constitute “accumulated taxable income.'' 3. The taxpayer also argues that the effect of the Court of Appeals decision is to force the taxpayer to convert its appreciated assets in order to meet its business needs. It suggests that management should be entitled to finance business needs without resorting to unrealized appreciation. The argument, plainly, goes too far. On the taxpayer's own theory that marketable securities may be taken into account at their cost, a situation easily may be imagined where some conversion into cash becomes necessary, if the corporation is to avoid the accumulated earnings tax. That our decision does not interfere with corporate management's exercise of sound business judgment, and that it does not amount to a dictation to management as to when appreciated assets are to be liquidated, was aptly answered by the Court of Appeals: “This decision does not force the corporation to liquidate these securities at any time when a sale would be financially unwise, but only compels the corporation to comply with the proscriptions of the Code and refrain from accumulating excessive earnings and profits. That taxpayer, as a consequence of its own sound judgment in making profitable investments, must sell, exchange or distribute to the shareholders assets in order to avoid an excessive accumulation of earnings and thus comply with the Code’s requirements is no justification for precluding its application.” 493 F. 2d, at 428. We might add that the existence of the Code’s provisions for the accumulated earnings tax, of course, will affect management’s decision. So, too, does the very existence of the corporate income tax itself. In this respect, the one is no more offensive than the other. Astute management in these tax-conscious days is not that helpless, and shrinkage, upon liquidation, of one-fourth of the appreciation hardly equates with loss. Such business decision as is necessitated was expressly intended by the Congress. All that is required is the disgorging, at the most, of the taxable year’s “accumulated taxable income.” 4. It is no answer to suggest that our decision here may conflict with standard accounting practice. The Court has not hesitated to apply congressional policy underlying a revenue statute even when it does conflict with an established accounting practice. See, e. g., Schlude v. Commissioner, 372 U. S. 128 (1963); American Automobile Assn. v. United States, 367 U. S. 687, 692-694 (1961). It is of some interest that the taxpayer itself, for the tax years under consideration, reflected the market value as well as the cost of its marketable securities on its balance sheets. App. 112, 118. This appears to be in line with presently accepted practice. See R. Kester, Advanced Accounting 117-118, 122-124 (4th ed. 1946). The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. It is so ordered. “§531. Imposition of accumulated earnings tax. “In addition to other taxes imposed by this chapter, there is hereby imposed for each taxable year on the accumulated taxable income (as defined in section 535) of every corporation described in section 532, an accumulated earnings tax equal to the sum of— “(1) 27% percent of the accumulated taxable income not in excess of $100,000, plus “(2) 38% percent of the accumulated taxable income in excess of $100,000.” “§532. Corporations subject to accumulated earnings tax. “(a) General rule. “The accumulated earnings tax imposed by section 531 shall apply to every corporation (other than those described in subsection (b)) formed or availed of for the purpose of avoiding the income tax with respect to its shareholders or the shareholders of any other corporation, by permitting earnings and profits to accumulate instead of being divided or distributed.” “§ 533. Evidence of purpose to avoid income tax. “(a) Unreasonable accumulation determinative of purpose. “For purposes of section 532, the fact that the earnings and profits of a corporation are permitted to accumulate beyond the reasonable needs of the business shall be determinative of the purpose to avoid the income tax with respect to shareholders, unless the corporation by the preponderance of the evidence shall prove to the contrary.” In a proceeding before the United States Tax Court, § 534 allows the taxpayer to shift the burden of proof to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Section 535 defines “accumulated taxable income” to mean the corporation’s taxable income adjusted as specified; a credit is given for “such part of the earnings and profits for the taxable year as are retained for the reasonable needs of the business,” with a minimum “lifetime” credit of $100,000 ($150,000 for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1974, Pub. L. 9A-12, § 304, 89 Stat. 45, 26 U. S. C. § 535 (c) (2) (1970 ed., Supp. IV). Finally, § 537 provides that the term “reasonable needs of the business” includes “the reasonably anticipated needs of the business.” It is stipulated that the cost of converting the taxpayer’s marketable securities into cash would have been the sum of a maximum of 6% of the fair market value of the securities (payable as a brokerage commission) and a maximum of 25% of such amount of the fair market value as exceeds the sum of the brokerage commission and the cost of the securities (payable as capital gains taxes). App. 55. American Trading and Production Corporation, pursuant to our Rule 42, was granted permission to file a brief as amicus curiae in the present case. It asserts that no conflict exists between the decisions in this case and in its own case. The income tax rates for a corporation are 22% of the first $25,000 of taxable income and 48% of the excess over $25,000. § 11 of the 1954 Code, 26 U. S. C. § 11. The graduated rates for an individual taxpayer range from 14% to 70%. § 1, 26 U. S. C. § 1. The accumulated earnings tax originated in § II A, Subdivision 2, of the Tariff Act of October 3, 1913, 38 Stat. 166. This imposed a tax on the shareholders of a corporation “formed or fraudulently availed of for the purpose of preventing the imposition of such tax through the medium of permitting such gains and profits to accumulate instead of being divided or distributed.” Accumulations “beyond the reasonable needs of the business shall be prima facie evidence of a fraudulent purpose to escape such tax.” Id., at 167. The same provision appeared as § 3 of the Revenue Act of 1916, 39 Stat. 758, and again as § 220 of the Revenue Act of 1918, 40 Stat. 1072 (1919), except that in the 1918 Act the word “fraudulently” was deleted. This change was effected inasmuch as the Senate felt that the former phraseology “has proved to be of little value, because it was necessary to its application that intended fraud on the revenue be established in each case.” S. Rep. No. 617, 65th Cong., 3d Sess., 5 (1918). This pattern of tax on the shareholders was changed with the Revenue Act of 1921, § 220, 42 Stat. 247. The incidence of the tax was shifted from the shareholders to the corporation itself. Judge Learned Hand opined that the change was due to doubts “as to the validity of taxing income which the taxpayers had never received, and in 1921 it was thought safer to tax the company itself.” United Business Corp. v. Commissioner, 62 F. 2d 754, 756 (CA2), cert. denied, 290 U. S. 635 (1933). Although the statutory language has varied somewhat from time to time, the income tax law, since the change effected by the Revenue Act of 1921, consistently has imposed the tax on the corporation, rather than upon the shareholders. Revenue Act of 1924, § 220, 43 Stat. 277; Revenue Act of 1926, § 220, 44 Stat. 34; Revenue Act of 1928, § 104, 45 Stat. 814; Revenue Act of 1932, § 104, 47 Stat. 195; Revenue Act of 1934, § 102, 48 Stat. 702; Revenue Act of 1936, § 102, 49 Stat. 1676; Revenue Act of 1938, § 102, 52 Stat. 483; Internal Revenue Code of 1939, § 102. In this case we are concerned only with readily marketable securities. We express no view with respect to items of a different kind, such as inventory or accounts receivable. “The tax should be administered with its purpose in mind at all times, i. e., to prevent accumulations of income by the corporation for the purpose of avoiding the income tax ordinarily incident to the shareholders. It is not intended to serve as an obstacle to sound profit-oriented corporate management. The ultimate goal must be to administer the tax fairly, in light of the total economic reality of the corporation. Valuing liquid assets at cost invariably produces a poor and inaccurate picture of the corporate financial position. Adjusted fair market value may have shortcomings of its own, but it does, undeniably, come much closer to furthering the intent of the accumulated earnings tax.” Note, Accumulated Earnings Tax: Should Marketable Securities be Valued at Cost or at Fair Market Value in Determining the Reasonableness of Further Accumulations of Income?, 40 Brooklyn L. Rev. 192, 209-210 (1973). We see little force in any observation that our emphasis on liquid assets means that a corporate taxpayer may avoid the accumulated earnings tax by merely investing in nonliquid assets. If such a step, in a given case, amounted to willful evasion of the accumulated earnings tax, it would be subject to criminal penalties. See, e. g., § 7201 of the 1954 Code, 26 U. S. C. § 7201. The cost basis for petitioner’s Xerox securities for the 1966 tax year was some $14,000 less than for 1965, apparently reflecting the payment as a dividend of 870 shares of Xerox stock in 1965. The "appreciation” figures used herein come from Petitioner’s Brief and vary somewhat from the figures used by the Government, but the differences are Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy 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 judgment of the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, is affirmed by an equally divided Court. Justice O’Connor took no part in the decision of this case. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

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 petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment is vacated. The case is remanded to the Supreme Court of Louisiana for further consideration in light of Bruton v. United States, 391 U. S. 123, and Roberts v. Russell, ante, p. 293. Mr. Justice Black dissents. Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice White dissent for the reasons stated in Mr. Justice White’s dissenting opinion in Bruton v. United States, 391 U. S. 123, 138 (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. Justice Breyer announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Justice Scalia, Justice Souter, and Justice Ginsburg join. This case concerns contracts between a commercial lender and its customers, each of which contains a clause providing for arbitration of all contract-related disputes. The Supreme Court of South Carolina held (1) that the arbitration clauses are silent as to whether arbitration might take the form of class arbitration, and (2) that, in that circumstance, South Carolina law interprets the contracts as permitting class arbitration. 351 S. C. 244, 569 S. E. 2d 349 (2002). We granted certiorari to determine whether this holding is consistent with the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U. S. C. § 1 et seq. We are faced at the outset with a problem concerning the contracts’ silence. Are the contracts in fact silent, or do they forbid class arbitration as petitioner Green Tree Financial Corp. contends? Given the South Carolina Supreme Court’s holding, it is important to resolve that question. But we cannot do so, not simply because it is a matter of state law, but also because it is a matter for the arbitrator to decide. Because the record suggests that the parties have not yet received an arbitrator’s decision on that question of contract interpretation, we vacate the judgment of the South Carolina Supreme Court and remand the case so that this question may be resolved in arbitration. HH In 1995, respondents Lynn and Burt Bazzle secured a home improvement loan from petitioner Green Tree. The Bazzles and Green Tree entered into a contract, governed by South Carolina law, which included the following arbitration clause: “ARBITRATION — All disputes, claims, or controversies arising from or relating to this contract or the relationships which result from this contract . . . shall he resolved by binding arbitration by one arbitrator selected by us with consent of you. This arbitration contract is made pursuant to a transaction in interstate commerce, and shall be governed by the Federal Arbitration Act at 9 U. S. C. section 1_THE PARTIES VOLUNTARILY AND KNOWINGLY WAIVE ANY RIGHT THEY HAVE TO A JURY TRIAL, EITHER PURSUANT TO ARBITRATION UNDER THIS CLAUSE OR PURSUANT TO A COURT ACTION BY US (AS PROVIDED HEREIN). . . . The parties agree and understand that the arbitrator shall have all powers provided by the law and the contract. These powers shall include all legal and equitable remedies, including, but not limited to, money damages, declaratory relief, and in-junctive relief.” App. 34 (emphasis added, capitalization in original). Respondents Daniel Lackey and George and Florine Buggs entered into loan contracts and security agreements for the purchase of mobile homes with Green Tree. These agreements contained arbitration clauses that were, in all relevant respects, identical to the Bazzles’ arbitration clause. (Their contracts substitute the word “you” with the word “Buyer[s]” in the italicized phrase.) 351 S. C., at 264, n. 18, 569 S. E. 2d, at 359, n. 18 (emphasis deleted). At the time of the loan transactions, Green Tree apparently failed to provide these customers with a legally required form that would have told them that they had a right to name their own lawyers and insurance agents and would have provided space for them to write in those names. See S. C. Code Ann. §37-10-102 (West 2002). The two sets of customers before us now as respondents each filed separate actions in South Carolina state courts, complaining that this failure violated South Carolina law and seeking damages. In April 1997, the Bazzles asked the court to certify their claims as a class action. Green Tree sought to stay the court proceedings and compel arbitration. On January 5, 1998, the court both (1) certified a class action and (2) entered an order compelling arbitration. App. 7. Green Tree then selected an arbitrator with the Bazzles’ consent. And the arbitrator, administering the proceeding as a class arbitration, eventually awarded the class $10,935,000 in statutory damages, along with attorney’s fees. The trial court confirmed the award, App. to Pet. for Cert. 27a-35a, and Green Tree appealed to the South Carolina Court of Appeals claiming, among other things, that class arbitration was legally impermissible. Lackey and the Buggses had earlier begun a similar court proceeding in which they, too, sought class certification. Green Tree moved to compel arbitration. The trial court initially denied the motion, finding the arbitration agreement unenforceable, but Green Tree pursued an interlocutory appeal and the State Court of Appeals reversed. Lackey v. Green Tree Financial Corp., 330 S. C. 388, 498 S. E. 2d 898 (1998). The parties then chose an arbitrator, indeed the same arbitrator who was subsequently selected to arbitrate the Bazzles’ dispute. In December 1998, the arbitrator certified a class in arbitration. App. 18. The arbitrator proceeded to hear the matter, ultimately ruled in favor of the class, and awarded the class $9,200,000 in statutory damages in addition to attorney’s fees. The trial court confirmed the award. App. to Pet. for Cert. 36a-54a. Green Tree appealed to the South Carolina Court of Appeals claiming, among other things, that class arbitration was legally impermissible. The South Carolina Supreme Court withdrew both cases from the Court of Appeals, assumed jurisdiction, and consolidated the proceedings. 351 S. C., at 249, 569 S. E. 2d, at 351. That court then held that the contracts were silent in respect to class arbitration, that they consequently authorized class arbitration, and that arbitration had properly taken that form. We granted certiorari to consider whether that holding is consistent with the Federal Arbitration Act. II The South Carolina Supreme Court’s determination that the contracts are silent in respect to class arbitration raises a preliminary question. Green Tree argued there, as it argues here, that the contracts are not silent — that they forbid class arbitration. And we must deal with that argument at the outset, for if it is right, then the South Carolina court’s holding is flawed on its own terms; that court neither said nor implied that it would have authorized class arbitration had the parties’ arbitration agreement forbidden it. Whether Green Tree is right about the contracts themselves presents a disputed issue of contract interpretation. The Chief Justice believes that Green Tree is right; indeed, that Green Tree is so clearly right that we should ignore the fact that state law, not federal law, normally governs such matters, see post, at 454 (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment and dissenting in part), and reverse the South Carolina Supreme Court outright, see post, at 458-460 (Rehnquist, C. J., dissenting). The Chief Justice points out that the contracts say that disputes “shall be resolved... by one arbitrator selected by us [Green Tree] with consent of you [Green Tree’s customer].” App. to Pet. for Cert. 110a. See post, at 458. And it. finds that class arbitration is clearly inconsistent with this requirement. After all, class arbitration involves an arbitration, not simply between Green Tree and a named customer, but also between Green Tree and other (represented) customers, all taking place before the arbitrator chosen to arbitrate the initial, named customer’s dispute. We do not believe, however, that the contracts’ language is as clear as The Chief Justice believes. The class arbitrator was “selected by” Green Tree “with consent of” Green • Tree’s customers, the named plaintiffs. And insofar as the other class members agreed to proceed in class arbitration, they consented as well. Of course, Green Tree did not independently select this arbitrator to arbitrate its disputes with the other class members. But whether the contracts contain this additional requirement is a question that the literal terms of the contracts do not decide. The contracts simply say (I) “selected by us [Green Tree].” And that is literally what occurred. The contracts do not say (II) “selected by us [Green Tree] to arbitrate this dispute and no other (even identical) dispute with another customer.” The question whether (I) in fact implicitly means (II) is the question at issue: Do the contracts forbid class arbitration? Given the broad authority the contracts elsewhere bestow upon the arbitrator, see, e. g., App. to Pet. for Cert. 110a (the contracts grant to the arbitrator “all powers,” including certain equitable powers “provided by the law and the contract”), the answer to this question is not completely obvious. At the same time, we cannot automatically accept the South Carolina Supreme Court’s resolution of this contract-interpretation question. Under the terms of the parties’ contracts, the question — whether the agreement forbids class arbitration — is for the arbitrator to decide. The parties agreed to submit to the arbitrator “[ajll disputes, claims, or controversies arising from or relating to this contract or the relationships which result from this contract.” Ibid. (emphasis added). And the dispute about what the arbitration contract in each case means (i. e., whether it forbids the use of class arbitration procedures) is a dispute “relating to this contract” and the resulting “relationships.” Hence the parties seem to have agreed that an arbitrator, not a judge, would answer the relevant question. See First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U. S. 938, 943 (1995) (arbitration is a “matter of contract”). And if there is doubt about that matter — about the “ ‘scope of arbitrable issues’ ” — we should resolve that doubt “‘in favor of arbitration.’” Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U. S. 614, 626 (1985). In certain limited circumstances, courts assume that the parties intended courts, not arbitrators, to decide a particular arbitration-related matter (in the absence of “clea[r] and unmistakabl[e]” evidence to the contrary). AT& Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers, 475 U. S. 643, 649 (1986). These limited instances typically involve matters of a kind that “contracting parties would likely have expected a court” to decide. Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U. S. 79, 83 (2002). They include certain gateway matters, such as whether the parties have a valid arbitration agreement at all or whether a concededly binding arbitration clause applies to a certain type of controversy. See generally Howsam, supra. See also John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston, 376 U. S. 543, 546-547 (1964) (whether an arbitration agreement survives a corporate merger); AT&T, supra, at 651-652 (whether a labor-management layoff controversy falls within the scope of an arbitration clause). The question here — whether the contracts forbid class arbitration — does not fall into this narrow exception. It concerns neither the validity of the arbitration clause nor its applicability to the underlying dispute between the parties. Unlike First Options, the question is not whether the parties wanted a judge or an arbitrator to decide whether they agreed to arbitrate a matter. 514 U. S., at 942-945. Rather the relevant question here is what kind of arbitration proceeding the parties agreed to. That question does not concern a state statute or judicial procedures, cf. Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 489 U. S. 468, 474-476 (1989). It concerns contract interpretation and arbitration procedures. Arbitrators are well situated to answer that question. Given these considerations, along with the arbitration contracts’ sweeping language concerning the scope of the questions committed to arbitration, this matter of contract interpretation should be for the arbitrator, not the courts, to decide. Cf. Howsam, supra, at 83 (finding for roughly similar reasons that the arbitrator should determine a certain procedural “gateway matter”). Ill With respect to this underlying question — whether the arbitration contracts forbid class arbitration — the parties have not yet obtained the arbitration decision that their contracts foresee. As far as concerns the Bazzle plaintiffs, the South Carolina Supreme Court wrote that the “trial court” issued “an order granting class certification” and the arbitrator subsequently “administered” class arbitration proceedings “without further involvement of the trial court.” 351 S. C., at 250-251, 569 S. E. 2d, at 352. Green Tree adds that “the class arbitration was imposed on the parties and the arbitrator by the South Carolina trial court.” Brief for Petitioner 30. Respondents now deny that this was so, Brief for Respondents 13, but we can find no convincing record support for that denial. As far as concerns the Lackey plaintiffs, what happened in arbitration is less clear. On the one hand, the Lackey arbitrator (the same individual who later arbitrated the Bazzle dispute) wrote: “7 determined that a class action should proceed in arbitration based upon my careful review of the broadly drafted arbitration clause prepared by Green Tree.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 84a (emphasis added). And respondents suggested at oral argument that the arbitrator’s decision was independently made. Tr. of Oral Arg. 39. On the other hand, the Lackey arbitrator decided this question after the South Carolina trial court had determined that the identical contract in the Bazzle case authorized class arbitration procedures. And there is no question that the arbitrator was aware of the Bazzle decision, since the Lackey plaintiffs had argued to the arbitrator that it should impose class arbitration procedures in part because the state trial court in Bazzle had done so. Record on Appeal 516-518. In the court proceedings below (where Green Tree took the opposite position), the Lackey plaintiffs maintained that “to the extent” the arbitrator decided that the contracts permitted class procedures (in the Lackey case or the Bazzle case), “it was a reaffirmation and/or adoption of [the Bazzle c]ourt’s prior determination.” Record on Appeal 1708, n. 2. See also App. 31-32, n. 2. On balance, there is at least a strong likelihood in Lackey as well as in Bazzle that the arbitrator’s decision reflected a court’s interpretation of the contracts rather than an arbitrator’s interpretation. That being so, we remand the case so that the arbitrator may decide the question of contract interpretation — thereby enforcing the parties’ arbitration agreements according to their terms. 9 U. S. C. § 2; Volt, supra, at 478-479. The judgment of the South Carolina Supreme Court is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. 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:

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 petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is reversed. Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U. S. 108. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy 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 convicted in separate trials and by different juries of forging and uttering endorsements on government checks, 18 U. S. C. § 495, and of transportation of a forged instrument in interstate commerce, 18 U. S. C. § 2314. The two cases were tried in succession. The jury in the case tried first — forging and uttering endorsements — announced its guilty verdict in open court in the presence of the jury panel from which the jurors who were to try the second case — transportation of a forged instrument — were selected. Petitioner immediately objected to selecting a jury for the second case from among members of the panel who had heard the guilty verdict in the first case. The objection was overruled, and the actual jury which found petitioner guilty in the second case contained five jurors who had heard the verdict in the first case. The conviction in the second case was affirmed on appeal, 324 P. 2d 914, and petitioner now seeks a writ of certiorari. The Solicitor General, in his brief filed in this Court, states that: “The procedure followed by the district court in selecting the jury was, in our view, plainly erroneous. Prospective jurors who have sat in the courtroom and heard a verdict returned against a man charged with crime in a similar case immediately prior to the trial of another indictment against him should be automatically disqualified from serving at the second trial, if the objection is raised at the outset.” We agree that under the circumstances of this case the trial court erred in denying petitioner’s objection. Accordingly the motion for leave to proceed in forma pau-peris and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted, the judgment of conviction is reversed, and the cause is remanded for proceedings in conformity with this opinion. It is so ordered. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

A

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr. Justice Burton delivered the opinion of the Court. The principal question here is whether a labor organization committed an unfair labor practice, within the meaning of § 8 (b) (4) (A) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, 29 U. S. C. § 151, as amended by the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, by engaging in a strike, an object of which was to force the general contractor on a construction project to terminate its contract with a certain subcontractor on that project. For the reasons hereafter stated, we hold that such an unfair labor practice was committed. In September, 1947, Doose & Lintner was the general contractor for the construction of a commercial building in Denver, Colorado. It awarded a subcontract for electrical work on the building, in an estimated amount of $2,300, to Gould & Preisner, a firm which for 20 years had employed nonunion workmen on construction work in that city. The latter’s employees proved to be the only nonunion workmen on the project. Those of the general contractor and of the other subcontractors were members of unions affiliated with the respondent Denver Building and Construction Trades Council (here called the Council). In November a representative of one of those unions told Gould that he did not see how the job could progress with Gould’s nonunion men on it. Gould insisted that they would complete the electrical work unless bodily put off. The representative replied that the situation would be difficult for both Gould & Preisner and Doose & Lintner. January 8,1948, the Council’s Board of Business Agents instructed the Council’s representative “to place a picket on the job stating that the job was unfair” to it. In keeping with the Council’s practice, each affiliate was notified of that decision. That notice was a signal in the nature of an order to the members of the affiliated unions to leave the job and remain away until otherwise ordered. Representatives of the Council and each of the respondent unions visited the project and reminded the contractor that Gould & Preisner employed nonunion workmen and said that union men could not work on the job with nonunion men. They further advised that if Gould & Preisner’s men did work on the job, the Council and its affiliates would put a picket on it to notify their members that nonunion men were working on it and that the job was unfair. All parties stood their ground. January 9, the Council posted a picket at the project carrying a placard stating “This Job Unfair to Denver Building and Construction Trades Council.” He was paid by the Council and his picketing continued from January 9 through January 22. During that time the only persons who reported for work were the nonunion electricians of Gould & Preisner. January 22, before Gould & Preisner had completed its subcontract, the general contractor notified it to get off the job so that Doose & Lintner could continue with the project. January 23, the Council removed its picket and shortly thereafter the union employees resumed work on the project. Gould & Preisner protested this treatment but its workmen were denied entrance to the job. On charges filed by Gould & Preisner, the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board issued the complaint in this case against the Council and the respondent unions. It alleged that they had engaged in a strike or had caused strike action to be taken on the project by employees of the general contractor and of other subcontractors, an object of which was to force the general contractor to cease doing business with Gould & Preisner on that project. Between the Board’s receipt of the charges and the filing of the complaint based upon them, the Regional Director of the Board petitioned the United States District Court for the District of Colorado for injunctive relief. That petition was dismissed on the jurisdictional ground that the activities complained of did not affect interstate commerce. Sperry v. Denver Building Trades Council, 77 F. Supp. 321. Such action will be discussed later under the heading of res judicata. Hearings were held by the Board’s trial examiner on the merits of the complaint. The Board adopted its examiner’s findings, conclusions and recommendations, with minor additions and modifications not here material. It attached the examiner’s intermediate report to its decision and ordered respondents to cease and desist from engaging in the activities charged. 82 N. L. R. B. 1195. Respondents petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for a review under § 10 (f). The Board answered and asked for enforcement of its order. That court held, with one judge dissenting, that the conduct complained of affected interstate commerce sufficiently to give the Board jurisdiction over it, but the court unanimously set aside the order of the Board and said: “Convinced that the action in the circumstances of this case is primary and not secondary we are obliged to refuse to enforce the order based on § 8 (b) (4) (A).” 87 U. S. App. D. C. 293, 304, 186 F. 2d 326, 337. The Board claimed a conflict between that conclusion and the reasoning of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in No. 108, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Labor Board, 181 F. 2d 34, and of that for the Sixth Circuit in No. 85, Labor Board v. Local 74, United Brotherhood of Carpenters, 181 F. 2d 126. We granted certiorari in each case, 340 U. S. 902-903, and all were argued with No. 313, Labor Board v. International Rice Milling Co., ante, p. 665. In another companion case, No. 387, United Brotherhood of Carpenters v. Labor Board, decided by the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, 184 F. 2d 60, certiorari has been denied this day, post, p. 947. I. Res Judicata. — Respondents not only attack the jurisdiction of the Board on the ground that the actions complained of did not affect interstate commerce, but they contend that the decision rendered on that point by the District Court for the District of Colorado in Sperry v. Denver Building Trades Council, supra, has made the issue res judicata. We do not agree. The District Court did not have before it the record on the merits. It proceeded under § 10 (1) which is designed to assist a preliminary investigation of the charges before the filing of a complaint. If the officer or regional attorney to whom the matter is referred has reasonable cause to believe that a charge is true and that a complaint should issue, the statute says that he shall petition an appropriate District Court for injunctive relief, pending the final adjudication of the Board. Such proceeding is independent of that on the merits under § 10 (a)-(d). There is a separate provision for securing injunctive relief after the filing of the complaint. § 10 (j). Court review is authorized in § 10 (e) and (f). As held by the Board, 82 N. L. R. B. at 1203-1204, and the court below, 87 U. S. App. D. C. at 297, 299, 186 F. 2d at 330, 332, the very scheme of the statute accordingly contemplates that a decision on jurisdiction made in the independent preliminary proceeding for interlocutory relief, under § 10 (1), shall not foreclose a proceeding on the merits such as is now before us. II. Effect on Interstate Commerce. — The activities complained of must affect interstate commerce in order to bring them within the jurisdiction of the Board. The Board here found that their effect was sufficient to sustain its jurisdiction and the Court of Appeals was satisfied. We see no justification for reversing that conclusion. The Board found that, in 1947, Gould & Preisner purchased $86,560.30 of raw materials, of which $55,745.25, or about 65%, were purchased outside of Colorado. Also, most of the merchandise it purchased in Colorado had been produced outside of that State. While Gould & Preisner performed no services outside of Colorado, it shipped $5,000 of its products outside of that State. Up to the time when its services were discontinued on the instant project, it had expended on it about $315 for labor and about $350 for materials. On a 65% basis, $225 of those materials would be from out of the State. The Board adopted its examiner’s finding that any widespread application of the practices here charged might well result in substantially decreasing the influx of materials into Colorado from outside the State and it recognized that Gould & Preisner’s annual purchase of over $55,000 of such materials was not negligible. The Board also adopted the finding that the activities complained of had a close, intimate and substantial relation to trade, traffic and commerce among the states and that they tended to lead, and had led, to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. The fact that the instant building, after its completion, might be used only for local purposes does not alter the fact that its construction, as distinguished from its later use, affected interstate commerce. Even when the effect of activities on interstate commerce is sufficient to enable the Board to take jurisdiction of a complaint, the Board sometimes properly declines to do so, stating that the policies of the Act would not be effectuated by its assertion of jurisdiction in that case. Here, however, the Board not only upheld the filing of the complaint but it sustained the charges made in it. The same jurisdictional language as that now in effect appeared in the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 and this Court said of it in that connection: “Examining the Act in the light of its purpose and of the circumstances in which it must be applied we can perceive no basis for inferring any intention of Congress to make the operation of the Act depend on any particular volume of commerce affected more than that to which courts would apply the maxim de minimis.” Labor Board v. Fainblatt, 306 U. S. 601, 607; see also, Labor Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U. S. 1. The maxim de minimis non curat lex does not require the Board to refuse to take jurisdiction of the instant case. III. The Secondary Boycott. — We now reach the merits. They require a study of the objectives of the strike and a determination whether the strike came within the definition of an unfair labor practice stated in § 8 (b) (4) (A). The language of that section which is here essential is as follows: “(b) It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization . . . “(4) to engage in ... a strike . . . where an object thereof is: (A) forcing or requiring . . . any employer or other person ... to cease doing business with any other person; . . . .” 61 Stat. 141, 29 U. S. C. (Supp. Ill) § 158 (b) (4) (A). While § 8 (b) (4) does not expressly mention “primary” or “secondary” disputes, strikes or boycotts, that section often is referred to in the Act’s legislative history as one of the Act’s “secondary boycott sections.” The other is § 303, 61 Stat. 158, 29 U. S. C. (Supp. Ill) § 187, which uses the same language in defining the basis for private actions for damages caused by these proscribed activities. Senator Taft, who was the sponsor of the bill in the Senate and was the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare in charge of the bill, said, in discussing this section: “. . . under the provisions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, it became impossible to stop a secondary boycott or any other kind of a strike, no matter how unlawful it may have been at common law. All this provision of the bill does is to reverse the effect of the law as to secondary boycotts. It has been set forth that there are good secondary boycotts and bad secondary boycotts. Our committee heard evidence for weeks and never succeeded in having anyone tell us any difference between different kinds of secondary boycotts. So we have so broadened the provision dealing with secondary boycotts as to make them an unfair labor practice.” 93 Cong. Rec. 4198. The Conference Report to the House of Representatives said: “Under clause (A) [of § 8 (b) (4)] strikes or boycotts, or attempts to induce or encourage such action, were made unfair labor practices if the purpose was to force an employer or other person to cease using, selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of another, or to cease doing business with any other person. Thus it was made an unfair labor practice for a union to engage in a strike against employer A for the purpose of forcing that employer to cease doing business with employer B. Similarly it would not be lawful for a union to boycott employer' A because employer A uses or otherwise deals in the goods, of, or does business with, employer B.” H. R. Rep. No. 510, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. 43. At the same time that §§ 7 and 13 safeguard collective bargaining, concerted activities and strikes between the primary parties to a labor dispute, § 8 (b) (4) restricts a labor organization and its agents in the use of economic pressure where an object of it is to force an employer or other person to boycott someone else. A. We must first determine whether the strike in this case had a proscribed object. The conduct which the Board here condemned is readily distinguishable from that which it declined to condemn in the Rice Milling case, ante, p. 665. There the accused union sought merely to obtain its own recognition by the operator of a mill, and the union’s pickets near the mill sought to influence two employees of a customer of the mill not to cross the picket line. In that case we supported the Board in its conclusion that such conduct was no more than was traditional and permissible in a primary strike. The union did not engage in a strike against the customer. It did not encourage concerted action by the customer’s employees to force the customer to boycott the mill. It did not commit any unfair labor practice proscribed by §8(b) (4). In. the background of the instant case there was a longstanding labor dispute between the Council and Gould & Preisner due to the latter’s practice of employing nonunion workmen on construction jobs in Denver. The respondent labor organizations contend that they engaged in a primary dispute with Doose & Lintner alone, and that they sought simply to force Doose & Lintner to make the project an all-union job. If there had been no contract between Doose & Lintner and Gould & Preisner there might be substance in their contention that the dispute involved no boycott. If, for example, Doose & Lintner had been doing all the electrical work on this project through its own nonunion employees, it could have replaced them with union men and thus disposed of the dispute. However, the existence of the Gould & Preisner subcontract presented a materially different situation. The nonunion employees were employees of Gould & Preisner. The only way that respondents could attain their purpose was to force Gould & Preisner itself off the job. This, in turn, could be done only through Doose & Lintner’s termination of Gould & Preisner’s subcontract. The result is that the Council’s strike, in order to attain its ultimate purpose, must have included among its objects that of forcing Doose & Lintner to terminate that subcontract. On that point, the Board adopted the following finding: “That an object, if not the only object, of what transpired with respect to . . . Doose & Lintner was to force or require them to cease doing business with Gould & Preisner seems scarcely open to question, in view of all of the facts. And it is clear at least as to Doose & Lintner, that that purpose was achieved.” (Emphasis supplied.) 82 N. L. R. B. at 1212. We accept this crucial finding. It was an object of the strike to force the contractor to terminate Gould & Preisner’s subcontract. B. We hold also that a strike with such an object was an unfair labor practice within the meaning of § 8 (b) (4) (A). It is not necessary to find that the sole object of the strike was that of forcing the contractor to terminate the subcontractor’s contract. This is emphasized in the legislative history of the section. See also, Labor Board v. Wine, Liquor & Distillery Workers Union, 178 F. 2d 584, 586. We agree with the Board also in its conclusion that the fact that the contractor and subcontractor were engaged on the same construction project, and that the contractor had some supervision over the subcontractor’s work, did not eliminate the status of each as an independent contractor or make the employees of one the employees of the other. The business relationship between independent contractors is too well established in the law to be overridden without clear language doing so. The Board found that the relationship between Doose & Lintner and Gould & Preisner was one of “doing business” and we find no adequate reason for upsetting that conclusion. Finally, § 8 (c) safeguarding freedom of speech has no significant application to the picket’s placard in this case. Section 8 (c) does not apply to a mere signal by a labor organization to its members, or to the members of its affiliates, to engage in an unfair labor practice such as a strike proscribed by § 8 (b) (4) (A). That the placard was merely such a signal, tantamount to a direction to strike, was found by the Board. “. . . the issues in this case turn upon acts by labor organizations which are tantamount to directions and instructions to their members to engage in strike action. The protection afforded by Section 8 (c) of the Act to the expression of ‘any views, argument or opinion’ does not pertain where, as here, the issues raised under Section 8 (b) (4) (A) turn on official directions or instructions to a union’s own members.” 82 N. L. R. B. at 1213. The further conclusion that § 8 (c) does not immunize action against the specific provisions of § 8 (b) (4) (A) has been announced in other cases. See No. 108, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Labor Board, post, p. 694. Not only are the findings of the Board conclusive with respect to questions of fact in this field when supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, but the Board’s interpretation of the Act and the Board’s application of it in doubtful situations are entitled to weight. In the views of the Board as applied to this case we find conformity with the dual congressional objectives of preserving the right of labor organizations to bring pressure to bear on offending employers in primary labor disputes and of shielding unoffending • employers and others from pressures in controversies not their own. For these reasons we conclude that the conduct of respondents constituted an unfair labor practice within the meaning of § 8 (b) (4) (A). The judgment of the Court of Appeals accordingly is reversed and the case is remanded to it for procedure not inconsistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. Mr. Justice Jackson would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. “Sec. 8. . . . “(b) It shall be an unfair.labor practice for a labor organization or its agents— “(4) to engage in, or to induce or encourage the employees of any employer to engage in, a strike or a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform any services, where an object thereof is: (A) forcing or requiring any employer or self-employed person to join any labor or employer organization or any employer or other person to cease using, selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of any other producer, processor, or manufacturer, or to cease doing business with any other person; . . . .” 61 Stat. 140-141, 29 U. S. C. (Supp. Ill) § 158 (b) (4) (A). Denver Building Trades Council, 82 N. L. R. B. 1195, 1210. The Council’s by-laws provided in part: “Article I-B “Section 1. It shall be the duty of this Council to stand for absolute closed shop conditions on all jobs in the City of Denver and jurisdictional surroundings. . . . [Emphasis in original] “Section 2. The Board of Business Agents . . . shall have the power to declare a job unfair and remove all men from the job. They shall also have the power to place the men back on the job when satisfactory arrangements have been made. “Section 3. Any craft refusing to leave a job which has been declared unfair or returning to the job before being ordered back by the Council or its Board of Agents shall be tried, and if found guilty, shall be fined the sum of $25.00. “Section 4. Refusal of any organization to pay said fine shall be followed by expulsion from this Council. An organization so expelled shall pay said fine and one complete back quarter dues and per capita before being reinstated. “Article XI-B “Section 1. Strikes must be called by the Council or the Board of Agents in conformity with Article I-B, Sections 1-2. When strikes are called the Council shall have full jurisdiction over the same, and any contractor, who works on a struck job, or employs non-union men to work on a struck job, shall be declared unfair and all union men shall be called off from his work or shop. “Section 2. The representative of the Council shall have the power to order all strikes when instructed to do so by the Council or Board of Agents. ... All employees on a struck job shall leave the same when ordered to do so by the Council Agent and remain away from the same until such time as a settlement is made, or otherwise ordered.” 82 N. L. R. B. at 1214^1215. 82 N. L. R. B. at 1211. Originally the complaint was directed also against another union and included incidents at two other construction projects in Denver on which Gould & Preisner had subcontracted to do electrical work. The trial examiner recommended that the Board issue a cease and desist order based upon one of those incidents, but the Board dismissed the complaint as to all conduct except that on the project before us. Under § 10 (1), 61 Stat. 149-150,29 U. S. C. (Supp. Ill) § 160 (l). 61 Stat. 148-149,29 U. S. C. (Supp. Ill) § 160 (f). For a collection and review of the Board and lower court cases dealing with these and related issues under § 8 (b) (4), see Dennis, The Boycott Under the Taft-Hartley Act, N. Y. U. Third Annual Conference on Labor (1950) 367-460. An appeal to the Court of Appeals in that proceeding was dismissed by the Board with that court’s consent. “ (1) Whenever it is charged that any person has engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of paragraph (4) (A), (B), or (C) of section 8 (b), the preliminary investigation of such charge shall be made forthwith and given priority over all other cases except cases of like character in the office where it is filed or to which it is referred. If, after such investigation, the officer or regional attorney to whom the matter may be referred has reasonable cause to believe such charge is true and that a complaint should issue, he shall, on behalf of the Board, petition any district court of the United States (including the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia) within any district where the unfair labor practice in question has occurred, is alleged to have occurred, or wherein such person resides or transacts business, for appropriate injunctive relief pending the final adjudication of the Board with respect to such matter. Upon the filing of any such petition the district court shall have jurisdiction to grant such injunctive relief or temporary restraining order as it deems just and proper, notwithstanding any other provision of law: . . . .” '61 Stat. 149, 29 U. S.C. (Supp. Ill) § 160 (l). See also, Labor Board v. Local 74, United Brotherhood of Carpenters, 181 F. 2d 126, aff’d in No. 85, post, p. 707; Denver Building Trades Council, 82 N. L. R. B. 93. “Sec. 10. (a) The Board is empowered ... to prevent any person from engaging in any unfair labor practice (listed in section 8) affecting commerce. . . .” 61 Stat. 146, 29 U. S. C. (Supp. III) §160 (a). “Sec. 2. When used in this Act— “(6) The term 'commerce’ means trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States .... “(7) The term ‘affecting commerce’ means in commerce, or burdening or obstructing commerce or the free flow of commerce, or having led or tending to lead to a labor dispute burdening or obstructing commerce or the free flow of commerce. . . .” 61 Stat. 137-138, 29 U. S. C. (Supp. Ill) § 152 (6) (7). 49 Stat. 450, 29 U. S. C. § 152 (6) and (7). “. . . Congress gave the Board authority to prevent practices ‘tending to lead to a labor dispute burdening or obstructing commerce or the free flow of commerce.’ . . . Congress therefore left it to the Board to ascertain whether proscribed practices would in particular situations adversely affect commerce when judged by the full reach of the constitutional power of Congress. Whether or no practices may be deemed by Congress to affect interstate commerce is not to be determined by confining judgment to the quantitative effect of the activities immediately before the Board. Appropriate for judgment is the fact that the immediate situation is representative of many others throughout the country, the total incidence of which if left unchecked may well become far-reaching in its harm to commerce.” Polish Alliance v. Labor Board, 322 U. S. 643, 648. See also, United Brotherhood of Carpenters v. Sperry, 170 F. 2d 863, 867-868. For the current practice see Mimeograph Release of National Labor Relations Board, dated October 6, 1950, entitled “N. L. R. B. Clarifies and Defines Areas In Which It Will and Will Not Exercise Jurisdiction.” See also, Hotel Assn. of St. Louis, 92 N. L. R. B. 1388, 27 LRR Man. 1243. See also, Hearings before the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare on S. 55 and S. J. Res. 22, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. 14, 568, 688, 983, 1614, 1814, 1838; S. Rep. No. 105, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. (Pt. 1) 3, 22, 54, (Pt. 2) 19; 93 Cong. Ree. 4844, 4845, 4858. 61 Stat. 140, 151, 29 U. S. C. (Supp. Ill) §§ 157,163. The Board further stated: “2. The Trial Examiner found that the Council and the other three Respondents, by picketing Doose & Lintner’s . . . project as alleged in the complaint and thereby causing members of local unions affiliated with the Council to quit work on that project, with an object of forcing Doose & Lintner to cease doing business with Gould & Preisner, engaged in strike action in violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (A). We find merit in the Respondents’ exceptions only with respect to Carpenters [not involved here], and otherwise agree in substance with the Trial’s Examiner’s finding.” 82 N. L. R. B. at 1196. Senator Taft, sponsor of the bill, stated in his supplementary analysis of it as passed: “Section 8 (b) (4), relating to illegal strikes and boycotts, was amended in conference by striking out the words ‘for the purpose of’ and inserting the clause ‘where an object thereof is.’ ” 93 Cong. Rec. 6859. See note 17, supra, and see also: “What the issue really boils down to is this: Does Section 8 (b) (4) (A) apply to normal business dealings between a contractor and subcontractor, both engaged in the same general business, where boycott pressure is applied against the subcontractor in aid of a dispute with the principal contractor? Clearly it does under the wording of the statute.” Metal Polishers Union, 86 N. L. R. B. 1243, 1252. And see Labor Board v. Wine, Liquor & Distillery Workers Union, 178 F. 2d 584. “The expressing of any views, argument, or opinion, or the dissemination thereof, whether in written, printed, graphic, or visual form, shall not constitute or be evidence of an unfair labor practice under any of the provisions of this Act, if such expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit.” 61 Stat. 142, 29 U. S. C. (Supp. III) § 158 (c). “This strike action, of which the picketing was an integral and inseparable part, had the planned and expected effect of denying the services of all union workmen to Doose & Lintner while they continued to utilize the services of Gould & Preisner. Yet as soon as the illegal objective of the Respondents’ strike action had been achieved, the picket, the signal to union workmen that a strike was in progress, was removed. Thereupon union workmen were again available to Doose & Lintner. Thus the joint enterprise of the Respondents was accomplished within the framework and intent of the Council’s bylaws but in violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act.” 82 N. L. R. B. at 1216. And see reference to this finding by the same trial examiner in International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 82 N. L. R. B. 1028, 1046, n. 55. “We therefore conclude that Section 8 (b) (4) (A) prohibits peaceful picketing, as well as other peaceful means of inducement and encouragement, in furtherance of an objective proscribed therein and that Section 8 (c) does not immunize such conduct.” United Brotherhood of Carpenters, 81 N. L. R. B. 802, 815; see also, pp. 807-816; enforcement order issued in Labor Board v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters, 184 F. 2d 60, certiorari denied this day as No. 387, post, p. 947. See United Brotherhood of Carpenters v. Sperry, 170 F. 2d 863, 868-869; Printing Specialties Union, 82 N. L. R. B. 271, 290; Bricklayers Union, 82 N. L. R. B. 228; Local 1796, United Brotherhood of Carpenters, 82 N. L. R. B. 211. Universal Camera Corp. v. Labor Board, 340 U. S. 474; Labor Board v. Pittsburgh Steamship Co., 340 U. S. 498. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy 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 Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. We consider whether a police officer violates the Fourth Amendment by making an arrest based on probable cause but prohibited by state law. I On February 20, 2008, two city of Portsmouth police officers stopped a car driven by David Lee Moore. They had heard over the police radio that a person known as “Chubs” was driving with a suspended license, and one of the officers knew Moore by that nickname. The officers determined that Moore’s license was in fact suspended, and arrested him for the misdemeanor of driving on a suspended license, which is punishable under Virginia law by a year in jail and a $2,500 fine, Va. Code Ann. §§18.2-11 (Lexis 2004), 18.2-272 (Supp. 2007), 46.2-301(0 (2005). The officers subsequently searched Moore and found that he was carrying 16 grams of crack cocaine and $516 in cash. See 272 Va. 717, 636 S. E. 2d 395 (2006); 45 Va. App. 146, 609 S. E. 2d 74 (2005). Under state law, the officers should have issued Moore a summons instead of arresting him. Driving on a suspended license, like some other misdemeanors, is not an arrestable offense except as to those who “fail or refuse to discontinue” the violation, and those whom the officer reasonably believes to be likely to disregard a summons, or likely to harm themselves or others. Va. Code Ann. §19.2-74 (Lexis 2004). The intermediate appellate court found none of these circumstances applicable, and Virginia did not appeal that determination. See 272 Va., at 720, n. 3, 636 S. E. 2d, at 396-397, n. 3. Virginia also permits arrest for driving on a suspended license in jurisdictions where “prior general approval has been granted by order of the general district court,”' Va. Code Ann. §46.2-936; Virginia has never claimed such approval was in effect in the county where Moore was arrested. Moore was charged with possessing cocaine with the intent to distribute it in violation of Virginia law. He filed a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence from the arrest search. Virginia law does not, as a general matter, require suppression of evidence obtained in violation of state law. See 45 Va. App., at 160-162, 609 S. E. 2d, at 82 (Annunziata, J., dissenting). Moore argued, however, that suppression was required by the Fourth Amendment. The trial court denied the motion, and after a bench trial found Moore guilty of the drug charge and sentenced him to a 5-year prison term, with one year and six months of the sentence suspended. The conviction was reversed by a panel of Virginia’s intermediate court on Fourth Amendment grounds, id., at 149-150, 609 S. E. 2d, at 76, reinstated by the intermediate court sitting en banc, 47 Va. App. 55, 622 S. E. 2d 253 (2005), and finally reversed again by the Virginia Supreme Court, 272 Va., at 725, 636 S. E. 2d, at 400. The Court reasoned that since the arresting officers should have issued Moore a citation under state law, and the Fourth Amendment does not permit search incident to citation, the arrest search violated the Fourth Amendment. Ibid. We granted certiorari. 551 U. S. 1187 (2007). II The Fourth Amendment protects “against unreasonable searches and seizures” of (among other things) the person. In determining whether a search or seizure is unreasonable, we begin with history. We look to the statutes and common law of the founding era to determine the norms that the Fourth Amendment was meant to preserve. See Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U. S. 295, 299 (1999); Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U. S. 927, 931 (1995). We are aware of no historical indication that those who ratified the Fourth Amendment understood it as a redundant guarantee of whatever limits on search and seizure legislatures might have enacted. The immediate object of the Fourth Amendment was to prohibit the general warrants and writs of assistance that English judges had employed against the colonists, Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 624-627 (1886); Payton v. New York, 445 U. S. 573, 583-584 (1980). That suggests, if anything, that founding-era citizens were skeptical of using the rules for search and seizure set by government actors as the index of reasonableness. Joseph Story, among others, saw the Fourth Amendment as “little more than the affirmance of a great constitutional doctrine of the common law,” 3 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States § 1895, p. 748 (1833), which Story defined in opposition to statutes, see Codification of the Common Law in The Miscellaneous Writings of Joseph Story 698, 699, 701 (W. Story ed. 1852). No early case or commentary, to our knowledge, suggested the Amendment was intended to incorporate subsequently enacted statutes. None of the early Fourth Amendment cases that scholars have identified sought to base a constitutional claim on a violation of a state or federal statute concerning arrest. See Davies, Recovering the Original Fourth Amendment, 98 Mich. L. Rev. 547, 613-614 (1999); see also T. Taylor, Two Studies in Constitutional Interpretation 44-45 (1969). Of course such a claim would not have been available against state officers, since the Fourth Amendment was a restriction only upon federal power, see Barron ex rel. Tiernan v. Mayor of Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243 (1833). But early Congresses tied the arrest authority of federal officers to state laws of arrest. See United States v. Di Re, 332 U. S. 581, 589 (1948); United States v. Watson, 423 U. S. 411, 420 (1976). Moreover, even though several state constitutions also prohibited unreasonable searches and seizures, citizens who claimed officers had violated state restrictions on arrest did not claim that the violations also ran afoul of the state constitutions. The apparent absence of such litigation is particularly striking in light of the fact that searches incident to warrantless arrests (which is to say arrests in which the officer was not insulated from private suit) were, as one commentator has put it, “taken for granted” at the founding, Taylor, supra, at 45, as were warrantless arrests themselves, Amar, Fourth Amendment First Principles, 107 Harv. L. Rev. 757, 764 (1994). There are a number of possible explanations of why such constitutional claims were not raised. Davies, for example, argues that actions taken in violation of state law could not qualify as state action subject to Fourth Amendment constraints. 98 Mich. L. Rev., at 660-663. Be that as it may, as Moore adduces neither case law nor commentaries to support his view that the Fourth Amendment was intended to incorporate statutes, this is “not a case in which the claimant can point to ‘a clear answer [that] existed in 1791 and has been generally adhered to by the traditions of our society ever since/” Atwater v. Lago Vista, 532 U. S. 318, 345 (2001) (alteration in original). Ill A When history has not provided a conclusive answer, we have analyzed a search or seizure in light of traditional standards of reasonableness “by assessing, on the one hand, the degree to which it intrudes upon an individual’s privacy and, on the other, the degree to which it is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests.” Houghton, 526 U. S., at 300; see also Atwater, 532 U. S., at 346. That methodology provides no support for Moore’s Fourth Amendment claim. In a long line of cases, we have said that when an officer has probable cause to believe a person committed even a minor crime in his presence, the balancing of private and public interests is not in doubt. The arrest is constitutionally reasonable. Id., at 354; see also, e. g., Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U. S. 146, 152 (2004); Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U. S. 103, 111 (1975); Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160, 164, 170, 175-176 (1949). Our decisions counsel against changing this calculus when a State chooses to protect privacy beyond the level that the Fourth Amendment requires. We have treated additional protections exclusively as matters of state law. In Cooper v. California, 386 U. S. 58 (1967), we reversed a state court that had held the search of a seized vehicle to be in violation of the Fourth Amendment because state law did not explicitly authorize the search. We concluded that whether state law authorized the search was irrelevant. States, we said, remained free “to impose higher standards on searches and seizures than required by the Federal Constitution,” id., at 62, but regardless of state rules, police could search a lawfully seized vehicle as a matter of federal constitutional law. In California v. Greenwood, 486 U. S. 35 (1988), we held that search of an individual’s garbage forbidden by California’s Constitution was not forbidden by the Fourth Amendment. “[W]hether or not a search is reasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment,” we said, has never “depended] on the law of the particular State in which the search occurs.” Id., at 43. While “[individual States may surely construe their own constitutions as imposing more stringent constraints on police conduct than does the Federal Constitution,” ibid., state law did not alter the content of the Fourth Amendment. We have applied the same principle in the seizure context. Whren v. United States, 517 U. S. 806 (1996), held that police officers had acted reasonably in stopping a car, even though their action violated regulations limiting the authority of plainclothes officers in unmarked vehicles. We thought it obvious that the Fourth Amendment’s meaning did not change with local law enforcement practices — even practices set by rule. While those practices “vary from place to place and from time to time,” Fourth Amendment protections are not “so variable” and cannot “be made to turn upon such trivialities.” Id., at 815. Some decisions earlier than these excluded evidence obtained in violation of state law, but those decisions rested on our supervisory power over the federal courts, rather than the Constitution. In Di Re, 332 U. S. 581, federal and state officers collaborated in an investigation that led to an arrest for a federal crime. The Government argued that the legality of an arrest for a federal offense was a matter of federal law. Id., at 589. We concluded, however, that since Congress had provided that arrests with warrants must be made in accordance with state law, the legality of arrests without warrants should also be judged according to state-law standards. Id., at 589-590. This was plainly not a rule we derived from the Constitution, however, because we repeatedly invited Congress to change it by statute — saying that state law governs the validity of a warrantless arrest “in [the] absence of an applicable federal statute,” id., at 589, and that the Di Re rule applies “except in those cases where Congress has enacted a federal rule,” id., at 589-590. Later decisions did not expand the rule of Di Re. Johnson v. United States, 333 U. S. 10 (1948), relied on Di Re to suppress evidence obtained under circumstances identical in relevant respects to those in that case. See 333 U. S., at 12, 15, n. 5. And Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U. S. 31 (1979), upheld a warrantless arrest in a case where compliance with state law was not at issue. While our opinion said that “[w]hether an officer is authorized to make an arrest ordinarily depends, in the first instance, on state law,” it also said that a warrantless arrest satisfies the Constitution so long as the officer has “probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed or is committing an offense.” Id., at 36. We need not pick and choose among the dicta: Neither Di Re nor the cases following it held that violations of state arrest law are also violations of the Fourth Amendment, and our more recent decisions, discussed above, have indicated that when States go above the Fourth Amendment minimum, the Constitution’s protections concerning search and seizure remain the same. B We are convinced that the approach of our prior cases is correct, because an arrest based on probable cause serves interests that have long been seen as sufficient to justify the seizure. Whren, supra, at 817; Atwater, supra, at 354. Arrest ensures that a suspect appears to answer charges and does hot continue a crime, and it safeguards evidence and enables officers to conduct an in-custody investigation. See W. LaFave, Arrest: The Decision to Take a Suspect Into Custody 177-202 (1965). Moore argues that a State has no interest in arrest when it has a policy against arresting for certain crimes. That is not so, because arrest will still ensure a suspect’s appearance at trial, prevent him from continuing his offense, and enable officers to investigate the incident more thoroughly. State arrest restrictions are more accurately characterized as showing that the State values its interests in forgoing arrests more highly than its interests in making them, see, e. g., Dept, of Justice, National Institute of Justice, D. Whitcomb, B. Lewin, & M. Levine, Issues and Practices: Citation Release 17 (Mar. 1984) (describing cost savings as a principal benefit of citation-release ordinances); or as showing that the State places a higher premium on privacy than the Fourth Amendment requires. A State is free to prefer one search- and-seizure policy among the range of constitutionally permissible options, but its choice of a more restrictive option does not render the less restrictive ones unreasonable, and hence unconstitutional. If we concluded otherwise, we would often frustrate rather than further state policy. Virginia chooses to protect individual privacy and dignity more than the Fourth Amendment requires, but it also chooses not to attach to violations of its arrest rules the potent remedies that federal courts have applied to Fourth Amendment violations. Virginia does not, for example, ordinarily exclude from criminal trials evidence obtained in violation of its statutes. See 45 Va. App., at 161, 609 S. E. 2d, at 82 (Annunziata, J., dissenting) (citing Janis v. Commonwealth, 22 Va. App. 646, 651, 472 S. E. 2d 649, 652 (1996)). Moore would allow Virginia to accord enhanced protection against arrest only on pain of accompanying that protection with federal remedies for Fourth Amendment violations, which often include the exclusionary rule. States unwilling to lose control over the remedy would have to abandon restrictions on arrest altogether. This is an odd consequence of a provision designed to protect against searches and seizures. Even if we thought that state law changed the nature of the Commonwealth’s interests for purposes of the Fourth Amendment, we would adhere to the probable-cause standard. In determining what is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, we have given great weight to the “essential interest in readily administrable rules.” Atwater, 532 U. S., at 347. In Atwater, we acknowledged that nuanced judgments about the need for warrantless arrest were desirable, but we nonetheless declined to limit to felonies and disturbances of the peace the Fourth Amendment rule allowing arrest based on probable cause to believe a law has been broken in the presence of the arresting officer. Id., at 346-347. The rule extends even to minor misdemeanors, we concluded, because of the need for a bright-line constitutional standard. If the constitutionality of arrest for minor offenses turned in part on inquiries as to risk of flight and danger of repetition, officers might be deterred from making legitimate arrests. Id., at 351. We found little to justify this cost, because there was no “epidemic of unnecessary minor-offense arrests,” and hence “a dearth of horribles demanding redress.” Id., at 353. Incorporating state-law arrest limitations into the Constitution would produce a constitutional regime no less vague and unpredictable than the one we rejected in Atwater. The constitutional standard would be only as easy to apply as the underlying state law, and state law can be complicated indeed. The Virginia statute in this case, for example, calls on law enforcement officers to weigh just the sort of case-specific factors that Atwater said would deter legitimate arrests if made part of the constitutional inquiry. It would authorize arrest if a misdemeanor suspect fails or refuses to discontinue the unlawful act, or if the officer believes the suspect to be likely to disregard a summons. Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-74.A.1. Atwater specifically noted the “extremely poor judgment” displayed in arresting a local resident who would “almost certainly” have discontinued the offense and who had “no place to hide and no incentive to flee.” 532 U. S., at 346-347. It nonetheless declined to make those considerations part of the constitutional calculus. Atwater differs from this case in only one significant respect: It considered (and rejected) federal constitutional remedies for all minor-misdemeanor arrests; Moore seeks them in only that subset of minor-misdemeanor arrests in which there is the least to be gained — that is, where the State has already acted to constrain officers’ discretion and prevent abuse. Here we confront fewer horribles than in Atwater, and less of a need for redress. Finally, linking Fourth Amendment protections to state law would cause them to “vary from place to place and from time to time,” Whren, 517 U. S., at 815. Even at the same place and time, the Fourth Amendment’s protections might vary if federal officers were not subject to the same statutory constraints as state officers. In Elkins v. United States, 364 U. S. 206, 210-212 (1960), we noted the practical difficulties posed by the “silver-platter doctrine,” which had imposed more stringent limitations on federal officers than on state police acting independent of them. It would be strange to construe a constitutional provision that did not apply to the States at all when it was adopted to now restrict state officers more than federal officers, solely because the States have passed search-and-seizure laws that are the prerogative of independent sovereigns. We conclude that warrantless arrests for crimes committed in the presence of an arresting officer are reasonable under the Constitution, and that while States are free to regulate such arrests however they desire, state restrictions do not alter the Fourth Amendment’s protections. IV Moore argues that even if the Constitution allowed his arrest, it did not allow the arresting officers to search him. We have recognized, however, that officers may perform searches incident to constitutionally permissible arrests in order to ensure their safety and safeguard evidence. United States v. Robinson, 414 U. S. 218 (1973). We have described this rule as covering any “lawful arrest,” id., at 235, with constitutional law as the reference point. That is to say, we have equated a lawful arrest with an arrest based on probable cause: “A custodial arrest of a suspect based on probable cause is a reasonable intrusion under the Fourth Amendment; that intrusion being lawful, a search incident to the arrest requires no additional justification.” Ibid, (emphasis added). Moore correctly notes that several important state-court decisions have defined the lawfulness of arrest in terms of compliance with state law. See Brief for Respondent 32-33 (citing People v. Chiagles, 237 N. Y. 193, 197, 142 N. E. 583, 584 (1923); People v. DeFore, 242 N. Y. 13, 17-19, 150 N. E. 585, 586 (1926)). But it is not surprising that States have used “lawful” as shorthand for compliance with state law, while our constitutional decision in Robinson used “lawful” as shorthand for compliance with constitutional constraints. The interests justifying search are present whenever an officer makes an arrest. A search enables officers to safeguard evidence, and, most critically, to ensure their safety during “the extended exposure which follows the taking of a suspect into custody and transporting him to the police station.” Robinson, supra, at 234-235. Officers issuing citations do not face the same danger, and we therefore held in Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U. S. 113 (1998), that they do not have the same authority to search. We cannot agree with the Virginia Supreme Court that Knowles controls here. The state officers arrested Moore, and therefore faced the risks that are “an adequate basis for treating all custodial arrests alike for purposes of search justification.” Robinson, supra, at 235. The Virginia Supreme Court may have concluded that Knowles required the exclusion of evidence seized from Moore because, under state law, the officers who arrested Moore should have issued him a citation instead. This argument might have force if the Constitution forbade Moore’s arrest, because we have sometimes excluded evidence obtained through unconstitutional methods in order to deter constitutional violations. See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471, 484-485, 488 (1963). But the arrest rules that the officers violated were those of state law alone, and as we have just concluded, it is not the province of the Fourth Amendment to enforce state law. That Amendment does not require the exclusion of evidence obtained from a constitutionally permissible arrest. We reaffirm against a novel challenge what we have signaled for more than half a century. When officers have probable cause to believe that a person has committed a crime in their presence, the Fourth Amendment permits them to make an arrest, and to search the suspect in order to safeguard evidence and ensure their own safety. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Virginia is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. The arresting officers did not perform a search incident to arrest immediately upon taking Moore into custody, because each of them mistakenly believed that the other had done so. App. 54-55; see also id., at 33-34. They realized their mistake after arriving with Moore at Moore’s hotel room, which they had obtained his consent to search, and they searched his person there. Ibid. Moore does not contend that this delay violated the Fourth Amendment. Atwater v. Lago Vista, 532 U. S. 318 (2001), rejected the view Justice Ginsburg advances that the legality of arrests for misdemeanors involving no breach of the peace “depended on statutory authorization.” Post, at 178, n. 1 (opinion concurring in judgment). Atwater cited both of the sources on which Justice Ginsburg relies for a limited view of common-law arrest authority, but it also identified and quoted numerous treatises that described common-law authority to arrest for minor misdemeanors without limitation to eases in which a statute authorized arrest. See 532 U. S., at 330-332. Atwater noted that many statutes authorized arrest for misdemeanors other than breaches of the peace, but it concluded that the view of arrest authority as extending beyond breaches of the peace also reflected judge-made common law. Id., at 330-331. Particularly since Atwater considered the materials on which Justice Ginsbukg relies, we see no reason to revisit the case’s conclusion. Of the early cases that Davies collects, see 98 Mich. L. Rev., at 613, n. 174; id., at 614, n. 175, the lone decision to treat statutes as relevant to the Fourth Amendment’s contours simply applied the principle that statutes enacted in the years immediately before or after the Amendment was adopted shed light on what citizens at the time of the Amendment’s enactment saw as reasonable. Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 622-623 (1886). Massachusetts, for example, had a state constitutional provision paralleling the Fourth Amendment, but the litigants in the earliest eases we have identified claiming violations of arrest statutes in the Commonwealth did not argue that their arrests violated the Commonwealth’s Constitution. See Brock v. Stimson, 108 Mass. 520 (1871); Phillips v. Fadden, 125 Mass. 198 (1878); see also Tubbs v. Tukey, 57 Mass. 438 (1849) (asserting violation of state common law concerning arrest but not asserting violation of state constitution). Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

A

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court. At an early stage of this litigation, the constitutionality of three Alabama statutes was questioned: (1) § 16-1-20, enacted in 1978, which authorized a 1-minute period of silence in all public schools “for meditation”; (2) § 16-1-20.1, enacted in 1981, which authorized a period of silence “for meditation or voluntary prayer”; and (3) §16-1-20.2, enacted in 1982, which authorized teachers to lead “willing students” in a prescribed prayer to “Almighty God... the Creator and Supreme Judge of the world.” At the preliminary-injunction stage of this case, the District Court distinguished § 16-1-20 from the other two statutes. It then held that there was “nothing wrong” with §16-1-20. but that §§16-1-20.1 and 16-1-20.2 were both invalid because the sole purpose of both was “an effort on the part of the State of Alabama to encourage a religious activity.” After the trial on the merits, the District Court did not change its interpretation of these two statutes, but held that they were constitutional because, in its opinion, Alabama has the power to establish a state religion if it chooses to do so. The Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court’s initial interpretation of the purpose of both § 16-1-20.1 and § 16-1-20.2, and held them both unconstitutional. We have already affirmed the Court of Appeals’ holding with respect to §16-l-20.2. Moreover, appellees have not questioned the holding that § 16-1-20 is valid. Thus, the narrow question for decision is whether §16-1-20.1, which authorizes a period of silence for “meditation or voluntary prayer,” is a law respecting the establishment of religion within the meaning of the First Amendment. I — I Appellee Ishmael Jaffree is a resident of Mobile County, Alabama. On May 28,1982, he filed a complaint on behalf of three of his minor children; two of them were second-grade students and the third was then in kindergarten. The complaint named members of the Mobile County School Board, various school officials, and the minor plaintiffs’ three teachers as defendants. The complaint alleged that the appellees brought the action “seeking principally a declaratory judgment and an injunction restraining the Defendants and each of them from maintaining or allowing the maintenance of regular religious prayer services or other forms of religious observances in the Mobile County Public Schools in violation of the First Amendment as made applicable to states by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” The complaint further alleged that two of the children had been subjected to various acts of religious indoctrination “from the beginning of the school year in September, 1981”; that the defendant teachers had “on a daily basis” led their classes in saying certain prayers in unison; that the minor children were exposed to ostracism from their peer group class members if they did not participate; and that Ishmael Jaffree had repeatedly but unsuccessfully requested that the devotional services be stopped. The original complaint made no reference to any Alabama statute. On June 4, 1982, appellees filed an amended complaint seeking class certification, and on June 30, 1982, they filed a second amended complaint naming the Governor of Alabama and various state officials as additional defendants. In that amendment the appellees challenged the constitutionality of three Alabama statutes: §§16-1-20, 16-1-20.1, and 16-1-20.2. On August 2, 1982, the District Court held an evidentiary hearing on appellees’ motion for a preliminary injunction. At that hearing, State Senator Donald G. Holmes testified that he was the “prime sponsor” of the bill that was enacted in 1981 as § 16-1-20.1. He explained that the bill was an “effort to return voluntary prayer to our public schools... it is a beginning and a step in the right direction.” Apart from the purpose to return voluntary prayer to public school, Senator Holmes unequivocally testified that he had “no other purpose in mind.” A week after the hearing, the District Court entered a preliminary injunction. The court held that appellees were likely to prevail on the merits because the enactment of §§ 16-1-20.1 and 16-1-20.2 did not reflect a clearly secular purpose. In November 1982, the District Court held a 4-day trial on the merits. The evidence related primarily to the 1981-1982 academic year — the year after the enactment of § 16 — 1— 20.1 and prior to the enactment of §16-1-20.2. The District Court found that during that academic year each of the minor plaintiffs’ teachers had led classes in prayer activities, even after being informed of appellees’ objections to these activities. In its lengthy conclusions of law, the District Court reviewed a number of opinions of this Court interpreting the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and then embarked on a fresh examination of the question whether the First Amendment imposes any barrier to the establishment of an official religion by the State of Alabama. After reviewing at length what it perceived to be newly discovered historical evidence, the District Court concluded that “the establishment clause of the first amendment to the United States Constitution does not prohibit the state from establishing a religion.” In a separate opinion, the District Court dismissed appellees’ challenge to the three Alabama statutes because of a failure to state any claim for which relief could be granted. The court’s dismissal of this challenge was also based on its conclusion that the Establishment Clause did not bar the States from establishing a religion. The Court of Appeals consolidated the two cases; not surprisingly, it reversed. The Court of Appeals noted that this Court had considered and had rejected the historical arguments that the District Court found persuasive, and that the District Court had misapplied the doctrine of stare decisis. The Court of Appeals then held that the teachers’ religious activities violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. With respect to § 16-1-20.1 and § 16-1-20.2, the Court of Appeals stated that “both statutes advance and encourage religious activities.” The Court of Appeals then quoted with approval the District Court’s finding that § 16-1-20.1, and §16-1-20.2, were efforts “‘to encourage a religious activity. Even though these statutes are permissive in form, it is nevertheless state involvement respecting an establishment of religion.’” Thus, the Court of Appeals concluded that both statutes were “specifically the type which the Supreme Court addressed in Engel [v. Vitale, 370 U. S. 421 (1962)].” A suggestion for rehearing en banc was denied over the dissent of four judges who expressed the opinion that the full court should reconsider the panel decision insofar as it held § 16-1-20.1 unconstitutional. When this Court noted probable jurisdiction, it limited argument to the question that those four judges thought worthy of reconsideration. The judgment of the Court of Appeals with respect to the other issues presented by the appeals was affirmed. Wallace v. Jaffree, 466 U. S. 924 (1984). hH I — i Our unanimous affirmance of the Court of Appeals’ judgment concerning § 16-1-20.2 makes it unnecessary to comment at length on the District Court’s remarkable conclusion that the Federal Constitution imposes no obstacle to Alabama’s establishment of a state religion. Before analyzing the precise issue that is presented to us, it is nevertheless appropriate to recall how firmly embedded in our constitutional jurisprudence is the proposition that the several States have no greater power to restrain the individual freedoms protected by the First Amendment than does the Congress of the United States. As is plain from its text, the First Amendment was adopted to curtail the power of Congress to interfere with the individual’s freedom to believe, to worship, and to express himself in accordance with the dictates of his own conscience. Until the Fourteenth Amendment was added to the Constitution, the First Amendment’s restraints on the exercise of federal power simply did not apply to the States. But when the Constitution was amended to prohibit any State from depriving any person of liberty without due process of law, that Amendment imposed the same substantive limitations on the States’ power to legislate that the First Amendment had always imposed on the Congress’ power. This Court has confirmed and endorsed this elementary proposition of law time and time again. Writing for a unanimous Court in Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 303 (1940), Justice Roberts explained: .. We hold that the statute, as construed and applied to the appellants, deprives them of their liberty without due process of law in contravention of the Fourteenth.Amendment. The fundamental concept of liberty embodied in that Amendment embraces the liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment. The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws. The constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect. On the one hand, it forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship. Freedom of conscience and freedom to adhere to such religious organization or form of worship as the individual may choose cannot be restricted by law. On the other hand, it safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion.” Cantwell, of course, is but one case in which the Court has identified the individual’s freedom of conscience as the central liberty that unifies the various Clauses in the First Amendment. Enlarging on this theme, The Chief Justice recently wrote: “We begin with the proposition that the right of freedom of thought protected by the First Amendment against state action includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all. See Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 633-634 (1943); id., at 646 (Murphy, J., concurring). A system which secures the right to proselytize religious, political, and ideological causes must also guarantee the concomitant right to decline to foster such concepts. The right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking are complementary components of the broader concept of ‘individual freedom of mind.’ Id., at 637. “The Court in Barnette, supra, was faced with a state statute which required public school students to participate in daily public ceremonies by honoring the flag both with words and traditional salute gestures. In overruling its prior decision in Minersville District v. Gobitis, 310 U. S. 586 (1940), the Court held that ‘a ceremony so touching matters of opinion and political attitude may [not] be imposed upon the individual by official authority under powers committed to any political organization under our Constitution.’ 319 U. S., at 636. Compelling the affirmative act of a flag salute involved a more serious infringement upon personal liberties than the passive act of carrying the state motto on a license plate, but the difference is essentially one of degree. Here, as in Barnette, we are faced with a state measure which forces an individual, as part of his daily life — indeed constantly while his automobile is in public view — to be an instrument for fostering public adherence to an ideological point of view he finds unacceptable. In doing so, the State ‘invades the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from all official control.’ Id., at 642.” Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U. S. 705, 714-715 (1977). Just as the right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking are complementary components of a broader concept of individual freedom of mind, so also the individual’s freedom to choose his own creed is the counterpart of his right to refrain from accepting the creed established by the majority. At one time it was thought that this right merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism. But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all. This conclusion derives support not only from the interest in respecting the individual’s freedom of conscience, but also from the conviction that religious beliefs worthy of respect are the product of free and voluntary choice by the faithful, and from recognition of the fact that the political interest in forestalling intolerance extends beyond intolerance among Christian sects — or even intolerance among “religions” — to encompass intolerance of the disbeliever and the uncertain. As Justice Jackson eloquently stated in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 642 (1943): “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” The State of Alabama, no less than the Congress of the United States, must respect that basic truth. III When the Court has been called upon to construe the breadth of the Establishment Clause, it has examined the criteria developed over a period of many years. Thus, in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602, 612-613 (1971), we wrote: “Every analysis in this area must begin with consideration of the cumulative criteria developed by the Court over many years. Three such tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U. S. 236, 243 (1968); finally, the statute must not foster ‘an excessive government entanglement with religion.’ Walz [v. Tax Comm’n, 397 U. S. 664, 674 (1970)].” It is the first of these three criteria that is most plainly implicated by this case. As the District Court correctly recognized, no consideration of the second or third criteria is necessary if a statute does not have a clearly secular purpose. For even though a statute that is motivated in part by a religious purpose may satisfy the first criterion, see, e. g., Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U. S. 203, 296-303 (1963) (Brennan, J., concurring), the First Amendment requires that a statute must be invalidated if it is entirely motivated by a purpose to advance religion. In applying the purpose test, it is appropriate to ask “whether government’s actual purpose is to endorse or disapprove of religion.” In this case, the answer to that question is dispositive. For the record not only provides us with an unambiguous affirmative answer, but it also reveals that the enactment of § 16-1-20.1 was not motivated by any clearly secular purpose — indeed, the statute had no secular purpose. IV The sponsor of the bill that became §16-1-20.1, Senator Donald Holmes, inserted into the legislative record — apparently without dissent — a statement indicating that the legislation was an “effort to return voluntary prayer” to the public schools. Later Senator Holmes confirmed this purpose before the District Court. In response to the question whether he had any purpose for the legislation other than returning voluntary prayer to public schools, he stated: “No, I did not have no other purpose in mind.” The State did not present evidence of any secular purpose. The unrebutted evidence of legislative intent contained in the legislative record and in the testimony of the sponsor of § 16-1-20.1 is confirmed by a consideration of the relationship between this statute and the two other measures that were considered in this case. The District Court found that the 1981 statute and its 1982 sequel had a common, nonsecular purpose. The wholly religious character of the later enactment is plainly evident from its text. When the differences between § 16-1-20.1 and its 1978 predecessor, § 16-1-20, are examined, it is equally clear that the 1981 statute has the same wholly religious character. There are only three textual differences between § 16— 1-20.1 and §16-1-20: (1) the earlier statute applies only to grades one through six, whereas §16-1-20.1 applies to all grades; (2) the earlier statute uses the word “shall” whereas § 16-1-20.1 uses the word “may”; (3) the earlier statute refers only to “meditation” whereas § 16-1-20.1 refers to “meditation or voluntary prayer.” The first difference is of no relevance in this litigation because the minor appellees were in kindergarten or second grade during the 1981-1982 academic year. The second difference would also have no impact on this litigation because the mandatory language of § 16-1-20 continued to apply to grades one through six. Thus, the only significant textual difference is the addition of the words “or voluntary prayer.” The legislative intent to return prayer to the public schools is, of course, quite different from merely protecting every student’s right to engage in voluntary prayer during an appropriate moment of silence during the schoolday. The 1978 statute already protected that right, containing nothing that prevented any student from engaging in voluntary prayer during a silent minute of meditation. Appellants have not identified any secular purpose that was not fully served by § 16-1-20 before the enactment of § 16-1-20.1. Thus, only two conclusions are consistent with the text of § 16 — 1—20.1: (1) the statute was enacted to convey a message of state endorsement and promotion of prayer; or (2) the statute was enacted for no purpose. No one suggests that the statute was nothing but a meaningless or irrational act. We must, therefore, conclude that the Alabama Legislature intended to change existing law and that it was motivated by the same purpose that the Governor’s answer to the second amended complaint expressly admitted; that the statement inserted in the legislative history revealed; and that Senator Holmes’ testimony frankly described. The legislature enacted §16-1-20.1, despite the existence of § 16— 1-20 for the sole purpose of expressing the State’s endorsement of prayer activities for one minute at the beginning of each schoolday. The addition of “or voluntary prayer” indicates that the State intended to characterize prayer as a favored practice. Such an endorsement is not consistent with the established principle that the government must pursue a course of complete neutrality toward religion. The importance of that principle does not permit us to treat this as an inconsequential case involving nothing more than a few words of symbolic speech on behalf of the political majority. For whenever the State itself speaks on a religious subject, one of the questions that we must ask is “whether the government intends to convey a message of endorsement or disapproval of religion.” The well-supported concurrent findings of the District Court and the Court of Appeals — that § 16-1-20.1 was intended to convey a message of state approval of prayer activities in the public schools — make it unnecessary, and indeed inappropriate, to evaluate the practical significance of the addition of the words “or voluntary prayer” to the statute. Keeping in mind, as we must, “both the fundamental place held by the Establishment Clause in our constitutional scheme and the myriad, subtle ways in which Establishment Clause values can be eroded,” we conclude that §16-1-20.1 violates the First Amendment. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. It is so ordered. Alabama Code § 16-1-20 (Supp. 1984) reads as follows: “At the commencement of the first class each day in the first through the sixth grades in all public schools, the teacher in charge of the room in which each such class is held shall announce that a period of silence, not to exceed one minute in duration, shall be observed for meditation, and during any such period silence shall be maintained and no activities engaged in.” Appellees have abandoned any claim that § 16-1-20 is unconstitutional. See Brief for Appellees 2. Alabama Code §16-1-20.1 (Supp. 1984) provides: “At the commencement of the first class of each day in all grades in all public schools the teacher in charge of the room in which each class is held may announce that a period of silence not to exceed one minute in duration shall be observed for meditation or voluntary prayer, and during any such period no other activities shall be engaged in.” Alabama Code § 16-1-20.2 (Supp. 1984) provides: “From henceforth, any teacher or professor in any public educational institution within the state of Alabama, recognizing that the Lord God is one, at the beginning of any homeroom or any class, may pray, may lead willing students in prayer, or may lead the willing students in the following prayer to God: “Almighty God, You alone are our God. We acknowledge You as the Creator and Supreme Judge of the world. May Your justice, Your truth, and Your peace abound this day in the hearts of our countrymen, in the counsels of our government, in the sanctity of our homes and in the classrooms of our schools in the name of our Lord. Amen.” The court stated that it did not find any potential infirmity in § 16-1-20 because “it is a statute which prescribes nothing more than a child in school shall have the right to meditate in silence and there is nothing wrong with a little meditation and quietness.” Jaffree v. James, 544 F. Supp. 727, 732 (SD Ala. 1982). Ibid. Jaffree v. Board of School Comm’rs of Mobile County, 554 F. Supp. 1104, 1128 (SD Ala. 1983). 705 F. 2d 1526, 1535-1536 (CA11 1983). Wallace v. Jaffree, 466 U. S. 924 (1984). See n. 1, supra. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, of course, has long been held applicable to the States. Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U. S. 1, 15-16 (1947). App. 4-7. Id., at 4. aId., at 7. Ibid. Id., at 8-9. Id., at 17. Id., at 21. See nn. 1, 2, and 3, supra. App. 47-49. Id., at 50. Id., at 52. Jaffree v. James, 544 F. Supp. 727 (SD Ala. 1982). See Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602, 612-613 (1971). Insofar as relevant to the issue now before us, the District Court explained: “The injury to plaintiffs from the possible establishment of a religion by the State of Alabama contrary to the proscription of the establishment clause outweighs any indirect harm which may occur to defendants as a result of an injunction. Granting an injunction will merely maintain the status quo existing prior to the enactment of the statutes. “The purpose of Senate Bill 8 [§ 16-1-20.2] as evidenced by its preamble, is to provide for a prayer that may be given in public schools. Senator Holmes testified that his purpose in sponsoring § 16-1-20.1 was to return voluntary prayer to the public schools. He intended to provide children the opportunity of sharing in their spiritual heritage of Alabama and of this country. See Alabama Senate Journal 921 (1981). The Fifth Circuit has explained that ‘prayer is a primary religious activity in itself....’ Karen B. v. Treen, 653 F. 2d 897, 901 (5th Cir. 1981). The state may not employ a religious means in its public schools. Abington School District v. Schempp, [374 U. S. 203, 224] (1963). Since these statutes do not reflect a clearly secular purpose, no consideration of the remaining two-parts of the Lemon test is necessary. “The enactment of Senate Bill 8 [§ 16-1-20.2] and § 16-1-20.1 is an effort on the part of the State of Alabama to encourage a religious activity. Even though these statutes are permissive in form, it is nevertheless state involvement respecting an establishment of religion. Engel v. Vitale, [370 U. S. 421, 430] (1962). Thus, binding precedent which this Court is under a duty to follow indicates the substantial likelihood plaintiffs will prevail on the merits.” 544 F. Supp., at 730-732. The District Court wrote: “Defendant Boyd, as early as September 16,1981, led her class at E. R. Dickson in singing the following phrase: “ ‘God is great, God is good, “ ‘Let us thank him for our food, “ ‘bow our heads we all are fed, “ ‘Give us Lord our daily bread. “‘Amen!’ “The recitation of this phrase continued on a daily basis throughout the 1981-82 school year. “Defendant Pixie Alexander has led her class at Craighead in reciting the following phrase: “ ‘God is great, God is good, ‘“Let us thank him for our food.’ “Further, defendant Pixie Alexander had her class recite the following, which is known as the Lord’s Prayer: “ ‘Our Father, which are in heaven, hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil for thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.’ “The recitation of these phrases continued on a daily basis throughout the 1981-82 school year. “Ms. Green admitted that she frequently leads her class in singing the following song: “ ‘For health and strength and daily food, we praise Thy name, Oh Lord.’ “This activity continued throughout the school year, despite the fact that Ms. Green had knowledge that plaintiff did not want his child exposed to the above-mentioned song.” Jaffree v. Board of School Comm’rs of Mobile County, 554 F. Supp., at 1107-1108. Id., at 1128. Jaffree v. James, 554 F. Supp. 1130, 1132 (SD Ala. 1983). The District Court’s opinion was announced on January 14, 1983. On February 11, 1983, Justice Powell, in his capacity as Circuit Justice for the Eleventh Circuit, entered a stay which in effect prevented the District Court from dissolving the preliminary injunction that had been entered in August 1982. Justice Powell accurately summarized the prior proceedings: “The situation, quite briefly, is as follows: Beginning in the fall of 1981, teachers in the minor applicants’ schools conducted prayers in their regular classes, including group recitations of the Lord’s Prayer. At the time, an Alabama statute provided for a one-minute period of silence ‘for meditation or voluntary prayer’ at the commencement of each day’s classes in the public elementary schools. Ala. Code §16-1-20.1 (Supp. 1982). In 1982, Alabama enacted a statute permitting public school teachers to lead their classes in prayer. 1982 Ala. Acts 735. “Applicants, objecting to prayer in the public schools, filed suit to enjoin the activities. They later amended their complaint to challenge the applicable state statutes. After a hearing, the District Court granted a preliminary injunction. Jaffree v. James, 544 F. Supp. 727 (1982). It recognized that it was bound by the decisions of this Court, id., at 731, and that under those decisions it was ‘obligated to enjoin the enforcement’ of the statutes, id., at 733. “In its subsequent decision on the merits, however, the District Court reached a different conclusion. Jaffree v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, 554 F. Supp. 1104 (1983). It again recognized that the prayers at issue, given in public school classes and led by teachers, were violative of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as that Clause had been construed by this Court. The District Court nevertheless ruled ‘that the United States Supreme Court has erred.’ Id., at 1128. It therefore dismissed the complaint and dissolved the injunction. “There can be little doubt that the District Court was correct in finding that conducting prayers as part of a school program is unconstitutional under this Court’s decisions. In Engel v. Vitale, 370 U. S. 421 (1962), the Court held that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits a State from authorizing prayer in the public schools. The following Term, in Murray v. Curlett, decided with Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U. S. 203 (1963), the Court explicitly invalidated a school district’s rule providing for the reading of the Lord’s Prayer as part of a school’s opening exercises, despite the fact that participation in those exercises was voluntary. “Unless and until this Court reconsiders the foregoing decisions, they appear to control this case. In my view, the District Court was obligated to follow them.” Jaffree v. Board of School Comm’rs of Mobile County, 459 U. S. 1314, 1315-1316 (1983). The Court of Appeals wrote: “The stare decisis doctrine and its exceptions do not apply where a lower court is compelled to apply the precedent of a higher court. See 20 Am. Jur. 2d Courts § 183 (1965). “Federal district courts and circuit courts are bound to adhere to the controlling decisions of the Supreme Court. Hutto v. Davis, [454 U. S. 370, 375] (1982).... Justice Rehnquist emphasized the importance of precedent when he observed that ‘unless we wish anarchy to prevail within the federal judicial system, a precedent of this Court must be followed by the lower federal courts no matter how misguided the judges of those courts may think it to be.’ Davis, [454 U. S. at 375]. See Also, Thurston Motor Lines, Inc. v. Jordan K. Rand, Ltd., [460 U. S. 533, 535] (1983) (the Supreme Court, in a per curiam decision, recently stated: ‘Needless to say, only this Court may overrule one of its precedents’).” 705 F. 2d, at 1532. Id., at 1533-1534. This Court has denied a petition for a writ of certiorari that presented the question whether the Establishment Clause prohibited the teachers’ religious prayer activities. Board of School Comm’rs of Mobile County v. Jaffree, 466 U. S. 926 (1984). “705 F. 2d, at 1535. Ibid. Ibid. After noting that the invalidity of § 16-1-20.2 was aggravated by “the existence of a government composed prayer,” and that the proponents of the legislation admitted that that section “amounts to the establishment of a state religion,” the court added this comment on § 16-1-20.1: “The objective of the meditation or prayer statute (Ala. Code § 16-1-20.1) was also the advancement of religion. This fact was recognized by the district court at the hearing for preliminary relief where it was established that the intent of the statute was to return prayer to the public schools. James, 544 F. Supp. at 731. The existence of this fact and the inclusion of prayer obviously involves the state in religious activities. Beck v. McElrath, 548 F. Supp. 1161 (MD Tenn. 1982). This demonstrates a lack of secular legislative purpose on the part of the Alabama Legislature. Additionally, the statute has the primary effect of advancing religion. We do not imply that simple meditation or silence is barred from the public schools; we hold that the state cannot participate in the advancement of religious activities through any guise, including teacher-led meditation. It is not the activity itself that concerns us; it is the purpose of the activity that we shall scrutinize. Thus, the existence of these elements require that we also hold section 16-1-20.1 in violation of the establishment clause.” Id., at 1535-1586. 713 F. 2d 614 (CA11 1983) (per curiam). The First Amendment provides: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” See Permoli v. Municipality No. 1 of the City of New Orleans, 3 How. 589, 609 (1845). See, e. g., Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U. S. 705, 714 (1977) (right to refuse endorsement of an offensive state motto); Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U. S. 1, 4 (1949) (right to free speech); West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 637-638 (1943) (right to refuse to participate in a ceremony that offends one’s conscience); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 303 (1940) (right to proselytize one’s religious faith); Hague v. CIO, 307 U. S. 496, 519 (1939) (opinion of Stone, J.) (right to assemble peaceably); Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U. S. 697, 707 (1931) (right to publish an unpopular newspaper); Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, 373 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring) (right to advocate the cause of Communism); Gitlow v. New York, 268 U. S. 652, 672 (1925) (Holmes, J., dissenting) (right to express an unpopular opinion); cf. Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U. S. 203, 215, n. 7 (1963), where the Court approvingly quoted Board of Education v. Minor, 23 Ohio St. 211, 253 (1872), which stated: “The great bulk of human affairs and human interests is left by any free government to individual enterprise and individual action. Religion is eminently one of these interests, lying outside the true and legitimate province of government.” For example, in Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158, 164 (1944), the Court wrote: “If by this position appellant seeks for freedom of conscience a broader protection than for freedom of the mind, it may be doubted that any of the great liberties insured by the First Article can be given higher place Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy 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 Rutledge delivered the opinion of the Court. This case is for all practical purposes a renewal of the litigation recently here in Illinois v. United States, 328 U. S. 8, and the companion case of Illinois v. Campbell, 329 U. S. 362. The former unanimously held that the United States has priority, by virtue of Rev. Stat. § 3466, 31 U. S. C. § 191, for payment from an insolvent debtor’s estate of federal insurance contribution taxes under Title 8 and unemployment compensation taxes under Title 9 of the Social Security Act, 49 Stat. 620, as against a state’s claim for unemployment compensation taxes imposed by its statute conforming to the federal act’s requirements. The Campbell case, which was reargued on other issues, rested on this ruling for disposition of the common issue concerning the effect of § 3466. The facts are substantially identical with those in Illinois v. United States, except in two respects. One is that the fund available here for distribution is more than sufficient to pay either the Title 8 or the Title 9 taxes, though inadequate to pay both, while in Illinois v. United States the fund was not large enough to satisfy either tax in full. Here too the debtor’s assignee has paid to the commonwealth the full amount of its claim, while in the Illinois cases the fund remained in the assignee’s hands for distribution. The District Court sustained the federal priority for capital stock and Title 8 taxes in full, and for 10 per cent of the Title 9 claim. It therefore deferred payment of any part of the state’s claim until those claims were fully paid. But the court held the United States not entitled to priority for the remaining 90 per cent of the Title 9 claim, on the ground that Title 9, § 902, gives the assignee “the alternative right” to pay that amount to an approved state unemployment fund. Accordingly the judgment ordered Massachusetts to pay over to the United States, from the $803.72 received from the as-signee, sufficient funds to satisfy in full the federal priorities sustained, and to retain the small balance remaining after making those payments to apply on its claim for 90 per cent of the Title 9 taxes. 65 F. Supp. 763. This action was taken in the view that, while our previous decisions had sustained the federal priority for the capital stock and Title 8 taxes, they had not determined the question for Title 9 claims. However, on appeal by both parties, the Circuit Court of Appeals held the United States entitled, under the Illinois rulings, to priority for the full amount of all its claims, including the Title 9 taxes. That court therefore affirmed the District Court’s judgment except insofar as it denied the Government’s Title 9 claim. As to this it reversed the District Court’s ruling. 160 F.2d 614. Because of the obvious confusion concerning the effects of our prior decisions and the asserted differences between this case and the Illinois cases, certiorari was granted. 332 U. S. 754. I. Massachusetts seeks to retain the entire $803.72 she has received, in priority to all the federal claims. She agrees with the district court that § 902 gives the taxpayer an “optional right” of payment, but does not accept its allocation creating priorities for all federal claims except 90 per cent of the Title 9 taxes. To sustain this broad claim would require reversal of both of the Illinois decisions. In no other way, on the facts, could Massachusetts retain the whole amount she was paid. Illinois as amicus curiae takes a narrower position, conceding that the Illinois cases stand as decisive adjudications of priority for Title 8 taxes but disputing that effect for Title 9 claims. This position seeks an allocation paying the state’s claim after the Title 8 and other federal claims, including 10 per cent of the Title 9 taxes, but before or rather in “satisfaction” of the remaining 90 per cent of them. Notwithstanding their substantial differences, the two states rest their respective positions on the same basic arguments, which upon examination turn out to be identical with those vigorously presented by Illinois in the earlier cases, except for wording and detail. Much is made of the fact that here the debtor’s assignee has paid to the commonwealth the full amount of its claim, while in Illinois v. United States the fund remained in the assignee’s hands. Both states urge that § 902 gives the taxpayer, and here his assignee, the “optional right” of payment to the state. Moreover, with respect to the requirement of Rev. Stat. § 3466 that “the debts due to the United States shall be first satisfied,” it is said that payment to the state with resulting credit to the United States for 90 per cent of the Title 9 claim “satisfies” the Government’s debt as much as payment to it in cash. In the Illinois cases the foundation for the state’s claim to be paid in preference to any of the federal claims lay in the credit provision of § 902, which is the identical provision for “optional payment.” There was no question whatever that § 902 gave the taxpayer the “alternate right.” But the precise issue in both cases was whether that right had been cut off by Rev. Stat. § 3466 when he became insolvent. Obviously there could have been but little point or effect to our decisions if, despite them, the assignee could have turned around immediately and deprived the Government of the priorities established simply by exercising a right to make the optional payment to the state. Nor would the decisions have been much more sensible or effective, had they purported to sustain the federal priorities when the assignee has retained the fund, but to disallow them if he has paid the state before the federal claims are filed. We made no such ineffective or capricious rulings. The decision was broadly that by intervention of the insolvency and the consequent bringing of Rev. Stat. § 3466 into play, the taxpayer’s right to pay the state and take federal credit had been cut off. Our decisions went to the merits of that right and not merely to rule that the state was not' a proper party to enforce its exercise. The taxes due the United States were held to be debts; and by virtue of § 3466 the debtor’s prior obligation attaching as of the date of his insolvency was to the Government, not to the state. It followed necessarily that the assignee could not “satisfy” it by paying the state and giving the Government “credit.” This was the very question at issue and the one adjudicated. The “alternate right” contention and the one that “satisfied” in § 3466 means “credit” are only verbal redressings of the basic issue decided in the Illinois cases. II. This is as true of the argument’s bearing on Illinois’ narrower position as it is for Massachusetts’ broader one. But Illinois, apparently with Massachusetts’ support, brings forward to sustain the less sweeping attack the additional contention that the Illinois decisions did not adjudicate Title 9 priority, although purporting to do so. Moreover, the facts present this narrower issue of distinguishing between Title 9 and other federal claims in sharper factual focus than did the Illinois cases. For if the capital stock and Title 8 claims are first paid in full, as the District Court required, a small balance of the fund will remain, to be applied either in part payment of the federal Title 9 claim or in some form of allocation between it and Massachusetts’ claim. This was not true of Illinois v. United States, or indeed of Illinois v. Campbell, in the posture in which that case was brought here. The principal argument is that the Title 9 taxes, though litigated in the Illinois courts, were not involved on the facts in the Illinois cases as they came to and were decided by this Court. Hence it is said we did not acquire jurisdiction over the Title 9 claims. The argument is correct concerning Illinois v. Campbell. But it is surprising as applied to Illinois v. United States, in view of the state supreme court’s adverse decision on the Title 9 issue; Illinois’ explicit application for certiorari on that issue and argument on the merits here to reverse the state court’s decision; the necessity on the facts for the state to bring the question up and secure reversal in order to establish its claim; and finally our opinion’s clear and explicit terms, indeed emphasis, in deciding the Title 9 issue, together with the Title 8 one, against Illinois. The idea that the state court decided only the Title 8 issue completely misconceives its action, and serves only to confuse the judgment in that case with the one in Illinois v. Campbell. Indeed it seeks to infuse into the former the latter’s denial of Title 9 priority. Not only is this wholly incompatible with Illinois’ earlier position; it ignores the fact that the state court disposed of the Title 9 issue in both cases, but in opposite ways on entirely different facts and legal issues. In Illinois v. Campbell, the state court did not reach the basic question of the force of Rev. Stat. § 3466 to create priority for federal Title 9 claims; rather, it expressly avoided deciding that question. 391 Ill. 29, 32. This was because the insolvent’s assets were in the hands of a court-appointed receiver, id. 31, and in that situation § 602 (b) of the Revenue Act of 1943, 58 Stat. 77, expressly allowed the receiver to pay the state and take credit up to 90 per cent of the Title 9 tax. The Illinois Supreme Court expressly so held, and on this ground alone denied the federal Title 9 claim. 391 Ill. 29, 34. The effect was to rule that § 602 (b) created a legislative exception to § 3466, limited to payments by such receivers, within the times and for the tax periods specified, up to 90 per cent of the Title 9 taxes. But § 602 (b) did not apply in Illinois v. United States, because the insolvent’s assets were held by a common-law assignee, not a court-appointed official. So holding, 391 Ill. at 37, the Illinois court went on to rule that the federal claims for Title 8 and Title 9 taxes were debts within the meaning of § 3466 and were therefore entitled to priority over the state’s claim. It not only rejected the argument that the credit provision of Title 9, § 902, made that claim “in reality a claim of the Nation... tantamount to a claim of the United States,” but also carefully guarded the wording of the opinion’s dispositive paragraphs and the directions given the trial court for entering the judgments on remand so as to differentiate the two cases and to avoid any direction that the fund in Illinois v. United States apply on only one of the federal claims. The judgment thus left the United States free to apply it in partial satisfaction of either claim or both. This was also the effect of our own decision and judgment. It generally and without distinction between the Title 8 and Title 9 claims adjudicated priority for both. As in the Illinois court’s decision, no restriction was placed upon allocation of the fund, nor is any hint to be found in the opinion that such an allocation was intended. Indeed we were not asked to make one and to have done so would have disregarded the basic position of both parties, each of which sought a full and favorable disposition of the controversy including decision upon all the issues presented. It is true that, as in the Illinois Supreme Court, the decision and judgment could have been made on the narrower basis that the Title 8 claim was more than sufficient to exhaust the fund, and therefore to sustain the priority for that claim alone would dispose of the case. But this would have been equally true of the Title 9 claim. Neither claim was either more or less essential to decision than the other, indeed decision upon both was necessary to a judgment favorable to Illinois. To have eliminated either would have required some indication of that purpose. Since none was given, it cannot be said that the judgment rested on the one ground or claim more than the other. While therefore the case is one which might have been decided on either of two independent grounds favorably to the Government, it is neither one in which that course was followed nor one which could have been determined the opposite way in that manner. Instead, as we were asked to do and rightly could do on the record and the issues, we decided both issues, and the judgment rested as much upon the one determination as the other. In such a case the adjudication is effective for both. United States v. Title Ins. Co., 265 U. S. 472; Union Pacific Co. v. Mason City Co., 199 U. S. 160; see Richmond Co. v. United States, 275 U. S. 331, 340. III. Finally, it is urged that in Illinois v. United States we had no occasion to consider and hence our opinion did not discuss whether in a case like this, where the fund is more than sufficient to pay all federal claims except 100 per cent of the Title 9 claim, the balance remaining after paying those other claims must go first to pay the federal Title 9 claim in full, or may be allocated between that claim and the state claim to pay 10 per cent of the federal claim first and then to apply what remains on the state claim. Closely related to this, though not involved on the facts in Illinois v. United States or here, is the Government’s apparent concession that if all the federal claims are paid in full, including 100 per cent of the Title 9 claim, and any balance then remains in the fund, the insolvent taxpayer is nevertheless given the right by § 902 to pay that balance to the state and receive credit on his federal Title 9 tax. In such a case, it is said, the Government would be overpaid on Title 9 taxes and obligated to refund the excess. Then the taxpayer could apply the amount received in further payment of the state claim, with corresponding federal credit, overpayment and refund, only to start the cycle again and repeat it until he had paid the state its claim in full and received the entire 90 per cent credit. Hence in this situation, it is said, short-cut distribution might well be made to the state in the first place, to eliminate the cycle. The effect of the concession, if it is valid, goes far toward cutting the ground from beneath the Government’s basic position. That effect is heightened by the further surprising statement in its brief that in a case like this, not covered by the concession, compliance with the credit conditions of § 902 becomes impossible “not because Section 3466 operates to exclude Section 902 or to nullify it, but because the terms of Section 902 itself deny it [credit] where no payment can be made.” The statement would be understandable, if it had been that § 3466 and § 902 both work to deny the credit in this situation. But to say that § 3466 has no effect to cut off the right to credit either in the present situation or in the different hypothetical one stated is to take away the basic grounding of all federal priority as against the state’s claim. The concessions cannot be accepted. In the first place, the effect of § 3466 depends on the fact of insolvency, not on the degree of it as the first concession seems to contemplate. And it is only by force of § 3466 that the Government has any priority at all. Section 902 may work to deny credit, if its conditions for credit are not fulfilled. But it does not give federal priority over valid state claims. Moreover, both concessions are altogether inconsistent with the basic decisions in the Illinois cases and the grounds on which they rested. The matter requires brief restatement. It is one which goes fundamentally to the effect of Rev. Stat. § 3466, as distinguished from, though not unrelated to, § 902 of the Social Security Act. These of course are entirely distinct statutes, with different functions. Rev. Stat. § 3466 gives priority explicitly for “debts due to the United States” and the priority given is in terms absolute, not conditional. Once attaching, it is final and conclusive. A long line of decisions has held that taxes due the Government are “debts” within the meaning of the section. In the Illinois cases we applied this ruling to Title 8 and Title 9 taxes as against the state’s claim for “contributions.” Prior decisions also have held that the priority attaches as of the time of the insolvency, a ruling also applied in the Illinois cases. But if credit can be taken after § 3466 attaches, i. e., after insolvency, effective to set aside the federal priority up to 90 per cent of the Title 9 claim, the priority to that extent becomes conditional, not absolute. Its effectiveness then becomes contingent upon the happening of subsequent events, namely, the concurrence of the conditions of § 902 for paying the state and taking the credit together with the taxpayer’s election to do this. In short, § 3466 never conclusively attached and § 902 works retroactively on occurrence of those contingencies to upset the priority. A further effect might be to make the statute applicable beyond the scope of the term “debts due to the United States.” For if the taxpayer’s subsequent election can destroy the priority retroactively, not only the priority but the “debt” itself becomes contingent. And it is at least doubtful on the statute’s wording that obligations wholly contingent for ultimate maturity and obligation upon the happening of events after insolvency can be said to fall within the reach of “debts due” as of the time of insolvency. However this may be, we know of no previous application of § 3466 creating such a conditional priority. Nor do we see how one could be made consistently with the section’s terms or purposes. The only such consistent application would seem to be one giving the Government the prior and indefeasible right to take the fund available, up to the amount necessary to pay its claim as of the date the priority attaches, not as it may be affected by later contingencies other than payment. In enacting § 3466 Congress gave no indication whatever of intent to create defeasible priorities. The defeasance conceded possible by the Government, therefore, together with the further conceded ineffectiveness of § 3466 (though not of § 902) in circumstances like these to deny the right to credit, destroys the fundamental character of the priority created by § 3466 and thereby removes the foundation from the Government's basic position, which is that § 3466 applies as of the time of insolvency to create the priority it contemplates. Through these concessions the section is made, by virtue of the effect of § 902, to create only a defeasible federal priority as against claims for credit. This actually is but another way of making § 902 effective as an exception to Rev. Stat. § 3466, like § 602 (a) and (b) of the Revenue Act of 1943, noted above in Part II. This of course was Illinois’ earlier position, rejected by this Court. If that position is now to be accepted, we do not see how § 3466 can be regarded as applying to Title 9 taxes or, indeed, how the effect of treating § 902 as an exception can be limited to Title 9 taxes. For if § 902 works as an exception to § 3466, then Illinois was right in the first place, and the exception would seem to apply to all federal taxes, not just the one. Accordingly, the Government’s concessions cannot be accepted as consistent either with our prior decisions or with its own basic position in the Illinois cases and this one. That position, apart from the concessions, rests ultimately on § 3466 and its applicability to these claims. This necessarily denies that § 902 creates an exception to § 3466 or a qualification inconsistent with its terms. The qualifications now conceded are not consistent with those terms, for they do not contemplate the tenuous, destructible sort of “priority” the concessions involve. Moreover, the fact that in Illinois v. United States we did not discuss expressly the 10-90 per cent distribution of Title 9 taxes now suggested does not mean that our decision did not encompass that possibility. It extended generally to all cases where credit is sought after insolvency. It was federal priority attaching as of the time of insolvency that we adjudicated, not something less. As we have indicated, in making the adjudication we neither were nor could have been ignorant of § 902’s allowance of the taxpayer’s election. Our decision held that right cut off by the incidence of § 3466 at the time of insolvency. Any other would have been wholly inconsistent with the ruling that § 3466 applies as against the state’s claim for “contributions” or the taxpayer’s right to make them after the incidence of his insolvency. IY. We have taken pains to state the effect of our previous decisions, because of the confusion concerning them and the fact that two states have earnestly presented the questions. Ordinarily this would end the matter. But, again for those reasons, we turn briefly to the merits and to the question whether the Illinois decisions should now be reversed. Apart from the arguments already discussed, two stand out as reasons for the change sought. Both reiterate contentions rejected in the Illinois cases. The primary one is that the objects of the legislation will be defeated unless the.change is made, namely, the encouragement of the state systems and correspondingly of taxpayers to make “contributions” to state funds, thereby insuring that the moneys so paid in will go out for unemployment benefits rather than into the Treasury as revenue. The second is a heightened emphasis on the subsequent amendments to § 902 as showing Congress’ intent to waive, in progressively broadening scope though still only in specified situations, the original limitations of § 902 upon securing credit. From the second contention is drawn the conclusion that Congress, by its carefully, even meticulously drawn relaxations, meant credit to be given not only in the circumstances so carefully prescribed but also in other situations not within those prescriptions. This conclusion when added to the first argument amounts in sum to reiterating that the state exaction is “tantamount to a claim of the United States,” and that not to disregard the tax and credit structure in which Congress molded the Act would be to “observe the form and ignore the substance of the legislation.” We shall not repeat the answers made in Illinois v. United States, except to say that “while the state and federal governments were to cooperate, the underlying philosophy of the Federal Act was to keep the state and federal systems separately administered.” 328 U. S. 8, 11. To the considerations there stated, however, we now add the following ones, not expressly mentioned in the earlier opinion, prefaced however with the observation that the grounding of each plea for reversal affords basis for conclusion against that action as well as in its favor. Thus the many relaxations which Congress has made respecting the conditions permitted for taking credit, by force of their very number and careful limitation, show that Congress was not offering a broadside exemption to be applied in situations, such as this case, other than those specifically defined. Rather the intention disclosed is to limit the credit to the precise situations specified for allowing it. That view accords with Congress’ deliberate choice of the tax and conditional credit devices for framing the Act’s structure. These are well-known techniques, adopted apparently in this instance for constitutional as well as administrative reasons. But those very motivations warn us to be wary of disregarding the form which Congress has chosen advisedly, in order to substitute a substance we can only be doubtful it may have intended. But it is said that if payment to the state is not allowed and the right to receive credit is cut off, the money will not be paid out in unemployment benefits but will go into the Treasury as general revenue; the states will be compelled to make payments to the insolvent’s employees; and thus the primary purposes of the Act will be defeated. There are several answers. One is that Congress has guaranteed the solvency of the state funds and, if need be, the revenues thus paid into the Treasury will be available for that purpose. Moreover, but especially in view of this guaranty, it may be more likely that the funds, if paid into the Treasury rather than to the state, will be saved for application to the Act’s purposes. For there is no assurance, if the state’s prior right to them is once established, that they will go for the payment of unemployment benefits. It must be remembered that we are dealing with an insolvent’s assets. And the states have statutes by which such assets are distributed according to local priorities whenever § 3466 is not operative. Only a few of them place unemployment benefits at the top. Depending therefore upon the number and the amounts of claims standing ahead of the unemployment benefit claims in the particular state would be the certainty or probability of payment of the latter. In short, reversing our decisions and conceding the validity of the state’s position, either as to Title 9 taxes alone or as to all federal taxes, would give no definite and certain assurance that the funds thus acquired by the states would go to satisfy the Act’s purposes. In many cases payment to the state would be the means of diverting them to wholly extraneous objects. Especially would this be true when smaller employers within the Act’s terms are involved, as they seem to be much more often than others. In the absence of any explicit or clearly implied direction we do not believe that Congress intended to require that the state’s claim for unemployment contributions take precedence over all other debts of the insolvent or to authorize us to make this a condition of allowing payment to the state to be made from his estate. There was no evident purpose thus broadly to upset state schemes of priority. These examples are enough to show that the premises of the states’ contentions are capable of supporting other conclusions than they draw from them. Other examples might be stated. But in each instance the inferences drawn by the states are counterbalanced with opposing ones quite or nearly as tenable. In some they are of greater weight. It follows that Massachusetts and Illinois have not shown the clear inconsistency between the Act’s explicit terms and our previous decisions, on the one hand, and achieving the Act’s purposes, on the other, which is necessary to make out a case for reversal and thus for negating the force of Rev. Stat. § 3466 as creating federal priorities for Title 9 or other federal tax claims. The Illinois decisions were advisedly made, after full deliberation. There was no dissent on the basic question of priority, even though the issue seemed close. No substantially new argument or consideration of policy has been put forward. The case for reversal is no more clear or convincing than Illinois’ position on the merits in the earlier litigation. Nor are we persuaded that our former decisions were erroneous. For the strict policy of § 3466 had permitted few exceptions and, as we repeated in Illinois v. United States, quoting United States v. Emory, 314 U. S. 423, 433, “only the plainest inconsistency would warrant our finding an implied exception to the operation of so clear a command as that of § 3466.” 328 U. S. 8,12. See also United States v. Remund, 330 U. S. 539, 544-545. There is no such inconsistency here. Until the federal claims for taxes, whether under Title 8, Title 9 or other taxing provision, are paid in full, the states are not entitled either to collect or to retain any part of the insolvent debtor’s assets. We do not anticipate that any of the state unemployment insurance programs will fail or be seriously impaired by reason of this decision, or their consequent failure to secure the small sums characteristically at stake in this extended litigation and, apparently, in other cases most likely to produce similar controversy. Nor would the Federal Treasury have been rendered bankrupt by a contrary result. The judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals is Affirmed. Here, as in that case, the debtor made a common-law assignment for the benefit of creditors. The assignee here realized $1,135.11 from sale of the assets. The claim of the United States for Title 9 taxes amounted to $963.08; for Title 8 taxes, $690.05; and for capital stock taxes, $21. The commonwealth’s claim was for $803.72 in unemployment taxes. Within the time allowed, but for intervention of the insolvency, the assignee paid the state’s claim in full and then paid the remaining assets of $331.39 to the collector. He applied this sum on account of the Title 8 taxes, thus leaving unpaid the federal claims for capital stock and Title 9 taxes as well as $358.66 plus interest on the Title 8 claim. The commonwealth in effect has undertaken to indemnify the assignee, by paying over to the United States the $803.72, if the payment to the state should turn out to have been erroneously made. The United States has agreed that if it prevails the judgment shall be limited to $803.72. The original § 902, 49 Stat. 639, provided that the taxpayer might credit against Title 9 taxes 90 per cent of his contributions under an approved state program. Subsequent amendments did not alter the conception of a basic 90 per cent credit. See, e. g., notes 13, 15. The present “credit against tax” section is incorporated in the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U. S. C. § 1601. The District Court thought that in Illinois v. United States, the Title 9 issue had become moot either before or as of the time the case reached this Court, and that therefore we “had no occasion to consider the problem whether as to 90 per cent of the amount due for Title IX taxes the United States [by § 902] had not given the taxpayer the option to make payment to Illinois instead of to the United States.” 65 F. Supp. 763, 765. The court thus regarded the Title 9 question as left open and “nicely analyzed... to be one not of priority but of alternative obligation.” Id. at 764. Since the insolvent’s assets are not large enough to pay either the Title 8 or the Title 9 claim and leave enough to pay the state claim in full. See note 1. In the brief Massachusetts states the federal question as being whether the assignee may “make payment of the State unemployment tax to the exclusion of the Federal Government claim for Title IX taxes or any other taxes due the Federal Government from the taxpayer?” (Emphasis added.) Illinois has appeared with leave, both by brief and in the oral argument. It neither expressly disclaims nor expressly supports Massachusetts’ broad position for reversal. On the facts, see note 1, after paying the capital stock claim, the Title 8 claim and 10 per cent of the Title 9 claim, this would leave $327.75 to apply on the state’s claim; and hence require Massachusetts to pay over to the United States $475.97 plus interest from the $803.72 she has received, in order to complete the payment in full of the Title 8 claim. Actually this represents the District Court’s specific allocation, not exactly that of either Massachusetts or Illinois. Each would apply a somewhat different method of allocation. See note 20. See Part III. The federal priority under § 3466 attaches from the time the insolvent debtor transfers or loses control over his property. Illinois v. Campbell, 329 U. S. 362, 370; United States v. Waddill Co., 323 U. S. 353, 355-358; United States v. Oklahoma, 261 U. S. 253, 260. The state supreme court’s judgment had sustained the federal priority for Title 8 taxes, ordering them paid first and the small remaining balance of about $150 to be paid to the state. This left the Title 9 taxes unpaid. The court denied priority for that claim because it fell within the explicit exception of § 602 (b) of the Revenue Act of 1943. See text infra at notes 13, 14. The Government’s failure to apply for certiorari as to the $150 eliminated the Title 9 issue from the case in this Court. Illinois almost uniformly put the issues as involving Title 8 and Title 9 taxes indiscriminately. Thus, in stating “The Questions Presented,” the petition for certiorari spoke of priority for “Social Security excise taxes and Capital Stock taxes,” necessarily encompassing Title 8 and Title 9 levies. This was repeatedly true of the state’s brief. Further, the petition at one point said: “In holding that the claim of the petitioner was subordinate to the claims of the United States for capital stock tax and for taxes arising under Titles VIII and IX of the Social Security Act, the Supreme Court of Illinois looked to form, not substance, and disregarded the character and significance of petitioner’s claim.” The Government’s briefs were equally positive in seeking disposition of the Title 9 claim. The federal claims asserted were as follows: Capital stock taxes, $58.73; Title 8 taxes, $1,065.52; Title 9 taxes, $1,284.36; all plus interest from the date due. The Illinois claim for state unenaployment compensation contributions was $721.29. And the fund available to satisfy all these claims was $1,010.81. Since the assets were insufficient to pay in full either the Title 8 or the Title 9 claim, Illinois had to override both to establish her claim. Illinois recognized this both by her application for review and by the broad argument that the state claim was tantamount to a federal tax and the credit provisions of § 902 exempted it completely from the priority of Rev. Stat. § 3466 for all federal taxes, not simply one. The opinion in Illinois v. United States explicitly stated: “The claim of the United States is for federal unemployment compensation taxes under Title 9 and federal insurance contributions taxes under Title 8 of the Social Security Act, 49 Stat. 620.” 328 U. S. 8, 9. The opinion throughout treated Title 9 taxes on a parity with those under Title 8. We accepted fully the state’s view that the credit or “optional payment” provision of § 902 was designed to stimulate the creation of sound state systems. 328 U. S. 8, 10. See Illinois v. Campbell, 329 U. S. 362, 367, n. 5. But we rejected the argument that the state claim was tantamount to a federal one and said: “But we cannot agree that Congress thereby intended in effect to amend § 3466, by making its priority provisions inapplicable to state unemployment tax claims.” 328 U. S. 8, 11. The ruling applied to both types of tax without distinction. This section was one of the relaxing amendments, see Part IV, to Title 9, § 902, of the Social Security Act. For Title 9 taxes due for the years 1939, 1940, 1941 and 1942 it allowed credit up to 90 per cent, without regard to previous failure to pay as required, if the assets of the debtor had been, during the period specified, “in the custody or control of a receiver, trustee, or other fiduciary appointed by, or under the control of, a court of competent jurisdiction.” Section 602 (a) of the 1943 Act, 58 Stat. 77, also created a similar relaxation of § 902, for Title 9 taxes due for the years 1936, 1937 and 1938, with credit limited however to 81 per cent, when the state payments for those years were made after December 6, 1940. This section formed the basis for a claim to credit in Illinois v. United States rejected by the Illinois court. See note 15. See also Part IV. The court, however, in giving directions for the decree to be entered by the trial court ordered the federal Title 8 claim paid first in full “and any balance remaining” to the state. 391 Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

L

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr; Justice Clark delivered the opinion of the Court. This case is here again on appeal from a judgment of civil contempt entered against appellant by the Merrimack County Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court of New Hampshire. It arises out of appellant’s refusal to produce certain documents before a New Hampshire legislative investigating committee which was authorized and directed to determine, inter alia, whether there were subversive persons or organizations present in the State of New Hampshire. Upon the first appeal from the New Hampshire court, 100 N. H. 436, 130 A. 2d 278, we vacated the judgment and remanded the case to it, 355 U. S. 16, for consideration in the light of Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U. S. 234 (1957). That court reaffirmed its former decision, 101 N. H. 139, 136 A. 2d 221, deeming Sweezy not to control the issues in the instant case. For' reasons which will appear, we agree with the Supreme Court of New Hampshire. As in Sweezy, the Attorney General of New Hampshire, who had been constituted a one-man legislative investigating committee by Joint Resolution of the Legislature, was conducting a probe of subversive activities in the State. In the course of his invéstigation the Attorney General called appellant, Executive Director of World Fellowship, Inc., a voluntary corporation organized under the laws of New Hampshire and maintaining a súmmer camp in the State. Appellant testified concerning his own activities, but refused to comply with two subpoenas duces tecum which called for the production of certain corporate records for the .years 1954 and 1955. Tb. information sought consisted of: (1) a list of the names of all the camp’s nonprofessional employees for those two summer seasons; (2) the correspondence which appellant had carried on with and concerning those persons who came to the camp as speakers; and (3) the names of all persons who attended the camp during the same periods of time. Met with appellant’s refusal, the Attorney General, in accordance with state procedure, N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann., c. 491, §§ 19, 20, petitioned the Merrimack County Court to call appellant before it and require compliance with the subpoenas. In court, appellant again refused to produce the information. He claimed that by the Smith Act, as construed by this Court in Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 350 U. S. 497 (1956), Congress had so completely occupied the field of subversive activities that the States were without'power to investigate in that area. Additionally, he contended that the Due Process Clause precluded enforcement of the subpoenas, .first, because the resolution under which the Attorney General was authorized to operate whs vague and, second, because the documents sought were not relevant to the inquiry. Finally, appellant argued that enforcement would violate his rights of free speech and association. The Merrimack County Court sustained appellant’s objection to the production of the names of the nonprofessional employees. The Attorney General took no appeal from that ruling, and it is not before us. Appellant’s objections to the production of the names of the camp’s guests were overruled, and he was ordered to produce them: Upon his refusal, he was adjudged in contempt of court and ordered committed to jail until he should- have complied with the court order. On the demand for the correspondence and the objection thereto, the trial court made no ruling but transferred the question to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire. That court affirmed the trial court’s action in regard to the guest list. Concerning the requested production of the correspondence, the Supreme Court entered no order, but directed that on remand the trial court “may exercise its discretion with respect to the entry of an order to enforce the command of the subpoena for the production of correspondence.” 100 N. H., at 448, 130 A. 2d, at 287. Ño remand having yet been effected, the trial court has not acted upon this phase of the case, and there is no final judgment requiring the appellant to produce the letters. We therefore do not treat with that question. 28 U. S. C. § 1257. See Radio Station WOW v. Johnson, 326 U. S. 120, 123-124 (1945). We now pass to a consideration of the sole question before us, namely, the validity of the order of contempt for refusal to produce.the list of guests at World Fellowship, Inc., during the summer seasons of 1954 and 1955. In addition to the arguments appellant made to the trial court, he urges here that the “indefinite sentence” imposed upon him constitutes such cruel and unusual punishment as to be a denial of 'due process. Appellant vigorously contends that the New Hampshire Subversive Activities Act of 1951 and the resolution creating the committee have been superseded by the Smith Act, as amended. In support of this position appellant cites Pennsylvania v. Nelson, supra. The argument is that Nelson, which involved a prosecution under a state sedition law, held that “Congress has intended to occupy the field of sedition.” This rule of decision, it is contended, should embrace legislative investigations made pursuant to an effort by the Legislature to inform itself of the presence of subversives within the State and possibly to enact laws in the subversive field. The appellant’s argument sweeps too broad. In Nelson itself wé said that the “precise holding of the court , . . is that the Smith Act . . . which prohibits the knowing advocacy of the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force and violence, supersedes the enforceability of the Pennsylvania Sedition Act which proscribed the same conduct.” (Italics supplied.) 350 U. S., at 499. The basis of Nelson thus rejects the notion that it stripped the States of the right to protect themselves. All the opinion proscribed was a race between federal and state prosecutors to the courthouse door. The opinion made clear that a State could proceed with prosecutions for sedition against the State itself; that it can legitimately investigate in this area follows a fortiori. In Sweezy v. New Hampshire, supra, where the same contention was made as to the identical state Act, it was denied sub silentio. Nor did our opinion in Nelson hold that the Smith Act had proscribed state activity in protection of itself either from actual or threatened “sabotage of attempted violence of all kinds.” In footnote 8 of the opinion it is pointed out that the State had full power to deal .with internal civil disturbances. Thus registration statutes, quo warranto proceedings as to subversive corporations, the subversive instigation of riots and a host of other subjects directly affecting state security furnish grist for the State’s legislative mill. Moreover, the right of the State to require the production of corporate papers of a state-chartered corporation in an inquiry to determine whether corporate activity is violative of state policy is, of course, not touched upon in Nelson and today stands unimpaired, either by the Smith Act or the Nelson opinion. Appellant’s other objections can. be capsuled into the single question of whether New Hampshire, under the facts here,' is precluded from, compelling the production of the documents by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Let us first clear away some of the underbrush necessarily surrounding the case because of its setting. First, the academic and political freedoms discussed in Sweezy v. New Hampshire, supra, are not present here in the same degree, since World Fellowship is neither a university nor a political party. Next, since questions concerning the authority of the committee to act as it did are questions of state law, Dreyer v. Illinois, 187 U. S. 71, 84 (1902), we accept as controlling the New Hampshire Supreme Court’s conclusion that “[t]he legislative history makes it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that it [the Legislature] did and does desire an answer to these, questions.” 101 N. H., at 140, 136 A. 2d, at 221-222. Finally, we assume, without deciding* that Uphaus had sufficient standing to assert any. rights of the guests whose identity the committee seeks to determine. See National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama, 357 U. S. 449 (1958). The interest of the guests at World Fellowship in their associational privacy having been asserted, we have for decision the federal question of whether the public interests overbalance these conflicting private ones. Whether there was “justification” for the production order turns on the “substantiality” of New Hampshire’s interests in obtaining the identity of the guests when weighed against the individual interests which the- appellant asserts. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama, supra. What was the interest of the State? - The Attorney General was commissioned to determine if there were any subversive persons within New Hampshire. . The obvious starting point of such an inquiry was to learn what persons were within the State.- It is therefore clear that the requests relate directly to the Legislature’s area of interest, i. e., the presence of subversives in the State, as announced in its resolution. Nor was the demand of the subpoena burdensome; as to time, only a few months of each of the two years were involved; as to place, only the camp conducted by the Corporation; nor as to the lists of names, which included about 300 each year. Moreover, the Attorney General had valid.reason to believe that the speakers and guests at World Fellowship might be subversive persons within the meaning of the.New Hampshire Act. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire found Uphaus’ contrary position “unrelated to reality.” Although the evidence as to the nexus between World Fellowship and subversive activities may not be conclusive, we believe it sufficiently relevant to support the Attorney General’s action. The New Hampshire definition of subversive persons was born of the legislative determination that the Communist movement posed a serious threat to the security of the State. The record reveals that appellant had participated in “Communist front” activities and that “[n]ot less than nineteen speakers invited by Uphaus to talk at World Fellowship had either been members of the Communist Party or had connections or affiliations with it or with one or more of the organizations cited as subversive or Communist controlled in the United States Attorney General’s list.” 100 N. H., at 442, 130 A. 2d, at 283. While the Attorney General’s list is designed for the limited purpose of determining' fitness for federal employment, Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U. S. 183 (1952), and guilt by association remains a thoroughly discredited doctrine, it is with a legislative investigation — not a criminal prosecution— that we deal here. Certainly the investigatory power of the State need not be constricted until, sufficient evidence of subversion is gathered to justify the institution of criminal proceedings. The nexus between World Fellowship and subvérsive activities disclosed by the record furnished adequate justification for the investigation we here review. The Attorney General sought to learn if subversive persons were in the State because of the legislative determination that such persons, statutorily defined with a view toward the Communist Party, posed a serious threat to the security of the State. The investigation was, therefore, undertaken in the interest of self-preservation, “the ultimate value of any society,” Dennis v. United States, 341 U. S. 494, 509, (1951). This governmental interest outweighs individual rights in an associational privacy which, however real in other circumstances, cf. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama, supra, were here tenuous at best. The camp was operating as a public one, furnishing both board and lodging to persons applying therefor-. As to them, New Hampshire law requires that World Fellowship, Inc., maintain a register, open to inspection of sheriffs and police officers. It is contended that the list might be “circulated throughout the states and the Attorney Generals throughout the states have cross-indexed - files, so that -any guest whose name is mentioned in that kind of proceeding immediately becomes suspect, even in his own place of residence.” Record, p. 7. The record before us, however, only reveals -a report to the Legislature of New Hampshire made by the Attorney General in accordance with the requirements of the resolution. We recognize; of course, that compliance with the subpoena will result in exposing the fact that the persons therein named were guests at World Fellowship. But so long as a committee must report to its legislative parent, exposure — in the' sense of disclosure — is an inescapable incident of an investigation into th.e presence of subversive persons within a State. And the governmental interest in self-preservation is sufficiently compelling to subordinate the interest in associational privacy of persons who, at least to the extent of the guest registration statute, made public .at the inception the association they now wish to keep private. In the light of such a record we conclude that the State’s interest has not been “pressed, in this instance, to a point where it has come into fatal collision with the overriding” constitutionally protected rights of appellant and those he may represent. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 307 (1940). We now reach the question of the validity of the sentence. The judgment of contempt orders the appellant confined until he produces the documents called for in the subpoenas. He himself admitted to the court that although they were at hand, not only had he failed to bring them with him to court, but that, further, he had no intention of producing them. In view of appellant’s unjustified refusal we think the order a proper one. As was said in Green v. United States, 356 U. S. 165, 197 (1958) (dissenting opinion): “Before going any further, perhaps it should be emphasized that we are not at all concerned with the power of courts to impose conditional imprison-. ment for the purpose of compelling a person to obey a valid order; Such coercion, where the defendant carries the keys to freedom in his willingness to comply with the court’s directive, 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.” We have concluded that the committee’s demand for the documents was a legitimate one; it follows that the judgment of contempt for refusal to produce them is valid; We do not impugn appellant’s good faith in the assertion of what he believed to be his rights. But three courts have disagreed with him in interpreting those rights. If appellant chooses to abide by the result of the adjudication and obey the order of New Hampshire’s courts, he need not face jail. If, however, he continues to disobey, we find on this record no constitutional objection to the exercise of the traditional remedy of contempt to secure compliance. Affirmed. “Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened: “That the attorney general is hereby authorized and directed to make full and complete investigation with respect to violations of the subversive activities act of 1951 and to determine whether subversive persons as defined in said act are presently located within this state. . . N. H. Laws, 1953, c. 307. The investigation authorized by this resolution was continued by N. H. Laws, 1955, c. 197. 18 U. S. C. §2385 (1956). N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann., 1955, c. 588, §§ 1-16. Note 2, supra. Note 1, supra. Section 1 of the Subversive Activities Act, N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann., 1955, c. 588, §§ 1-16, defines “subversive person”: “ 'Subversive person’ .means any person who commits, attempts to commit, or aids in the. commission, or advocates, abets, advises or teaches, by .any means any person to éommit, attempt to commit, or aid in the commission of any act intended to overthrow, destroy or alter, or to assist in the overthrow, destruction or alteration of, the constitutional form of the government of the United States, or of the state of New Hampshire,- or any' political subdivision of either of theni, by force, or violence; or who is a member of a subversive' organization or a foreign subversive organization.” Since 1927, there has been in effect the following statute in New 'Hampshire: “All hotel keepers and all persons keeping public lodging houses, tourist camps, or cabins shall keep- a book or card system and cause each guest to sign therein his own legal name or name by which he is commonly known. Said book or card system shall at all times be open to the inspection of the sheriff or his deputies and to any police officer. . . .” N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann., 1955, c. 353, § 3. The Attorney General represents that the public camp of World Fellowship, Inc., is clearly within the purview of this statute. Although the lists sought were more extensive than those required by the statute, it appears that most of the names were recorded pursuant to it. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

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 deíivered the opinion of .the Court. The petitioner séeks relief under 28 U. S. C. § 2255 from his conviction and sentence for violation of the Federal Kidnapping Act, 18 U. S. C. § 1201. Briefly, the kidnapping charge grew out of the following facts: Petitioner,^ young man of twenty-six, and two seventeen-year-old boys, while in custody under state charges,, escaped from a Florida jail on November 12,-1949. They were almost immediately pursued by men and bloodhounds -through swampy eyerglade terrain. On November 14, 1949, they allegedly pre-empted an automobile and seized its owner forcing him to accompany them into the State of Alabama where they released the victim without harming, him and subsequently abandoned the car. On November 18, 1949, the defendants were arrested by federal authorities in a hiding place under the floor of a building. Petitioner" claimed that he was weak from, lack of food and sleep and that his back had been injured in the course of the escape. The defend- . ants were taken promptly before the United States Commissioner where they, were charged with transporting a ■kidnapping victim across state boundaries. On the following day, petitioner was interviewed at length by a government agent concerning both the kidnapping offense-and-his prior record. "There was a conflict in the evidence concerning what transpired at this interview. The petitioner-testified that he was promised leniengy if he would ;plead guilty-and that he was assured that the juveniles would be given no more than four years’ imprisonment if they pleaded guilty. The Government offered evidence to the effect that no promises were made. In any event, pn Monday morning, November 21, 1949, petitioner and his codefendants, were brought by the government agent to the office of the United States Attorney where a discussion ensued concerning waivers of indictments, counsel, and venue, and pleas of guilty to an information which the United States Attorney proposed to file. While that conference was proceeding, the government agent who had previously interviewed petitioner had a private out-of-court audience and conference with the district judge in his chambers at which, in the absence of the defendants, he discussed the contemplated proceedings with the judge and informed him about the alleged kidnapping offense and other alleged crimes of petitioner. Soon thereafter, and, in the words of the Court of Appeals, “[a]fter the judge’s mind had become thoroughly conditioned by this interview with, and the disclosures made to him by, [the government agent] regarding the defendants,” there followed in open court “a stilted and formal colloquy consisting of brief and didactic statements by the judge” that the defendants could have a lawyer if they wished and could have their cases submitted to a grand jury. 238 F. 2d 925, 927, n. 5. The defendants, including petitioner, stated that they did not wish to have an attorney and were willing to waive indictment and be prosecuted under an information to be filed by the prosecutor. The information was immediately filed and the defendants waived counsel and venue. They then immediately pleaded guilty to the information and stated that they wanted to be sentenced promptly before their parents knew of their predicaments. The judge then sentenced petitioner to thirty years in the penitentiary and the two seventeen-year-old accomplices to fifteen years each. No appeals were taken. Because of these precipitous and telescoped proceedings, the case has had a long and troublesome history in the Court of Appeals fob the Fifth Circuit. It has; been three times before that court. Soon after the sentence was imposed, petitioner filed his initial ápplication under § 2255 to vacate the judgment. The application was denied without a hearing'-and no appeal was taken. In March 1954 petitioner filed a second, similar, application which was likewise denied without a hearing, but on appeal the Court of Appeals determined that petitioner’s allegations required a hearing. Smith v. United States, 223 F. 2d 750. After the hearing was held, the District Court again dismissed the application. 137 F. Supp. 222. Again the Court of Appeals reversed, this time finding that petitioner had been deprived of due process by the summary manner in which the Government had proceeded against him. Smith v. United States, 238 F. 2d 925, 930. First the court remanded the cause “with directions to grant the motion, to set aside the conviction and sentence, and to proceed further and not inconsistently” with the opinion. 238 F. 2d, at 931. On rehearing, however, the court modifiéd its directions as follows: “The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to set aside the conviction and sentence and to proceed further and not inconsistently herewith, including, if the district judge is of the opinion that the ends of justice require it, permitting the defendant to withdraw his waiver of counsel and his plea of guilty and to stand trial.” 240 F. 2d 347. On the remanded proceedings, the District Court resentenced petitioner, but refused him permission to withdraw his waivers And guilty plea. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, Smith v. United States, 250 F. 2d 842, over the dissent of Judge Rives who believed that the court’s action in setting aside the conviction on justified due process grounds necessarily required the vacation of the plea of guilty. 250 F. 2d 842, 843-844. He also dissented on the ground that kidnapping under 18 U. S. C. § 1201 is a capital offense, which, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; Rule 7 (a), requires prosecution by indictment regardless of a defendant’s waiver, and that prosecution by information in the instant proceeding had not conferred on the convicting court 'jurisdiction to try petitioner’s cáse. We granted certiorari because of the serious due process and statutory questions raised. 357 U. S. 904. But in view of our belief that the indictment point is dispositive of the case in petitioner’s favor, we find it unnecessary to reach the due process questions presented. The precise question at issue, therefore, is whether petitioner’s alleged violation of the Kidnapping Act had to be prosecuted by indictment.' A number off statutory and constitutional provisions and the information charging petitioner are, relevant to this inquiry. The Fifth Amendment provides in-part that “[n]o person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand- Jury,” except in cases not pertinent here. But the command of the Amendment may.be waived under,certain circumstances, and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 7 (a), provide as follows: “An offense which may be punished by death shall be prosecuted by indictment. An offense which may be punished by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or at hard labor shall be prosecuted by indictment or, if indictmeñt is waived, it may be prosecuted by information. Any other offense may be prosecuted by indictment or by information. ' An information may be filed without leave of court.” (Emphasis added.) These enactments become particularly pertinent in view of the language of 18 U. S. C. § 1201, the statute under which petitioner was convicted, which provides in part that: “(a) Whoever knowingly transports in inters state . . . commerce, any person who has been unlawfully . . . kidnapped . . . shall be punished (1) by death if the kidnapped person has not been liberated unharmed, and if the verdict of the jury shall so recommend, dr (2) by imprisonment for any term of years or for life, if the death; penalty is not imposed.” The charging part of the information against petitioner stated that he “did knowingly transport in interstate commerce ... a person, to wit, Alan W. Spearman, Jr., who had been unlawfully seized, kidnapped, abducted, and carried away and held for the safe conduct-of the three defendants . . . .” The charge did not state whether Spearman was released harmed, or unharmed. It has been held by tw;o Courts of Appeals that indictments similar in terms- to the charge here were sufficient to support capital punishments despite the absence of allegations that* the kidnapping victims were released harmed. United States v. Parrino, 180 F. 2d 613; Robinson v. United States, 144 F. 2d 392. Cf. United States v. Parker, 103 F. 2d 857. Petitioner contends that these holdings dispose of his case because they make clear that the statute creates a single offense of kidnapping which may be punished by death if the prosecution, at trial, shows that the victim was released in a harmed condition. The Government claims, however, that whether a specific kidnapping constitutes a capital offense requires examination of the evidence to determine whether the victim was released harmed or unharmed; in other words, -that the statute creates two offenses: kidnapping without harm, which is punishable by a term of years, and kidnapping with harm, which is punishable by death. Further, the Government contends that the mere filing of an information by the United States Attorney eliminated the capital element of. the- crime. «■ The Courts of Appeals which have been concerned with the statute have uniformly construed it to create the single offense of transporting a kidnapping victim across state lines., We agree with this construction. Under the statute, that offense is punishable by death if certain proof is introduced at trial. When'an accused is charged, as here, with transporting a kidnapping victim across state lines, he is charged and will be tried for an offense which may be punished by death. Although the imposition of that penalty will depend on whéther sufficient proof of harm is introduced during the trial, that circumstance does not alter the fact that the offense itself is one which may be punished by death and thus must be prosecuted by indictment. In other words, when the offense as charged is sufficiently broad to justify a capital verdict, the trial must proceed on that basis, even though the evidence later establishes that such a verdict cannot be sustained because the victim was released unharmed. It is neither procedurally correct nor practical to await the ■ conclusion of the evidence to determine whether the accused is being prosecuted for a capital offense. For the trial judge must make informed decisions prior to trial which will depend on whether the offense may be so punished. He must decide, among other things, whether the accused has the right to obtain a list of veniremen and government witnesses, 18 U. S. C. § 3432, whether venue is properly set, 18 U. S. C. § 3235, whether the accused has the benefit of twenty rather than ten peremptory challenges, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 24 (b), whether indictment rather than information is necessary, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 7, and who may bail the accused. 18 U. S. C. § 3141. This Court has, in recent years, upheld many convictions in the face of questions concerning the sufficiency of the charging papers. Convictions are no longer reversed because of minor and technical deficiencies which did not prejudice the accused. E. g., Hagner v. United States, 285 U. S. 427; Williams v. United States, 341 U. S. 97; United States v. Debrow, 346 U. S. 374. This has been a salutary development in the criminal law. But the substantial safeguards to those charged with serious crimes cannot be eradicated under the guise of technical departures from the rules. The use of indictments in all-cases warranting serious punishment was'the rule at'common law. Ex parte Wilson, 114 U. S. 417; Mackin v. United States, 117 U. S. 348. The Fifth Amendment made the rule mandatory in federal prosecutions in recognition of the fact that the intervention of a grand jury was a substantial safeguard against oppressive and arbitrary proceedings. Ex parte Bain, 121 U. S. 1; Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43; Toth v. Quarles, 350 U. S. 11, 16. Rule 7 (a) recognizes that this safeguard may be waived, but only in those proceedings which are noncapital. To construe the provisions of.the Rule loosely to permit the use of informations where, as here, the charge .states a capital offense, would do violence to that Rule and would make vulnerable to summary treatment those accused of one of pur most serious crimes. We cannot do this in view of‘the traditional canon of construction which calls for the strict interpretation of criminal statutes and rules in favor of defendants where substantial rights are involved. It is urged that this reshit will fail to protect substantial rights of defendants in other cases. We see no merit in that contention, particularly where the opposite conclusion would deprive defendants, of the protection of a grand jury indictment as required by the Constitution and Rule 7 (a). Under our holding, there is no reason to believe that a defendant in .a case such as this would be surprised on his trial by any possible trickery of the prosecution. If there is no allegation of harm in the indictment, the discovery proceedings afforded in capital cases and the provisions of Rule 7 (f) authorizing bills of particulars will enable the defendant to acquaint himself with the scope of the trial and the criminal transaction to be proved. It is further suggested that it might be in the interests of the defendant to have the benefit of the speed that can be mustered by the filing of an information instead of an indictment. While justice should be administered with dispatch, the essential ingredient is orderly expedition and not mere speed. It is well to note that in this very case the inordinate speed that was. generated through the filing of the information caused many of the difficulties which led the court below to conclude that petitioner had been deprived of due process of láw. Moreover, if, contrary to sound judicial administration in our federal system, arrest and incarceration are followed by inordinate delay prior to indictment, a defendant may, under appropriate circumstances, invoke the protection of the Sixth Amendment. Under our view of Rule 7 (a), the United States Attorney did not have authority to file an information in this 'case and the waivers made by petitioner were not binding and did not confer power on the convicting court to hear the case. Cf. Ex parte Wilson, supra. The judgment and conviction are reversed and the case is remanded to the District Court with instructions to dismiss the information. It is so ordered. 18 U. S. C. § 3235 provides: “The trial of offenses punishable with death shall be had in the county where the offense was committed, where that can be done without great inconvenience.” The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 18, provide: “Except as otherwise permitted by statute or by these rules, the prosecution shall be had in a district in which the offense was committed, but if the district consists of two or more divisions the trial shall be had in a division in which the offense was committed.” ■ The offense of which petitioner was accused was committed inDothan, Alabama, which was within the Southern Division of the District Court. The proceedings against petitioner were held in 'Montgomery, Alabama, which is located in another county in Alabama in the Northern Division of that court. This left petitioner with a substantial sentence still pending in Florida under the charge for which he was-in custody when he escaped. In addition, petitioner \$ras' apparently still in jeopardy of state prosecution for escaping. The Court of Appeals stated, at 238 F. 2d 930: “When it comes to the controlling question, however, which the motion presents, whether under the undisputed facts the defendant was denied due process in the taking of waivers and plea, and the imposition of sentence the matter stands quite differently, and because it is clear that it was not accorded to him, the judgment appealed from must be reversed. . “This is so, because, considering the inordinate speed, the incontinent haste, with which the defendants were brought up for hearing and the trial moved on apace, the fact that the government prosecuting agent and the district judge, before the defendant had made any waivers or pleaded in the cause, conferred privately in chambers with regard to defendants’ guilt and the punishment to be imposed therefor, in connection with feffth what was said and done and what was left unsaid and undone by the judge in taking the waivers and the plea and sentencing the defendant, we are left in no doubt that the movant was not accorded, but was denied, due process, and that the judgment against, 'and sentence imposed unpn him may not stand.” Barkman v. Sanford, 162 F. 2d 592; United States v. Gill, 55 F. 2d 399. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy 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. On May 14, 1971, a three-judge District Court, convened in the Southern District of Mississippi, invalidated the Mississippi Legislature's latest reapportionment statute as allowing impermissibly large variations among House and Senate districts. The parties were requested by the court to submit suggested plans, and the applicants did so on May 17. All four plans suggested by applicants utilized single-member districts exclusively in Hinds County. The following day, May 18, the court issued its own plan, which included single- and multi-member districts in each House; Hinds County was constituted as a multi-member district electing five senators and 12 representatives. The court expressed some reluctance over use of multi-member districts in counties electing four or more senators or representatives, saying: “[I]t would be ideal if [such counties] could be divided into districts, for the election of one member [from] the district.” However, in view of the June 4, 1971, deadline for filing notices of candidacy, the court concluded that: “[W]ith the time left available it is a matter of sheer impossibility to obtain dependable data, population figures, boundary locations, etc. so as fairly and correctly to divide these counties into districts for the election of single members of the Senate or the House in time for the elections of 1971.” The court promised to appoint a special master in January 1972 to investigate the possibility of single-member districts for the general elections of 1975 and 1979. Applicants moved the District Court to stay its order. The motion was denied on May 24. Applicants have now applied to this Court for a stay of the District Court’s order and for an extension of the June 4 filing deadline until the District Court shall have provided single-member districts in Hinds County, or until the Attorney General or the District Court for the District of Columbia approves the District Court’s apportionment plan under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 79 Stat. 439, 42 U. S. C. § 1973c (1964 ed., Supp. V). Insofar as applicants ask relief under the Voting Rights Act the motion for stay is denied. A decree of the United States District Court is not within reach of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. However, other reasons lead us to grant the motion to the extent indicated below. In failing to devise single-member districts, the court was under the belief that insufficient time remained until June 4, the deadline for the filing of notices of candidacy. Yet at that time June 4 was 17 days away and, according to an uncontradicted statement in the brief supporting this motion, the applicants were able to formulate and offer to the court four single-member district plans for Hinds County in the space of three days. Also according to uncontradicted statements, these plans were based on data which included county maps showing existing political subdivisions, the supervisory districts used by the Census Bureau for the taking of the 1970 census, official 1970 Census Bureau “final population counts,” and “computer print-out from Census Bureau official computer tapes showing total and white/Negro population by census enumeration districts.” Applicants also assert that no other population figures will subsequently become available. The District Court’s judgment was that single-member districting would be “ideal” for Hinds County. We agree that when district courts are forced to fashion apportionment plans, single-member districts are preferable to large multi-member districts as a general matter. Furthermore, given the census information apparently available and the dispatch with which the applicants devised suggested plans for the District Court, it is our view that, on this record, the District Court had ample time to devise single-member districts for Hinds County prior to the June 4 filing deadline. While meeting the June 4 date is no longer possible, there is nothing before us to suggest any insurmountable barrier to devising such a plan by June 14, 1971. Therefore the motion for stay is granted and the judgment below is stayed until June 14. The District Court is instructed, absent insurmountable difficulties, to devise and put into effect a single-member district plan for Hinds County by that date. In light of this disposition, the District Court is directed to extend the June 4 filing date for legislative candidates from Hinds County to an appropriate date so that those candidates and the State of Mississippi may act in light of the new districts into which Hinds County will be divided. It is so ordered. The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Black, and Mr. Justice Harlan dissent and reserve the right to file an opinion to that effect. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

B

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Justice Blackmun delivered the opinion of the Court. Faced with the prospect of liability for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, petitioner signed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Commission or EEOC) a conciliation agreement that was in conflict with its collective-bargaining agreement with respondent. Petitioner then obtained a court order, later reversed on appeal, that the conciliation agreement should prevail. The issue presented is whether the Court of Appeals was correct in enforcing an arbitral award of backpay damages against petitioner under the collective-bargaining agreement for layoffs pursuant to the conciliation agreement. I A In October 1973, after a lengthy investigation, the EEOC’s District Director determined that there was reasonable cause to believe that petitioner W. R. Grace and Company (Company) had violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 263, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (1976 ed. and Supp. V), by discriminating in the hiring of Negroes and women at its Corinth, Miss., plastics manufacturing facility. App. 2. In addition, the Director found that the departmental and plantwide seniority systems, mandated by the Company’s collective-bargaining agreement with respondent Local Union No. 759 (Union), were unlawful because they perpetuated the effects of the Company’s past discrimination. The Company was invited, pursuant to § 706(b) of the Act, 42 U. S. C. §2000e-5(b), to conciliate the dispute. Although the Commission also invited the Union to participate, the Union declined to do so. B A collective-bargaining agreement between petitioner and respondent expired in March 1974, and failed negotiations led to a strike. The Company hired strike replacements, some of whom were women who took Company jobs never before held by women. The strike was settled in May with the signing of a new agreement that continued the plant seniority system specified by the expired agreement. The strikers returned to work, but the Company also retained the strike replacements. The women replacements were assigned to positions in the Corinth plant ahead of men with greater seniority. Specifically, the Company prevented men from exercising the shift preference seniority (to which they were entitled under the collective-bargaining agreement) to obtain positions held by the women strike replacements. The men affected by this action filed grievances under the procedures established by the collective-bargaining agreement. The Company refused to join the ultimate arbitration. Instead, it filed an action under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 61 Stat. 156, 29 U. S. C. § 185, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi. The Company sought an injunction prohibiting arbitration of the grievances while the Company negotiated a conciliation agreement with the Commission. The Union counterclaimed to compel arbitration. Before the District Court took any action, the Company and the Commission signed a conciliation agreement dated December 11, 1974. App. 10. In addition to ratifying the Company’s position with respect to the shift preference dispute, the conciliation agreement provided that in the event of layoffs, the Company would maintain the existing proportion of women in the plant’s bargaining unit. Id., at 15-16. The Company then amended its § 301 complaint to add the Commission as a defendant and to request an injunction barring the arbitration of grievances seeking relief that conflicted with the terms of the conciliation agreement. The Commission cross-claimed against the Union and counterclaimed against the Company for a declaratory judgment that the conciliation agreement prevailed, or, in the alternative, for a declaratory judgment that the seniority provisions were not a bona fide seniority system protected by § 703(h) of the Civil Rights Act, 78 Stat. 259, 42 U. S. C. §2000e-2(h). While cross-motions for summary judgment were under consideration, the Company laid off employees pursuant to the conciliation agreement. Several men affected by the layoff, who would have been protected under the seniority provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement, filed grievances. In November 1975, with the Company still refusing to arbitrate, the District Court granted summary judgment for the Commission and the Company. It held that under Title VII the seniority provisions could be modified to alleviate the effects of past discrimination. Southbridge Plastics Division, W. R. Grace & Co. v. Local 759, 403 F. Supp. 1183, 1188 (1975). The court declared that the terms of the conciliation agreement were binding on all parties and that “all parties . . . shall abide thereby.” App. 44. The Union appealed, and no party sought a stay. With the Union’s appeal pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the Company, following the terms of the conciliation agreement, laid off more employees. Again, adversely affected male employees filed grievances. In January 1978, over two years after the District Court’s decision, the Court of Appeals reversed. Southbridge Plastics Division, W. R. Grace & Co. v. Local 759, 565 F. 2d 913. Applying Teamsters v. United States, 431 U. S. 324 (1977), which was decided after the District Court’s decision, the Court of Appeals held that because the seniority system was not animated by a discriminatory purpose, it was lawful and could not be modified without the Union’s consent. 565 F. 2d, at 916. The court granted the Union’s counterclaim, compelling the Company to arbitrate the grievances. In response to this decision, the Company reinstated the male employees to the positions to which they were entitled under the collective-bargaining agreement. The pending grievances, seeking backpay, then proceeded to arbitration. The first to reach arbitration was that of a male employee who had been demoted while the District Court order was in effect. Arbitrator Anthony J. Sabella, in August 1978, concluded that although the grievant was entitled to an award under the collective-bargaining agreement, it would be inequitable to penalize the Company for conduct that complied with an outstanding court order. App. 45. He thus denied the grievance. Id., at 47. Instead of filing an action to set aside that award, the Union chose to contest Sabella’s reasoning in later arbitrations. C The next grievance to be arbitrated resulted in the award in dispute here. Id., at 48. Arbitrator Gerald A. Barrett was presented with the complaints of two men who had been laid off before, and one man who had been laid off after, the entry of the District Court order. Acknowledging that the Sabella arbitration resolved the same contractual issue, id., at 51, Barrett first considered whether the collective-bargaining agreement required him to follow the Sabella arbitration award. He concluded that it did not. The collective-bargaining agreement limited the arbitrator’s authority, Barrett found, to considering whether the express terms of the contract had been violated. Because Sabella had considered the fairness of enforcing the terms of the contract, he had acted outside his contractually defined jurisdiction. Id., at 55-56. Barrett determined that the finality clause of the collective-bargaining agreement therefore did not require him to follow Sabella’s award. Ibid. Arbitrator Barrett then turned to the grievances before him. The Company did not dispute that it had violated the seniority provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement, id., at 56, and Barrett also accepted the Company’s contention that it had acted in good faith in following the conciliation agreement. He found, however, that the collective-bargaining agreement made no exception for good-faith violations of the seniority provisions, and that the Company had acted at its own risk in breaching the agreement. The Company, he held, could not complain that the law ultimately had made this out to be an unfortunate decision. Ibid. In essence, Barrett interpreted the collective-bargaining agreement as providing that the District Court’s order did not extinguish the Company’s liability for its breach. D The Company then instituted another action under § 801 of the Labor Management Relations Act to overturn the award. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi entered summary judgment for the Company, finding that public policy prevented enforcement of the collective-bargaining agreement during the period prior to the Court of Appeals’ reversal. App. 58-69. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed. 652 F. 2d 1248 (1981). We granted certiorari to decide the important issue of federal labor law that the case presents. 458 U. S. 1105 (1982). II The sole issue before the Court is whether the Barrett award should be enforced. Under well-established standards for the review of labor arbitration awards, a federal court may not overrule an arbitrator’s decision simply because the court believes its own interpretation of the contract would be the better one. Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U. S. 593, 596 (1960). When the parties include an arbitration clause in their collective-bargaining agreement, they choose to have disputes concerning constructions of the contract resolved by an arbitrator. Unless the arbitral decision does not “dra[w] its essence from the collective bargaining agreement,” id., at 597, a court is bound to enforce the award and is not entitled to review the merits of the contract dispute. This remains so even when the basis for the arbitrator’s decision may be ambiguous. Id., at 598. Under this standard, the Court of Appeals was correct in enforcing the Barrett award, although it seems to us to have taken a somewhat circuitous route to this result. Barrett’s initial conclusion that he was not bound by the Sabella decision was based on his interpretation of the bargaining agreement’s provisions defining the arbitrator’s jurisdiction and his perceived obligation to give a prior award a preclusive effect. See nn. 4 and 5, supra. Because the authority of arbitrators is a subject of collective bargaining, just as is any other contractual provision, the scope of the arbitrator’s authority is itself a question of contract interpretation that the parties have delegated to the arbitrator. Barrett’s conclusions that Sabella acted outside his jurisdiction and that this deprived the Sabella award of precedential force under the contract draw their “essence” from the provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement. Regardless of what our view might be of the correctness of Barrett’s contractual interpretation, the Company and the Union bargained for that interpretation. A federal court may not second-guess it. Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U. S., at 599. Barrett’s analysis of the merits of the grievances is entitled to the same deference. He found that the collective-bargaining agreement provided no good-faith defense to claims of violations of the seniority provisions, and gave him no authority to weigh in some other fashion the Company’s good faith. Again, although conceivably we could reach a different result were we to interpret the contract ourselves, we cannot say that the award does not draw its essence from the collective-bargaining agreement. III As with any contract, however, a court may not enforce a collective-bargaining agreement that is contrary to public policy. See Hurd v. Hodge, 334 U. S. 24, 34-35 (1948). Barrett’s view of his own jurisdiction precluded his consideration of this question, and, in any event, the question of public policy is ultimately one for resolution by the courts. See International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Washington Employers, Inc., 557 F. 2d 1345, 1350 (CA9 1977); Local 453 v. Otis Elevator Co., 314 F. 2d 25, 29 (CA2), cert. denied, 373 U. S. 949 (1963); Kaden, Judges and Arbitrators: Observations on the Scope of Judicial Review, 80 Colum. L. Rev. 267, 287 (1980). If the contract as interpreted by Barrett violates some explicit public policy, we are obliged to refrain from enforcing it. Hurd v. Hodge, 334 U. S., at 35. Such a public policy, however, must be well defined and dominant, and is to be ascertained “by reference to the laws and legal precedents and not from general considerations of supposed public interests.” Muschany v. United States, 324 U. S. 49, 66 (1945). A It is beyond question that obedience to judicial orders is an important public policy. An injunction issued by a court acting within its jurisdiction must be obeyed until the injunction is vacated or withdrawn. Walker v. City of Birmingham, 388 U. S. 307, 313-314 (1967); United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U. S. 258, 293-294 (1947); Howat v. Kansas, 258 U. S. 181, 189-190 (1922). A contract provision the performance of which has been enjoined is unenforceable. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts §§ 261, 264 (1981). Here, however, enforcement of the collective-bargaining agreement as interpreted by Barrett does not compromise this public policy. Given the Company’s desire to reduce its work force, it is undeniable that the Company was faced with a dilemma: it could follow the conciliation agreement as mandated by the District Court and risk liability under the collective-bargaining agreement, or it could follow the bargaining agreement and risk both a contempt citation and Title VII liability. The dilemma, however, was of the Company’s own making. The Company committed itself voluntarily to two conflicting contractual obligations. When the Union attempted to enforce its contractual rights, the Company sought a judicial declaration of its respective obligations under the contracts. During the course of this litigation, before the legal rights were finally determined, the Company again laid off employees and dishonored its contract with the Union. For these acts, the Company incurred liability for breach of contract. In effect, Barrett interpreted the collective-bargaining agreement to allocate to the Company the losses caused by the Company’s decision to follow the District Court order that proved to be erroneous. Even assuming that the District Court’s order was a mandatory injunction, nothing in the collective-bargaining agreement as interpreted by Barrett required the Company to violate that order. Barrett’s award neither mandated layoffs nor required that layoffs be conducted according to the collective-bargaining agreement. The award simply held, retrospectively, that the employees were entitled to damages for the prior breach of the seniority provisions. In this case, the Company actually complied with the District Court’s order, and nothing we say here causes us to believe that it would disobey the order if presented with the same dilemma in the future. Enforcement of Barrett’s award will not create intolerable incentives to disobey court orders. Courts have sufficient contempt powers to protect their injunctions, even if the injunctions are issued erroneously. See Walker v. City of Birmingham, 388 U. S., at 315. In addition to contempt sanctions, the Company here was faced with possible Title VII liability if it departed from the conciliation agreement in conducting its layoffs. The Company was cornered by its own actions, and it cannot argue now that liability under the collective-bargaining agreement violates public policy. Nor is placing the Company in this position -with respect to the court order so unfair as to violate public policy. Obeying injunctions often is a costly affair. Because of the Company’s alleged prior discrimination against women, some readjustments and consequent losses were bound to occur. The issue is whether the Company or the Union members should bear the burden of those losses. As interpreted by Barrett, the collective-bargaining agreement placed this unavoidable burden on the Company. By entering into the conflicting conciliation agreement, by seeking a court order to excuse it from performing the collective-bargaining agreement, and by subsequently acting on its mistaken interpretation of its contractual obligations, the Company attempted to shift the loss to its male employees, who shared no responsibility for the sex discrimination. The Company voluntarily assumed its obligations under the collective-bargaining agreement and the arbitrators’ interpretations of it. No public policy is violated by holding the Company to those obligations, which bar the Company’s attempted reallocation of the burden. B Voluntary compliance with Title VII also is an important public policy. Congress intended cooperation and conciliation to be the preferred means of enforcing Title VII. Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U. S. 36, 44 (1974). Critical to the compliance scheme is the Commission’s role in settling Title VII disputes through conference, conciliation, and persuasion before a Title VII plaintiff or the Commission may bring suit. See § 706(b) of the Act, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5(b). Enforcement of the Barrett award will not inappropriately affect this public policy. In this case, although the Company and the Commission agreed to nullify the collective-bargaining agreement’s seniority provisions, the conciliation process did not include the Union. Absent a judicial determination, the Commission, not to mention the Company, cannot alter the collective-bargaining agreement without the Union’s consent. See Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U. S., at 44 (Commission’s power to investigate and conciliate does not have coercive legal effect). Permitting such a result would undermine the federal labor policy that parties to a collective-bargaining agreement must have reasonable assurance that their contract will be honored. Charles Dowd Box Co. v. Courtney, 368 U. S. 502, 509 (1962). Although the ability to abrogate unilaterally the provisions of a collective-bargaining agreement might encourage an employer to conciliate with the Commission, the employer’s added incentive to conciliate would be paid for with the union’s contractual rights. Aside from the legality of conferring such power on the Commission and an employer, it would be unlikely to further true conciliation between all interested parties. Although an innocent union might decide to join in Title VII conciliation efforts in order to protect its contractual position, neither the employer nor the Commission would have any incentive to make concessions to the union. The Commission and the employer would know that they could agree without the union’s consent and that their agreement would be enforced. In fact, enforcing the award here should encourage conciliation and true voluntary compliance with federal employment discrimination law. If, as in this case, only the employer faces Title VII liability, the union may enter the conciliation process with the hope of obtaining concessions in exchange for helping the employer avoid a Title VII suit. If, however, both the union and the employer are potentially liable, it would be in their joint interests to work out a means to share the burdens imposed by the Commission’s demands. On this view, the conciliation process of Title VII and the collective-bargaining process complement each other, rather than conflict. IV For the foregoing reasons, the Barrett award is properly to be enforced. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore affirmed. It is so ordered. The Company’s amended complaint, unlike the Commission’s pleadings, did not expressly request a declaratory judgment under 28 U. S. C. §§ 2201 and 2202. See App. in Southbridge Plastics Division, W. R. Grace & Co. v. Local 759, No. 75-4416 (CA5), pp. 98, 123-124, 129-130. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, however, viewed the Company’s complaint as seeking a declaration of its obligations under the respective contracts. See 565 F. 2d 913, 915 (1978). The relevant text of the order is as follows: “(1) The terms of the conciliation agreement executed on December 11, 1974, by the plaintiff and the defendant, EEOC, are binding upon all the parties to this action; and “(2) Where the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement executed by the plaintiff and defendant, Local 759, conflict with the provisions of the conciliation agreement executed by the plaintiff and defendant, EEOC, the provisions of the conciliation agreement are controlling and all parties to this action shall abide thereby.” App. 44. Neither the parties nor the District Court nor the Court of Appeals attached significance to this distinction between the grievants. See Brief for EEOC as Amicus Curiae 6, n. 6. Our resolution of the case eliminates any need to consider it. The 1974 collective-bargaining agreement and the succeeding 1977 agreement each defined the arbitrator’s jurisdiction as follows: “The jurisdiction and authority of the Arbitrator of the grievance and his opinion and award shall be confined exclusively to the interpretation and application of the express provision or provisions of this Agreement at issue between the Union and the Company. He shall have no authority to add to, adjust, change, or modify any provision of this Agreement.” Art. IV, §3; App. 19, 31. The finality clause in each of the 1974 and 1977 collective-bargaining agreements provided in relevant part: “The decision of the Arbitrator on the merits of any grievance adjudicated within his jurisdiction and authority as specified in this Agreement shall be final and binding on the aggrieved employee or employees, the Union and the Company.” Art. IV, § 4; App. 20, 32. The 1974 and 1977 collective-bargaining agreements each provided: “If it is determined in the grievance procedure that an employee has been unjustly discharged or suspended the employee shall be reinstated to his former job and shall be compensated at his regular hourly earnings for the time lost less any penalty time decided upon.” Art. IV, § 7(a); App. 21, 32-33. Although the court believed that the validity of the Sabella award was the dispositive issue, 652 F. 2d, at 1252, the Union raised and argued the question whether the Barrett award itself was enforceable. Brief for Appellant in No. 80-3661 (CA5), pp. 18-30. We disagree with the court’s initial premise that the validity of the Sabella award is relevant. Only the enforceability of the Barrett award is at issue. The 1974 and 1977 collective-bargaining agreements each contained a clause that provided: “In the event that any provision of this Agreement is found to be in conflict with any State or Federal Laws now existing or hereinafter enacted, it is agreed that such laws shall supersede the conflicting provisions without affecting the remainder of these provisions.” Art. XIV, § 7; App. 29, 42. Before the Court of Appeals, the Company argued that under this “legality” clause the seniority provision was superseded by the District Court’s determination that the provision was illegal. The Court of Appeals responded that its decision reversing the District Court had retroactive effect because it declared the law as it always had existed. 652 F. 2d, at 1255. It seems to us, however, that the Company’s argument was that the court should interpret the legality clause itself, a privilege not permitted to federal courts in reviewing an arbitral award. We do not decide whether some public policy would be violated by an arbitral award for a breach of seniority provisions ultimately found to be illegal under Teamsters v. United States, 431 U. S. 324, 355-356 (1977). Neither do we decide whether such an award could be enforced in the face of a valid judicial alteration of seniority provisions, pursuant to Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co., 424 U. S. 747, 778-779 (1976), to provide relief to discriminatees under Title VII or other law. See Dennison v. City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, 658 F. 2d 694, 695-696 (CA9 1981); EEOC v. McCall Printing Corp., 633 F. 2d 1232, 1237 (CA6 1980). Although Barrett could have considered the District Court order to cause impossibility of performance and thus to be a defense to the Company’s breach, he did not do so. Impossibility is a doctrine of contract interpretation. See 18 W. Jaeger, Williston on Contracts §§ 1931-1979 (3d ed. 1978). For the reasons stated in the text, we cannot revise Barrett’s implicit rejection of the impossibility defense. Even if we were to review the issue de novo, moreover, it is far from clear that the defense is available to the Company, whose own actions created the condition of impossibility. See id., § 1939, p. 50; Uniform Commercial Code §2 — 615(a) and Comment 10, 1A U. L. A. 335, 338 (1976); Lowenschuss v. Kane, 520 F. 2d 255, 265 (CA2 1975). As a threshold matter, we doubt that the District Court in this case ordered specific performance of the conciliation agreement or granted any other type of injunctive relief. That court, in “considering the declaratory relief sought,” 403 F. Supp., at 1187, stated that the issue was “whether the terms of the conciliation agreement override the terms of the bargaining agreement.” Ibid. Both the Company’s amended complaint and the Union’s counterclaim invoked only the cause of action provided by § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. Although the Commission filed a counterclaim against the Company alleging that the Company had violated Title VII, the Court of Appeals treated the case as a § 301 action. See 565 F. 2d, at 917. See generally Airline Stewards & Stewardesses Assn. v. American Airlines, Inc., 573 F. 2d 960, 963 (CA7) (judicial review of Title VII settlement agreement is not review of judgment of Title VII liability after trial), cert. denied, 439 U. S. 876 (1978). Consistent with this view, the court expressly stated that the action was not brought under Title VII, 565 F. 2d, at 917, and refused to remand to permit individual women employees to meet the standards set forth in Teamsters v. United States, 431 U. S. 324 (1977). See 565 F. 2d, at 917. Thus, the courts had no occasion to order injunctive relief under Title VII. The decision of the District Court instead seems to be a declaration of the rights and obligations of the parties under the conflicting agreements, and not a mandatory injunction. Given the ambiguity, however, we assume for purposes of decision that the District Court’s order constituted an injunction. Economic necessity is not recognized as a commercial impracticability defense to a breach-of-contract claim. Uniform Commercial Code § 2-615, Comment 4, 1A U. L. A. 336 (1976) (increased cost of performance does not constitute impossibility); 18 W. Jaeger, Williston on Contracts § 1931, pp. 7-8 (3d ed. 1978) (same). Thus, while it may have been economic misfortune for the Company to postpone or forgo its layoff plans, its extant, conflicting, and voluntarily assumed contractual obligations exposed it to liability regardless of the layoff procedure it followed. In order to avoid liability under either contract, the Company, of course, could have accepted the economic losses of forgoing its reduction-in-force plans. This is not to say that in the face of the economic necessity of the layoffs, the Company had no way whatsoever to avoid the injury. Prior to conducting the layoffs, the Company could have requested a stay from the District Court to permit it to follow the collective-bargaining agreement pending review by the Court of Appeals. It was the Company, which had sought the declaration of rights and obligations, and which chose to act before the determination of its respective contractual obligations was final; the Union most likely would have preferred that no layoffs occur at all. Although the Union could have requested a stay, there is no rule requiring a party to ask for prospective relief from a possible contractual breach. The Union justifiably relied on its right to backpay damages. Moreover, the Company, in future contract negotiations, may seek to bargain for a contract provision expressly allocating the loss to its employees in a case such as this one. Compensatory damages may be available to a plaintiff injured by a breach of contract even when specific performance of the contract would violate public policy. Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 365, Comment a (1981). This principle is particularly applicable here; since the employees’ Union had no responsibility for the events giving rise to the injunction, and entered into the collective-bargaining agreement ignorant of any illegality, the employees are not precluded from recovery for the breach. Id., § 180, Comment a. A party injured by the issuance of an injunction later determined to be erroneous has no action for damages in the absence of a bond. Russell v. Farley, 105 U. S. 433, 437 (1882); Buddy Systems, Inc. v. Exer-Genie, Inc., 545 F. 2d 1164, 1167-1168 (CA9 1976), cert. denied, 431 U. S. 903 (1977). Enforcing the Barrett award to compensate the injuries suffered by the male employees does not violate this principle. The only party injured by the injunction itself has been the Company; the proof of this is that if the Company had done nothing at all, see n. 12, supra, the economic loss from failing to reduce the work force would have fallen on the Company. By an independent and voluntary act, the Company shifted this loss to its male employees and thereby caused the injury remedied by the Barrett award. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy 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 Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court. This controversy stems from a dispute concerning union representation at the Wilkesboro, North Carolina, headquarters facility of Holly Farms, a corporation engaged in the production, processing, and marketing of poultry products. The parties divide, as have federal courts, over the classification of certain workers, described as “live-haul” crews— teams of chicken catchers, forklift operators, and truckdriv-ers, who collect for slaughter chickens raised as broilers by independent contract growers, and transport the birds to Holly Farms’ processing plant. Holly Farms maintains that members- of “live-haul” crews are “agricultural laborers],” a category of workers exempt from National Labor Relations Act coverage. The National Labor Relations Board disagreed and approved a Wilkesboro plant bargaining unit including those employees. Satisfied that the Board reasonably aligned the “live-haul” crews with the corporation’s processing operations, typing them covered “employee[s],” not exempt “agricultural laborers], ” we affirm the Court of Appeals’ judgment, which properly deferred to the Board’s determination. i-h <ri Petitioner Holly Farms Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Tyson Foods, Inc., is a vertically integrated poultry producer headquartered in Wilkesboro, North Carolina. Holly Farms’ activities encompass numerous poultry operations, including hatcheries, a feed mill, an equipment maintenance center, and a processing plant. “Broiler” chickens are birds destined for human food markets. Holly Farms hatches broiler chicks at its own hatcheries, and immediately delivers the chicks to the farms of independent contractors. The contractors then raise the birds into full-grown broiler chickens. Holly Farms pays the contract growers for their services, but retains title to the broilers and supplies the food and medicine necessary to their growth. When the broilers are seven weeks old, Holly Farms sends its live-haul crews to reclaim the birds and ferry them to the processing plant for slaughter. The live-haul crews — which typically comprise nine chicken catchers, one forklift operator, and one live-haul driver — travel in a flat-bed truck from Holly Farms’ processing plant to the farms of the independent growers. At the farms, the chicken catchers enter the coops, manually capture the broilers, and load them into cages. The forklift operator lifts the caged chickens onto the bed of the truck, and the live-haul driver returns the truck, with the loaded cases and the crew, to Holly Farms’ processing plant. There, the birds are slaughtered and prepared for shipment to retail stores. B In 1989, the Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers, Local 391 (Union), filed a representation petition with the National Labor Relations Board (Board or NLRB), seeking an election in a proposed unit that included live-haul employees working out of Holly Farms’ Wilkesboro processing plant. Over Holly Farms’ objection, the Board approved the bargaining unit, ruling that the live-haul workers were “employee[s]” protected by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA or Act), 49 Stat. 449, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 151 et seq., rather than “agricultural laborers]” excluded from the Act’s coverage by §2(3) of the NLRA, 29 U. S. C. § 152(3). See Holly Farms Corp., 311 N. L. R. B. 273, 273, n. 4, 284 (1993). After further proceedings not relevant here, the Board ordered the corporation to bargain with the Union as the representative of the unit. Id., at 285-286. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit enforced the Board’s order. The court held that the Board’s classification of the live-haul workers as “employee[s],” rather than “agricultural laborers],” rested “on a reasonable interpretation of the Act.” 48 F. 3d 1360, 1372 (1995). The Board’s reading, the court added, was consistent with the NLRB’s prior decisions, see Imco Poultry, Div. of Int’l Multifoods Corp., 202 N. L. R. B. 259, 260-261 (1973), adhered to in Seaboard Farms of Kentucky, Inc., 311 N. L. R. B. No. 159 (1993), and Draper Valley Farms, Inc., 307 N. L. R. B. 1440 (1992), and with the Eighth Circuit’s case law, see NLRB v. Hudson Farms, Inc., 681 F. 2d 1105, 1106 (per curiam), cert. denied, 459 U. S. 1069 (1982), and Valmac Industries, Inc. v. NLRB, 599 F. 2d 246, 249 (1979). 48 F. 3d, at 1371-1372. Other Federal Courts of Appeals, in conflict with the Fourth and Eighth Circuits, have held that live-haul workers employed by vertically integrated poultry producers are engaged in “agriculture.” See, e.g., Coleman v. Sanderson Farms, Inc., 629 F. 2d 1077, 1079 (CA5 1980); NLRB v. Ryckebosch, Inc., 471 F. 2d 20, 21 (CA9 1972). We granted certiorari to resolve the division of authority. 516 U. S. 963 (1995). II The NLRA’s protections extend only to workers who qualify as “employee[s]” under §2(3) of the Act. 29 U. S. C. § 152(3). The term “employee,” NLRA § 2(3) states, “[does] not include any individual employed as an agricultural laborer.” Ibid. No definition of “agricultural laborer” appears in the NLRA. But annually since 1946, Congress has instructed, in riders to Appropriations Acts for the Board: “[A]gricultural laborer,” for NLRA §2(3) purposes, shall derive its meaning from the definition of “agriculture” supplied by § 3(f) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA). See Bayside Enterprises, Inc. v. NLRB, 429 U. S. 298, 300, and n. 6 (1977). Section 3(f) of the FLSA provides: “ Agriculture’ includes farming in all its branches and among other things includes the cultivation and tillage of the soil, dairying, the production, cultivation, growing, and harvesting of any agricultural or horticultural commodities (including commodities defined as agricultural commodities in section 1141j(g) of title 12), the raising of livestock, bees, fur-bearing animals, or poultry, and any practices (including any forestry or lumbering operations) performed by a farmer or on a farm as an incident to or in conjunction with such farming operations, including preparation for market, delivery to storage or to market or to carriers for transportation to market.” 29 U. S. C. § 203(f). This definition, we have explained, “includes farming in both a primary and a secondary sense.” Bayside, 429 U. S., at 300. “Primary farming” includes the occupations listed first in § 3(f): “the cultivation and tillage of the soil, dairying, the production, cultivation, growing, and harvesting of any agricultural or horticultural commodities . . . [and] the raising of livestock, bees, fur-bearing animals, or poultry.” 29 U. S. C. § 203(f). “Secondary farming” has a broader meaning, encompassing, as stated in the second part of § 3(f): “any practices . . . performed by a farmer or on a farm as an incident to or in conjunction with such farming operations, including preparation for market, delivery to storage or to market or to carriers for transportation to market.” Ibid.; see Bayside, 429 U. S., at 300, n. 7; Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co. v. McComb, 337 U. S. 755, 763 (1949) (secondary farming embraces “any practices, whether or not themselves farming practices, which are performed either by a farmer or on a farm, incidently to or in conjunction with ‘such’ farming operations”). If a statute’s meaning is plain, the Board and reviewing courts “must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.” Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 843 (1984). When the legislative prescription is not free from ambiguity, the administrator must choose between conflicting reasonable interpretations. Courts, in turn, must respect the judgment of the agency empowered to apply the law “to varying fact patterns,” Bayside, 429 U. S., at 304, even if the issue “with nearly equal reason [might] be resolved one way rather than another,” id., at 302 (citing Farmers Reservoir, 337 U. S., at 770 (Frankfurter, J., concurring)). We note, furthermore, that administrators and reviewing courts must take care to assure that exemptions from NLRA coverage are not so expansively interpreted as to deny protection to workers the Act was designed to reach. See 48 F. 3d, at 1370 (citing NLRB v. Cal-Maine Farms, Inc., 998 F. 2d 1336, 1339 (CA5 1993)); cf. Arnold v. Ben Kanowsky, Inc., 361 U. S. 388, 392 (1960) (exemptions from the FLSA “are to be narrowly construed against the employers seeking to assert them”); Mitchell v. Kentucky Finance Co., 359 U. S. 290, 295 (1959) (“It is well settled that exemptions from the Fair Labor Standards Act are to be narrowly construed.”). III Primary farming includes the raising of poultry. See Bayside, 429 U. S., at 300-301. All agree that the independent growers, who raise Holly Farms’ broiler chickens on their own farms, are engaged in primary agriculture. But we confront no contention that Holly Farms’ live-haul employees are themselves engaged in raising poultry. Thus, the only question we resolve is whether the chicken catchers, forklift operators, and truckdrivers are engaged in secondary agriculture — that is, practices “performed by a farmer or on a farm as an incident to or in conjunction with such farming operations.” 29 U. S. C. § 203(f). We take up, initially, the “performed by a farmer” strand of FLSA § 3(f). We do not labor over the point, for our decision in Bayside securely leads us to the conclusion that the live-haul activities are not performed “by a farmer.” In Bayside, we considered the application of §3(f)’s “by a farmer” specification to integrated agricultural companies that contract out farming work. We upheld the Board’s rejection of the contention that “all of the activity on a contract farm should be regarded as agricultural activity of an integrated farmer” such as Holly Farms. 429 U. S., at 302. When an integrated poultry producer “contracts with independent growers for the care and feeding of [its] chicks, [its] status as a farmer engaged in raising poultry ends with respect to those chicks.” Id., at 302, n. 9 (citing Imco Poultry, 202 N. L. R. B., at 260). Accordingly, when the live-haul employees arrive on the independent farms to collect broilers for carriage to slaughter and processing, Holly Farms does not resume its status as “farmer” with respect to those birds, the status Holly Farms had weeks before, when the birds were hatched in its hatcheries. This conclusion, we note, entirely disposes of the contention that the truckdrivers are employed in secondary agriculture, for Holly Farms acknowledges that these crew members do not work “on a farm.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 5. - We turn, now, to the nub of the case for the chicken catchers and forklift operators: the “on a farm” strand of FLSA § 3(f). A Holly Farms argues that under the plain language of the statute, the catching and loading of broilers qualifies as work performed “on a farm as an incident to” the raising of poultry. The corporation emphasizes that § 3(f) of the FLSA enumerates “preparation for market” and “delivery to storage or to market” among activities that count as “agriculture.” The live-haul employees” work, Holly Farms concludes, thus falls within the domain of the FLSA exemption and, accordingly, enjoys no- NLRA protection. We find Holly Farms” position to be a plausible,, but not an inevitable, construction of § 3(f). Hence, we turn to the Board’s position, examining only its reasonableness as an interpretation of the governing legislation. B While agreeing that the chicken catchers and forklift operators work “on a farm,” the Board contends that their catch and cage work is not incidental to farming operations. Rather, the work is tied to Holly Farms’ slaughtering and processing operations, activities that do not constitute “farming” under the statute. We conclude, as we next explain, that the Board’s position “is based on a reasonable interpretation of the statute, is consistent with the Board’s prior holdings, and is supported by the Secretary of Labor’s construction of § 3(f).” Bayside, 429 U. S., at 303 (footnotes omitted). 1 The Board underscores the statutory words “such farming operations.” It does not suffice that the alleged secondary agriculture consists of “preparation for market,” or “delivery to storage or to market,” the Board maintains; to qualify for the statutory exemption, the Board urges, the work must be incidental to, or conjoined with, primary farming operations. As just explained, see supra, at 400-401, at the growing stage in the short life of a broiler, Holly Farms is not involved in primary farming, but the contract growers are. The essential question, then, is whether the live-haul employees’ activities are inevitably “incident to or in conjunction with” the farming operations of the independent growers. The Board answers this question in the negative. See Imco Poultry, 202 N. L. R. B., at 261 (Because chicken catching crews “have no business relationship with the independent farmers, we conclude that the employees’ activities were not incidental to the independent farmers’ poultry raising operations.”). We find the Board’s answer reasonable. Once the broilers have grown on the farm for seven weeks, the growers’ contractual obligation to raise the birds ends, and the work of the live-haul crew begins. The record reflects minimal overlap between the work of the live-haul crew and the independent growers’ raising activities. The growers do not assist the live-haul crews in catching or loading the chickens; their only responsibilities are to move certain equipment from the chicken coops prior to the crews’ arrival, and to be present when the crews are on the farms. App. to Brief for Federal Respondent 3a. Nor do the live-haul employees play any role in the growers’ performance of their contractual undertakings. The record, furthermore, supports the Board’s conclusion that the live-haul crews’ activities were conjoined with Holly Farms’ processing operations, rather than with farming. The chicken catchers, forklift operators, and truckdrivers work as a unit. They all “work out of the processing plant” in Wilkesboro, App. 22a, located three miles from the hatcheries, App. to Pet. for Cert. A-381, n. 119. Crew members begin and end each shift by punching a timeclock at the processing plant, id., at A-831 to A-832, and are functionally integrated with other processing-plant employees, App. 22a. See also App. to Pet. for Cert. A-396 (correlation between Holly Farms’ slaughter rate and work available for live-haul crews); App. 29a (live production manager for Holly Farms’ Wilkesboro facility described catching and delivery of grown broilers as the first step in the producer’s processing operations). The Board’s determination, in sum, has the requisite “warrant in the record.” Bayside, 429 U. S., at 304, n. 14 (citing NLRB v. Hearst Publications, Inc., 322 U. S. 111, 131 (1944)). We think it sensible, too, that the Board homed in on the status of the live-haul crews’ employer. The employer’s status respecting the particular activity at issue accounts for the Board’s determination that Holly Farms’ “egg haulers” (who transport eggs from the laying houses to the hatcheries), and “pullet catchers” (who collect the breeding-destined birds on the farms of independent growers) rank as “agricultural laborer[s].” As the record shows, the pullet catchers and egg haulers work in Holly Farms’ hatchery operations, while the live-haul employees — who deal only with broilers — work out of the processing plant. “There is no interchange between these classifications. Broiler haulers do not haul pullets and pullet haulers do not haul broilers.” App. 20a-21a. Accordingly, the Board reasonably aligned the pullet catchers and egg haulers with Holly Farms’ poultry-raising operation, and the live-haul employees with the corporation’s slaughtering and processing activities. 2 The Board’s decision regarding Holly Farms’ live-haul crews adheres to longstanding NLRB precedent. For more than 23 years, the NLRB has maintained that vertically integrated poultry producers’ employees who “handl[e] and transport] chicks on the farms of independent growers only after [the poultry producers’] farming operations have ended ... cannot be performing practices incident to, or in conjunction with, [their employer’s] farming operations.” Imco Poultry, 202 N. L. R. B., at 260. Rather, such employees, the Board has repeatedly ruled, perform work “incident to, or in conjunction with, a separate and distinct business activity of [their employer], i. e., shipping and marketing.” Id., at 261. See also Draper Valley Farms, Inc., 307 N. L. R. B., at 1440 (“We think it follows plainly from Imco that the Employer’s chicken catchers are not, when working on the farms of independent growers who have concluded' their ‘raising’ activities, exempt as agricultural laborers.”); Seaboard Farms of Kentucky, Inc., 311 N. L. R. B. No. 159 (1993) (same). 3 In construing the agricultural laborer exemption, the Board endeavors to “follow, whenever possible, the interpretations of Section 3(f) adopted by the Department of Labor, the agency which is charged with the responsibility for and has the experience of administering the Fair Labor Standards Act.” Cornell University, 254 N. L. R. B. 110 (1981); see also Mario Saikon, Inc., 278 N. L. R. B. 1289, 1290 (1986); Wegman’s Food Market, Inc., 236 N. L. R. B. 1062 (1978). The Board has not departed from that endeavor here. The Department of Labor’s regulations do not address the precise situation of the live-haul workers before us, nor are the regulations free from ambiguity. We agree with the Board, however, that they are consistent with “employee” characterization of the crews that catch grown chickens for carriage to Holly Farms’ processing plant. On contract arrangements for raising poultry, the Department of Labor has issued an interpretative regulation, which we noted in Bayside, 429 U. S., at 303-304, n. 13, as follows: “Feed dealers and processors sometimes enter into contractual arrangements with farmers under which the latter agree to raise to marketable size baby chicks supplied by the former who also undertake to furnish all the required feed and possibly additional items. Typically, the feed dealer or processor retains title to the chickens until they are sold. Under such an arrangement, the activities of the farmers and their employees in raising the poultry are clearly within section 3(f). The activities of the feed dealer or processor, on the other hand, are not 'raising of poultry,’ and employees engaged in them cannot be considered agricultural employees on that ground. Employees of the feed dealer or processor who perform work on a farm as an incident to or in conjunction with the raising of poultry on the farm are employed in ‘secondary’ agriculture (see §§780.137 et seq. [explaining that work must be performed in connection with the farmer-employer’s own farming to qualify as ‘secondary’ agriculture by a farmer] and Johnston v. Cotton Producers Assn., 244 F. 2d 553).” 29 CFR § 780.126 (1995). This regulation suggests that live-haul crews surely are not engaged in a primary farming operation. The crews could rank as workers engaged in “secondary” agriculture if they “performed] work on a farm as an incident to or in conjunction with the raising of poultry on the farm.” Ibid. As we developed earlier, however, see supra, at 402-405, in the Board’s judgment, the crews do not fit that bill. The live-haul crew members perform their work, as the Board sees it, not “as an incident to” poultry raising by independent growers, but “incident to” and “in conjunction with” the slaughter and processing of chickens at Holly Farms’ Wilkes-boro plant. In the Board’s words, the crews are tied to “a separate and distinct business activity,” the business of processing poultry for retail sale, see Imco Poultry, 202 N. L. R. B., at 261, not to the anterior work of agriculture. Other Department of Labor regulations are in harmony with the Board’s conclusion that the live-haul crews do not engage in secondary farming because their work, though “on a farm,” is not performed “as an incident to or in conjunction with” the independent growers’ poultry-raising operations. Thus, 29 CFR § 780.129 (1995) reiterates that the work “must be performed ‘as an incident to or in conjunction with’ the farming operations,” and §780.143 adds: “The fact that a practice performed on a farm is not performed by or for the farmer is a strong indication that it is not performed in connection with the farming operations there conducted.” Ibid. The same regulation, §780.143, further states that, in determining whether a practice is performed “for” a farmer, it is “highly significant” whether the practice involves property to which the farmer has title or for which the farmer otherwise has responsibility. Ibid. Holly Farms retains title to the chicks and, once the live-haul crew undertakes its catch and remove operation, the independent grower “divest[s] himself of further responsibility with respect to the product.” Ibid. The Department of Labor candidly observed that “[t]he line between practices that are and those that are not performed ‘as an incident to or in conjunction with’ such farming operations is not susceptible of precise definition.” §780.144. This acknowledgment accords with our recognition that the meaning of FLSA § 3(f) is not so “plain” as to bear only one permissible construction in the context at hand. IV In sum, we find persuasive the Board’s conclusion that the collection of broilers for slaughter was an activity serving Holly Farms’ processing operations, and not Holly Farms’ own or the independent growers’ farming operations. Again, we stress that “the reviewing court’s function is limited.” Bayside, 429 U. S., at 304, n. 14 (citing Hearst Publications, 322 U. S., at 131). For the Board to prevail, it need not show that its construction is the best way to read the statute; rather, courts must respect the Board’s judgment so long as its reading is a reasonable one. See Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB, 467 U. S. 883, 891 (1984) (“we will uphold any interpretation [of the term ‘employee’ in NLRA § 2(3)] that is reasonably defensible”). “[R]egardless of how we might have resolved the question as an initial matter,” Bayside, 429 U. S., at 304, the Board’s decision here reflects a reasonable interpretation of the law and, therefore, merits our approbation. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly Affirmed. Holly Farms maintains various facilities throughout the United States, but this controversy concerns only its Wilkesboro operation. Holly Farms’ operations also involve birds called “pullets,” young chickens destined to serve as laying hens. The live-haul workers whose classification is at issue in this case work exclusively with broilers. Board member Oviatt dissented from the Board’s classification of the live-haul employees. He viewed the crew members as “agricultural laborer[s],” and therefore unprotected by the NLRA. Holly Farms Corp., 311 N. L. R. B., at 287. Judge Niemeyer dissented in relevant part; like dissenting Board member Oviatt, see supra, at 396, n. 3, he ranked the live-haul employees as “agricultural laborer[s]” unprotected by the NLRA. 48 F. 3d, at 1373. The most recent congressional rider states: “[N]o part of [the Board’s] appropriation shall be available to organize or assist in organizing agricultural laborers or used in connection with investigations, hearings, directives, or orders concerning bargaining units composed of agricultural laborers as referred to in section 2(3) of the [NLRA] .. . and as defined in section 3(f) of the [FLSA].” Pub. L. 103-333, Tit. IV, 108 Stat. 2569-2570. The legislative history suggests that Congress, in linking the definition of “agricultural laborer” in NLRA §2(3) to § 3(f) of the FLSA, intended to cabin the exemption. The version of the appropriations rider first adopted by the House incorporated the definition of “agricultural laborer” contained in the Social Security Act Amendments of 1939, 53 Stat. 1377. See 92 Cong. Rec. 6689-6692 (1946). Some lawmakers, however, objected that the amendment contained a “very broad definitio[n] of agricultural laborer excluding a great number of processing employees” from NLRA coverage. See id., at 9514 (statement of Sen. Ball). After some debate— and upon consultation with a Board member and Board counsel — the Conference Committee agreed to substitute the “much narrower definition” supplied by § 3(f) of the FLSA. See ibid. The dissent’s reading of §3(f), while a plausible construction of a text we, the Board, and the Secretary of Labor find less than crystalline, see infra, at 409, is inharmonious with a congressional will to create a slim exemption from the encompassing protection the NLRA and the FLSA afford employees in our Nation’s commercial enterprises. Holly Farms, it is true, ultimately argues that the catching and loading of broilers slated for slaughter constitute primary agriculture because those activities are best viewed as the “harvesting” of chickens. See Brief for Petitioners 29-30. But Holly Farms failed to advance this argument before the Court of Appeals, and it did not home in on this contention in its petition for certiorari. Because we “generally do not address arguments that were not the basis for the decision below,” Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. Epstein, 516 U. S. 367, 379, n. 5 (1996), we decline to entertain Holly Farms’ primary farming argument. As we noted in Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co. v. McComb, 337 U. S. 755 (1949), Congress specifically added the words “or on a farm” to FLSA § 3(f) to address some Senators’ objections that the exemption otherwise would not cover “the threshing of wheat or other functions necessary to the farmer if those functions were not performed by the farmer and his hands, but by separate companies organized for and devoted solely to that particular job.” See id., at 767 (citing 81 Cong. Rec. 7653 (1937)). Nothing in the Board’s decision detracts from the application of § 3(f), based on the “on a farm” language, to employees of “separate companies organized for and devoted solely to” auxiliary work in aid of a farming enterprise. Hence, the words “on a farm” do the work intended, and are not redundant. But see post, at 412-413. Holly Farms presses the argument that its live-haul employees are analogous to the wheat threshers who figured in FLSA § 3(f)’s legislative history. The Board reasonably responds, however, that any worker— whether a wheat thresher, a feed-haul driver, or a chicken catcher — must perform his or her work “as an incident to or in conjunction with such farming operations” in order to fall under the agricultural exemption. If the chicken catching crews were employed by the independent growers, rather than by Holly Farms’ processing operation, those crews would more closely resemble the wheat threshers contemplated by the framers of § 3(f). To this question, the dissent asserts “there can be only one answer.” Post, at 415. In the dissent’s view, activities “directly related to the farming operations that occurred on that very farm” — in this case, removing chickens from the independent growers’ farms to make room for more— inescapably satisfy the statute. Post, at 414-415. FLSA § 3(f), all agree, does not apply absent a connection between the activity in question and the primary farming operations conducted “on a farm.” But the statutory language — “incident to or in conjunction with” — does not place beyond rational debate the nature or extent of the required connection. See 29 CFR § 780.144 (1995) (recognition by the Secretary of Labor that the “line between practices that are and those that are not performed ‘as an incident to or in conjunction with’ such farming operations is not susceptible of precise definition”). Holly Farms argues, and the dissent agrees, post, at 414, that the Board’s conclusion rests on the assumption that a given activity can be incidental to one thing only — in this case, either processing or farming, but not both. At oral argument, counsel for the Board stated that Holly Farms had not accurately conveyed the Board’s position. Tr. of Oral Arg. 33, 38. The Board apparently recognizes, as do we, that an activity can be incidental to more than one thing. To gain the agricultural exemption, however, farming must be an enterprise to which the activity at issue is incidental. The relevant question under the statute, therefore, is whether the work of the live-haul crews qualifies as incidental to farming. Our decision in Maneja v. Waialua Agricultural Co., 349 U. S. 254 (1955), does not cast doubt on the Board’s view of operations like Holly Farms. In that ease, which did not involve a Board ruling, we held that railroad workers employed by an integrated sugar cane producer were exempt, as “agricultural laborer[s],” from FLSA overtime provisions. The employer in Maneja, unlike Holly Farms, grew and cultivated its sugar cane autonomously, without the aid of independent growers; hence, we concluded that the activities of the railroad workers, who hauled the freshly cut cane from the sugar fields to the processing plant, were incidental to the employer’s primary farming operations. Id., at 262-263. Coleman v. Sanderson Farms, Inc., 629 F. 2d 1077 (CA5 1980), which determined that chicken catching crews were employed in “agriculture” under § 3(f), involved a dispute over applicability of the FLSA’s overtime provisions, not over union representation. Thus, the court in that case was not required to respect the position of the Board. See id., at 1081, n. 4, We note, however, that the Coleman court did not advert to the Secretary of Labor’s interpretations of § 3(f). The Department of Labor’s interpretative regulation, 29 CFR § 780.126 (1995), includes a citation to Johnston v. Cotton Producers Assn., 244 F. 2d, 553, 554 (CA5 1957). That case is readily distinguishable from the case before us. In Johnston, the Court of Appeals held that an employee of a rural farm supply store was exempt from FLSA minimum wage and overtime requirements as an agricultural laborer. The supply store sold baby chicks to farmers, while “retain[ing] title to the chicks as security for the purchase price and for advances for feed, supplies, or equipment.” Ibid. While the supply store employee caught, cooped, and loaded chickens onto trucks for delivery to processors — entities independent of the supply store — that employee also “supervise[d] the growing of chicks by [independent] growers on their farms.” Ibid. By contrast, in this case there is no contention that any of the live-haul employees similarly assist the independent growers in their chick-raising activities. Petitioners point to 29 CFR § 780.151(k) (1995), which defines the FLSA §3(f) words “preparation for market” to include “[ejulling, grading, cooping, and loading” of poultry. See Brief for Petitioners 23. As another regulation emphasizes, however, ‘“preparation for market,’ like other practices, must be performed ‘by a farmer or on a farm as an incident to or in conjunction with such farming operations’ in order to be within [FLSA] section 3(f).” 29 CFR § 780.150 (1995). Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy 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 Stewart delivered the opinion of the Court. The administratrix of the estate of Walter J. Halecki brought this action against the owners of the pilot boat New Jersey to recover damages for Halecki’s death, allegedly caused by inhalation of carbon tetrachloride fumes while working aboard that vessel. The action, based upon the New Jersey Wrongful Death Act, N. J. Stat. Ann. 2A:31-1, was brought in the federal court by reason of diversity of citizenship. Under instructions that either unseaworthiness of the vessel or negligence would render the defendants liable and that contributory negligence on the part of the decedent would serve only to mitigate damages, a jury returned a verdict for the admin-istratrix, upon which judgment was entered. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the New Jersey Wrongful Death Act incorporates liability for unseaworthiness, as developed by federal law, and adopts the admiralty rule of comparative negligence when death occurs as a result of tortious conduct upon the navigable waters of that State. 251 F. 2d 708. For the reasons stated in The Tungus v. Skovgaard, decided today, ante, p. 588, we hold that the Court of Appeals was correct in viewing its basic task as one of interpreting the law of New Jersey. For reasons also stated in Tungus, we accept in this case the Court of Appeals’ determination of the effect which New Jersey law would accord to the decedent’s contributory negligence. But even if the Wrongful Death Act of New Jersey be interpreted as importing the federal maritime law of unseaworthiness, the court was in error in holding that the circumstances of this case were such as to impose liability under that doctrine. The essential facts are not in dispute. In September of 1951 the vessel was brought to Jersey City, New Jersey, for its annual overhaul at the shipyard of Roder-mond Industries, Inc. One of the jobs to be done was the dismantling and overhaul of the ship’s generators, requiring, among other things, that they be sprayed with carbon tetrachloride. Since Rodermond Industries was not equipped to do electrical work, this job was subcontracted to K. & S. Electrical Company, Halecki’s employer. The generators were in the ship’s engine room, and both Halecki and his foreman, Donald Doidge, were aware of the necessity of taking special precautions in undertaking the job of spraying them with tetrachloride, a toxic compound. They arranged to do the work on Saturday, a day chosen because, as Doidge testified, “[W]e know it has to be done when there is nobody else on board ship.” Halecki and Doidge came aboard on the appointed day, equipped with gas masks. They found only a watchman, to whom they gave instructions not to permit anyone to enter the engine room. Before starting the job they rigged an air hose underneath the generators to blow the fumes away from the man spraying. A high-compression blower was placed so that it would exhaust foul air through one of the two open doorways. These pieces of equipment belonged to Rodermond Industries and had been brought aboard by Doidge and Halecki the previous day. Together with the engine room’s regular ventilating system, the air hoses and blower were operated by electrical power supplied from the dock. Halecki did most of the spraying, working for 10- or 15-minute periods with intervening rests of equal length. The ventilating equipment was in operation, and Halecki wore a gas mask during the entire period that he worked. He became sick the next day and died two weeks later of carbon tetrachloride poisoning. The eventful development of the doctrine of unseaworthiness in this Court is familiar history. Although of dubious ancestry, the doctrine was born with The Osceola and emerged full-blown 40 years later in Mahnich v. Southern S. S. Co. as an absolute and nondelegable duty which the owner of a vessel owes to the members of the crew who man her. The justification for this rigid standard was clearly stated in the Court’s opinion in Mahnich: "He [the seaman] is subject to the rigorous discipline of the sea, and all the conditions of his service constrain him to accept, without critical examination and without protest, working conditions and appliances as commanded by his superior officers.” 321 U. S. 96, at 103. With the nature of the duty thus defined, it remained for two other decisions of the Court to amplify its scope. Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki and Pope & Talbot v. Hawn made clear that the shipowner could not escape liability for unseaworthiness by delegating to others work traditionally done by members of the crew. Whether their calling be labeled “stevedore,” “carpenter,” or something else, those who did the “type of work” traditionally done by seamen, and were thus related to the ship in the same way as seamen “who had been or who were about to go on a voyage,” were entitled to a seaworthy ship. See 346 U. S., at 413. Neither these decisions nor the policy that underlies them can justify extension of liability for unseaworthiness to the decedent in the present case. The work that he did was in no way “the type of work” traditionally done by the ship’s crew. It was work that could not even be performed upon a ship ready for sea, but only when the ship was “dead” with its generators dismantled. Moreover, it was the work of a specialist, requiring special skill and special equipment — portable blowers, air hoses, gas masks, and tanks of carbon tetrachloride, all brought aboard the vessel for this special purpose, and none connected with a ship’s seagoing operations. Indeed, the work was so specialized that the repair yard engaged to overhaul the vessel was not itself equipped to perform it, but had to enlist the services of a subcontractor. A measure of how foreign was the decedent’s work to that ordinarily performed by the ship’s crew is that it could be performed only at a time when all the members of the crew were off the ship. It avails nothing to say that the decedent was an “electrician,” and that many modern ships carry electricians in their crew. Pope & Talbot v. Hawn explicitly teaches that such labels in this domain are meaningless. See 346 U. S., at 413. It is scarcely more helpful to indulge in the euphemism that the decedent was “cleaning” part of the ship, and to say that it is a traditional duty of seamen to keep their ship clean. The basic fact is, in the apt words of Judge Lumbard’s dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals, that the decedent “was not doing what any crew member had ever done on this ship or anywhere else in the world so far as we are informed.” 251 F. 2d 708, at 715. To extend liability for unseaworthiness to the decedent here would distort the law of Mahnich, of Hawn and of Sieracki beyond recognition. We therefore hold that it was error to instruct the jury that the shipowner could be held liable in this case even if they should find that the shipowner had exercised reasonable care. As to the claim based upon negligence, for which the New Jersey Wrongful Death Act clearly gives a right of action, we agree with the Court of Appeals that “the evidence created an issue that could be decided only by a verdict.” The defendants owed a duty of exercising reasonable care for the safety of the decedent. They were charged with knowledge that carbon tetrachloride was to be used in the confined spaces of the engine room. It was for the triers of fact to determine whether the defendants were responsibly negligent in permitting or authorizing the method or manner of its use. It follows from what has been said that a new trial will be required, for there is no way to know that the invalid claim of unseaworthiness was not the sole basis for the verdict. Vacated and remanded. [For concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Frankfurter, see ante, p. 597.] Carbon tetrachloride, a somewhat volatile compound five times heavier than air, is toxic to humans if present in the atmosphere in concentrations of more than 100 parts to 1,000,000. It therefore is essential when working with this chemical to provide adequate ventilation, a task that is complicated because the density of the compound may result in a high concentration of the fumes in the lower portions of an enclosed area. See Gilmore and Black, The Law of Admiralty, p. 316. 189 U. S. 158, 175. 321 U. S. 96. 328 U. S. 85 and 346 U. S. 406. See also Alaska S. S. Co. v. Petterson, 347 U. S. 396, and Rogers v. United States Lines, 347 U. S. 984. It was established that the ship’s own ventilating system was entirely adequate to perform its intended function of ventilating the engine room while the ship was in regular operation. We do not reach, the question, discussed in the amicus curiae brief of the United States, whether a shipowner can ever be liable for the unseaworthiness of a vessel “to a shore-based worker who performs labor on a ship which is not ready for a voyage but is out of navigation and docked in a private shipyard for its annual overhaul and repair.” N. J. Stat. Ann. 2A:31-1; see The Tungus v. Skovgaard, ante, p. 588. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy 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. Decree. Upon consideration of the Report filed July 31, 1974, by Walter P. Armstrong, Jr., Special Master, of the exceptions filed thereto by the United States and by the State of Louisiana, and after oral argument thereon, It Is Now Ordered, Adjudged, and Decreed as Follows: 1. The exceptions filed by the United States to the Report and recommendations of the Special Master are overruled. 2. The exceptions filed by the State of Louisiana to the Report and recommendations of the Special Master are overruled. 3. The recommendations contained dn the Report of the Special Master are accepted. 4. The parties are directed to prepare and file a decree, for entry by this Court, establishing “a baseline along the entire coast of the State of Louisiana from which the extent of the territorial waters under the jurisdiction of the State of Louisiana pursuant to the Submerged Lands Act can be measured.” Report of the Special Master 53. If the parties cannot agree upon the form of the decree, then they shall refer any remaining disputes to the Special Master for his recommendations. In the event of such a referral, the Special Master is authorized to hold such hearings, take such evidence, and conduct such proceedings as he may deem appropriate and, in due course, to report his recommendations to this Court. It is so ordered. Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Maeshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

J

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr. Justice Brennan delivered the opinion of the Court. The question presented for decision is whether Okla. Stat., Tit. 29, § 4-115 (B) (Supp. 1978), violates the Commerce Clause, Art. I, § 8, cl. 3, of the United States Constitution, insofar as it provides that “ [n] o person may transport or ship minnows for sale outside the state which were seined or procured within the waters of this state ...” Appellant William Hughes holds a Texas license to operate a commercial minnow business near Wichita Falls, Tex. An Oklahoma game ranger arrested him on a charge of violating § 4-115 (B) by transporting from Oklahoma to Wichita Falls a load of natural minnows purchased from a minnow dealer licensed to do business in Oklahoma. Hughes’ defense that § A-115 (B) was unconstitutional because it was repugnant to the Commerce Clause was rejected, and he was convicted and fined. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, stating: “The United States Supreme Court has held on numerous occasions that the wild animals and fish within a state’s border are, so far as capable of ownership, owned by the state in its sovereign capacity for the common benefit of all its people. Because of such ownership, and in the exercise of its police power, the state may regulate and control the taking, subsequent use and property rights that may be acquired therein. Lacoste v. Department of Conservation, 263 U. S. 545 . . . ; Geer v. State of Connecticut, 161 U. S. 519 .... As stated in Lacoste, supra, protection of the wildlife of a state is peculiarly within the police power of the state, and the state has great latitude in determining what means are appropriate for its protection. . . Oklahoma law does not prohibit commercial minnow hatcheries within her borders from selling stock minnows to anyone, resident or nonresident, and minnows purchased therefrom may be freely exported. However, the law served to protect against the depletion of minnows in Oklahoma’s natural streams through commercial exportation. No person is allowed to export natural minnows for sale outside of Oklahoma. Such a prohibition is not repugnant to the commerce clause . . . .” 572 P. 2d 573, 575 (1977). We noted probable jurisdiction, 439 U. S. 815 (1978). We reverse. Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U. S. 519 (1896), on which the Court of Criminal Appeals relied, is overruled. In that circumstance, § 4-115 (B) cannot survive appellant’s Commerce Clause attack. I The few simple words of the Commerce Clause — “The Congress shall have Power ... To regulate Commerce . . . among the several States . . .” — reflected a central concern of the Framers that was an immediate reason for calling the Constitutional Convention: the conviction that in order to succeed, the new Union would have to avoid the tendencies toward economic Balkanization that had plagued relations among the Colonies and later among the States under the Articles of Confederation. See H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Du Mond, 336 U. S. 525, 533-534 (1949). The Commerce Clause has accordingly been interpreted by this Court not only as an authorization for congressional action, but also, even in the absence of a conflicting federal statute, as a restriction on permissible state regulation. The cases defining the scope of permissible state regulation in areas of congressional silence reflect an often controversial evolution of rules to accommodate federal and state interests. Geer v. Connecticut was decided relatively early in that evolutionary process. We hold that time has revealed the error of the early resolution reached in that case, and accordingly Geer is today overruled. A Geer sustained against a Commerce Clause challenge a statute forbidding the transportation beyond the State of game birds that had been lawfully killed within the State. The decision rested on the holding that no interstate commerce was involved. This conclusion followed in turn from the view that the State had the power, as representative for its citizens, who “owned” in common all wild animals within the State, to control not only the taking of game but also the ownership of game that had been lawfully reduced to possession. By virtue of this power, Connecticut could qualify the ownership of wild game taken within the State by, for example, prohibiting its removal from the State: “The common ownership imports the right to keep the property, if the sovereign so chooses, always within its jurisdiction for every purpose.” 161 U. S., at 530. Accordingly, the State's power to qualify ownership raised serious doubts whether the sale or exchange of wild game constituted “commerce” at all; in any event the Court held that the qualification imposed by the challenged statute removed any transactions involving wild game killed in Connecticut from interstate commerce. Mr. Justice Field and the first Mr. Justice Harlan dissented, rejecting as artificial and formalistic the Court’s analysis of “ownership” and “commerce” in wild game. They would have affirmed the State’s power to provide for the protection of wild game, but only “so far as such protection . . . does not contravene the power of Congress in the regulation of interstate commerce.” Their view was that “[w]hen any animal ... is lawfully killed for the purposes of food or other uses of man, it becomes an article of commerce, and its use cannot be limited to the citizens of one State to the exclusion of citizens of another State.” B The view of the Geer dissenters increasingly prevailed in subsequent cases. Indeed, not only has the Geer analysis been rejected when natural resources other than wild game were involved, but even state regulations of wild game have been held subject to the strictures of the Commerce Clause under the pretext of distinctions from Geer. The erosion of Geer began only 15 years after it was decided. A Commerce Clause challenge was addressed to an Oklahoma statute designed to prohibit the transportation beyond the State of natural gas produced by wells within the State. West v. Kansas Natural Gas Co., 221 U. S. 229 (1911). Based on reasoning parallel to that in Geer, Oklahoma urged its right to “conserve” the gas for the use of its own citizens, stressing the limited supply and the absence of alternative sources of fuel within the State. Nevertheless, the Court, in a passage reminiscent of the dissents in Geer, condemned the obvious protectionist motive in the Oklahoma statute and rejected the State’s arguments with a powerful reaffirmation of the vision of the Framers: “The statute of Oklahoma recognizes [gas] to be a subject of intrastate commerce, but seeks to prohibit it from being the subject of interstate commerce, and this is the purpose of its conservation. ... If the States have such power a singular situation might result. Pennsylvania might keep its coal, the Northwest its timber, the mining States their minerals. And why may not the products of the field be brought within the principle? Thus enlarged, or without that enlargement, its influence on interstate commerce need not be pointed out. To what consequences does such power tend? If one State has it, all States have it; embargo may be retaliated by embargo, and commerce will be halted at state lines. And yet we have said that 'in matters of foreign and interstate commerce there are no state lines.’ In such commerce, instead of the States, a new power appears and a new welfare, a welfare which transcends that of any State. But rather let us say it is constituted of the welfare of all of the States and that of each State is made the greater by a division of its resources, natural and created, with every other State, and those of every other State with it. This was the purpose, as it is the result, of the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution of the United States. If there is to be a turning backward it must be done by the authority of another instrumentality than a court.” 221 U. S., at 255-256. The Court distinguished discriminatory or prohibatory regulations offensive to the Commerce Clause, such as the Oklahoma statute, from a valid "exercise of the police power to regulate the taking of natural gas” that was "universal in its application and justified by the nature of the gas and which allowed its transportation to other states.” Id., at 257; see id., at 252-254 (distinguishing Ohio Oil Co. v. Indiana, 177 U. S. 190 (1900)). In subsequent Commerce Clause challenges to state regulation of exports of natural resources, the West analysis emerged as the dominant approach. See, e. g., Pennsylvania v. West Virginia, 262 U. S. 553, 598-600 (1923); H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Du Mond, 336 U. S. 525 (1949). Today’s principle is that stated in Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U. S. 137, 142 (1970): “Where the statute regulates evenhandedly to effectuate a legitimate local public interest, and its effects on interstate commerce are only incidental, it will be upheld unless the burden imposed on such commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits. ... If a legitimate local purpose is found, then the question becomes one of degree. And the extent of the burden that will be tolerated will of course depend on the nature of the local interest involved, and on whether it could be promoted as well with a lesser impact on interstate activities.” (Citations omitted.) This formulation was employed only last Term to strike down New Jersey’s attempt to “conserve” the natural resource of landfill areas within the State for the disposal of waste generated within the State. Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U. S. 617, 624 (1978). The Geer analysis has also been eroded to the point of virtual extinction in cases involving regulation of wild animals. The first challenge to Geer’s, theory of a State’s power over wild animals came in Missouri v. Holland, 252 U. S. 416 (1920). The State of Missouri, relying on the theory of state ownership of wild animals, attacked the Migratory Bird Treaty Act on the ground that it interfered with the State’s control over wild animals within its boundaries. Writing for the Court, Mr. Justice Holmes upheld the Act as a proper exercise of the treatymaking power. He commented in passing on the artificiality of the Geer rationale: “To put the claim of the State upon title is to lean upon a slender reed.” 252 U. S., at 434. Foster-Fountain Packing Co. v. Haydel, 278 U. S. 1 (1928), undermined Geer even more directly. A Louisiana statute forbade the transportation beyond the State of shrimp taken in Louisiana waters until the heads and shells had been removed. The statute clearly relied on the Geer state-control-of-ownership rationale. Anyone lawfully taking shrimp from Louisiana waters was granted “a qualified interest which may be sold within the State.” Only after the head and shell had been removed within the State did the taker or possessor acquire “title and the right to sell and ship the same ‘beyond the limit[s] of the State, without restriction or reservation.’ ” 278 U. S., at 8. Ignoring the niceties of “title” to the shrimp and concentrating instead on the purposes and effects of the statute, Foster-Fountain Packing struck down the statute as economic protectionism abhorrent to the Commerce Clause. The analysis resembled that employed in the natural gas cases, which were cited with approval, id., at 10-11, 13. Geer was distinguished on the ground that there “[n]o part of the game was permitted by the statute to become an article of interstate commerce.” 278 U. S., at 12. Limiting Geer to cases involving complete embargoes on interstate commerce in a wild animal created the anomalous result that the most burdensome laws enjoyed the most protection from Commerce Clause attack. Foster-Fountain Packing’s implicit shift away from Geer’s formalistic “ownership” analysis became explicit in Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U. S. 385, 402 (1948), which struck down as violations of the Commerce Clause and the Privileges and Immunities Clause certain South Carolina laws discriminating against out-of-state commercial fishermen: “The whole ownership theory, in fact, is now generally regarded as but a fiction expressive in legal shorthand of the importance to its people that a State have power to preserve and regulate the exploitation of an important resource. And there is no necessary conflict between that vital policy consideration and the constitutional command that the State exercise that power, like its other powers, so as not to discriminate without reason against citizens of other States.” Although stated in reference to the Privileges and Immunities Clause challenge, this reasoning is equally applicable to the Commerce Clause challenge. Douglas v. Seacoast Products, Inc., 431 U. S. 265 (1977), dispelled any doubts on that score. In rejecting the argument that Virginia’s “ownership” of fish swimming in its territorial waters empowered the State to forbid fishing by federally licensed ships owned by nonresidents while permitting residents to fish, Seacoast Products explicitly embraced the analysis of the Geer dissenters: “A State does not stand in the same position as the owner of a private game preserve and it is pure fantasy to talk of 'owning’ wild fish, birds, or animals. Neither the States nor the Federal Government, any more than a hopeful fisherman or hunter, has title to these creatures until they are reduced to possession by skillful capture.... Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U. S. 519, 539-540 (1896) (Field, J., dissenting). The 'ownership’ language of cases such as those cited by appellant must be understood as no more than a 19th-century legal fiction expressing 'the importance to its people that a State have power to preserve and regulate the exploitation of an important resource.’ [Citing Toomer.] Under modern analysis, the question is simply whether the State has exercised its police power in conformity with the federal laws and Constitution.” 431 U. S., at 284. C The case before us is the first in modern times to present facts essentially on all fours with Geer. We now conclude that challenges under the Commerce Clause to state regulations of wild animals should be considered according to the same general rule applied to state regulations of other natural resources, and therefore expressly overrule Geer. We thus bring our analytical framework into conformity with practical realities. Overruling Geer also eliminates the anomaly, created by the decisions distinguishing Geer, that statutes imposing the most extreme burdens on interstate commerce (essentially total embargoes) were the most immune from challenge. At the same time, the general rule we adopt in this case makes ample allowance for preserving, in ways not inconsistent with the Commerce Clause, the legitimate state concerns for conservation and protection of wild animals underlying the 19th-century legal fiction of state ownership. II We turn then to the question whether the burden imposed on interstate commerce in wild game by § 4-115 (B) is permissible under the general rule articulated in our precedents governing other types of commerce. See, e. g., Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U. S., at 142, quoted, supra, at 331. Under that general rule, we must inquire (1) whether the challenged statute regulates evenhandedly with only “incidental” effects on interstate commerce, or discriminates against interstate commerce either on its face or in practical effect; (2) whether the statute serves a legitimate local purpose; and, if so, (3) whether alternative means could promote this local purpose as well without discriminating against interstate commerce. The burden to show discrimination rests on the party challenging the validity of the statute, but “[w]hen discrimination against commerce ... is demonstrated, the burden falls on the State to justify it both in terms of the local benefits flowing from the statute and the unavailability of nondiscriminatory alternatives adequate to preserve, the local interests at stake.” Hunt v. Washington Apple Advertising Comm’n, 432 U. S. 333, 353 (1977). Furthermore, when considering the purpose of a challenged statute, this Court is not bound by “[t]he name, description or characterization given it by the legislature or the courts of the State,” but will determine for itself the practical impact of the law. Lacoste v. Louisiana Dept. of Conservation, 263 U. S. 545, 550 (1924); see Foster-Fountain Packing Co. v. Haydel, 278 U. S., at 10; Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., supra. Section 4-115 (B.) on its face discriminates against interstate commerce. It forbids the transportation of natural minnows out of the State for purposes of sale, and thus “overtly blocks the flow of interstate commerce at [the] State’s borders.” Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U. S., at 624. Such facial discrimination by itself may be a fatal defect, regardless of the State’s purpose, because “the evil of protectionism can reside in legislative means as well as legislative ends.” Id., at 626. At a minimum such facial discrimination invokes the strictest scrutiny of any purported legitimate local purpose and of the absence of nondiscriminatory alternatives. Oklahoma argues that § A-115 (B) serves a legitimate local purpose in that it is “readily apparent as a conservation measure.” Brief for Appellee 8. The State’s interest in maintaining the ecological balance in state waters by avoiding the removal of inordinate numbers of minnows may well qualify as a legitimate local purpose. We consider the States’ interests in conservation and protection of wild animals as legitimate local purposes similar to the States’ interests in protecting the health and safety of their citizens. See, e. g., Firemen v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 393 U. S. 129 (1968). But the scope of legitimate state interests in “conservation” is narrower under this analysis than it was under Geer. A State may no longer “keep the property, if the sovereign so chooses, always within its jurisdiction for every purpose.” Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U. S., at 530. The fiction of state ownership may no longer be used to force those outside the State to bear the full costs of “conserving” the wild animals within its borders when-equally effective nondiscriminatory conservation measures are available. Far from choosing the least discriminatory alternative, Oklahoma has chosen to “conserve” its minnows in the way that most overtly discriminates against interstate commerce. The State places no limits on the numbers of minnows that can be taken by licensed minnow dealers; nor does it limit in any way how these minnows may be disposed of within the State. Yet it forbids the transportation of any commercially significant number of natural minnows out of the State for sale. Section 4-115 (B) is certainly not a “last ditch” attempt at conservation after nondiscriminatory alternatives have proved unfeasible. It is rather a choice of the most discriminatory means even though nondiscriminatory alternatives would seem likely to fulfill the State’s purported legitimate local purpose more effectively. We therefore hold that § 4-115 (B) is repugnant to the Commerce Clause. Ill The overruling of Geer does not leave the States powerless to protect and conserve wild animal life within their borders. Today’s decision makes clear, however, that States may promote this legitimate purpose only in ways consistent with the basic principle that “our economic unit is the Nation,” H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Du Mond, 336 U. S., at 537, and that when a wild animal “becomes an article of commerce . . . its use cannot be limited to the citizens of one State to the exclusion of citizens of another State.” Geer v. Connecticut, supra, at 538 (Field, J., dissenting). Reversed. Section 4-115 provides in full: “A. No person may ship or transport minnows for sale into this state from an outside source without having first procured a license for such from the Director. “B. No person may transport or ship minnows for sale outside the state which were seined or procured within the waters of this state except that: “1. Nothing contained herein shall prohibit any person from leaving the state possessing three (3) dozen or less minnows; “2. Nothing contained herein shall prohibit sale and shipment of minnows raised in a regularly licensed commercial minnow hatchery. “C. The fee for a license under this section shall be: "1. For residents, One Hundred Dollars ($100.00); “2. For nonresidents, Three Hundred Dollars ($300.00). “D. Any person convicted of violating any provisions of this section shall be punished by a fine of not less than One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) nor more than Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00).” The prohibition against transportation out of State for sale thus does not apply to hatchery-bred minnows, but only to “natural” minnows seined or procured from waters within the State. Section 4r-115 (B) is part of the Oklahoma Wildlife Conservation Code. Another provision of that Code requires that persons have a minnow dealer’s license before they can lawfully seine or trap minnows within the State — except for their own use as bait — §4^11(5 (Supp. 1978), but no limit is imposed on the number of minnows a licensed dealer may take from state waters. Nor is there any regulation except § 4r-115 (B) concerning the disposition of lawfully acquired minnows; they may be sold within Oklahoma to any person and for any purpose, and may be taken out of the State for any purpose except sale. “The Commerce Clause is one of the most prolific sources of national power and an equally prolific source of conflict with legislation of the state. While the Constitution vests in Congress the power to regulate commerce among the states, it does not say what the states may or may not do in the absence of congressional action, nor how to draw the line between what is and what is not commerce among the states. Perhaps even more than by interpretation of its written word, this Court has advanced the solidarity and prosperity of this Nation by the meaning it has given to these great silences of the Constitution.” H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Du Mond, 336 U. S., at 534-535. Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U. S. 617, 621-623 (1978), made clear that there is no “two-tiered definition of commerce.” The definition of “commerce” is the same when relied on to strike down or restrict state legislation as when relied on to support some exertion of federal control or regulation. See, e. g., Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 209 (1824); Willson v. Black Bird Creek Marsh Co., 2 Pet. 245 (1829); Cooley v. Board of Wardens, 12 How. 299 (1852); Port Richmond & Bergen Point Perry Co. v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 234 U. S. 317 (1914); Di Santo v. Pennsylvania, 273 U. S. 34 (1927); Parker v. Brown, 317 U. S. 341 (1943); Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona ex rel. Sullivan, 325 U. S. 761 (1945); H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Du Mond, supra; Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U. S. 137 (1970). See generally, F. Frankfurter, The Commerce Clause Under Marshall, Taney and Waite (1937); Dowling, Interstate Commerce and State Power, 27 Va. L. Rev. 1 (1940); Dowling, Interstate Commerce and State Power — Revised Version, 47 Colum. L. Rev. 547 (1947). “[T] he sole issue which the case presents is, was it lawful under the Constitution of the United States (section 8, Article I) for the State of Connecticut to allow the killing of birds within the State during a designated open season, to allow such birds, when so killed, to be used, to be sold and to be bought for use within the State, and yet to forbid their transportation beyond the State? Or, to state it otherwise, had the State of Connecticut the power to regulate the killing of game within her borders so as to confine its use to the limits of the State and forbid its transmission outside of the State?” 161 U. S., at 522. Id., at 522-529. The Court has recognized that Geer’s analysis of the authorities on this issue is open to question. Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U. S. 385, 402 n. 37 (1948). “The qualification which forbids [the game’s] removal from the State necessarily entered into and formed part of every transaction on the subject, and deprived the mere sale or exchange of these articles of that element of freedom of contract and of full ownership which is an essential attribute of commerce. Passing, however, as we do, the decision of this question, and granting that the dealing in game killed within the State, under the provision in question, created internal State commerce, it does not follow that such internal commerce became necessarily the subject-matter of interstate commerce, and therefore under the control of the Constitution of the United States. "... The power of the State to control the killing of and ownership in game being admitted, the commerce in game, which the state law permitted, was necessarily only internal commerce, since the restriction that it should not become the subject of external commerce went along with the grant and was a part of it.” 161 U. S., at 530-532. Our Brother Rehnquist suggests that the Court in Geer offered as an “alternative basis for its decision” (in the final paragraph of its 15-page opinion) that the “State, in the exercise of its police power, could act to preserve for its people a valuable food supply, even though interstate commerce was remotely and indirectly affected.” Post, at 340 n. 3. That this was not an “alternative basis,” however, is made clear in a sentence not quoted by our Brother Rehnquist: “The power of a State to protect by adequate police regulation its people against the adulteration of articles of food, . . . although in doing so commerce might be remotely affected, necessarily carries with it the existence of a like power to preserve a food supply which belongs in common to all the people of the State, which can only become the subject of ownership in a qualified way, and which can never be the object of commerce except with the consent of the State and subject to the conditions which it may deem best to impose for the public good.” 161 U. S., at 535 (emphasis added). Thus, rather than an “alternative basis” independent of the “state ownership” and “no interstate commerce” rationales, this “preservation of a valuable resource” rationale was premised on those rationales. In any event, even if an “alternative basis,” this rationale has met the same fate as Geer’s primary rationale. See infra, at 329-331, and n. 9. 161 U. S., at 541 (Field, J., dissenting); see id., at 543 (Harlan, J., dissenting). Id., at 538, 541-542 (Field, J., dissenting); see id., at 543-544 (Harlan, J., dissenting). The inconsistency between the result in this case and that in Geer was not overlooked by the dissenting Justices. See Pennsylvania v. West Virginia, 262 U. S., at 601 (Holmes, J., dissenting). Significantly, our Brother BjehNquist relies on this dissent in his discussion of the “alternative basis” of Geer — the “preservation of a valuable natural resource” rationale. See n. 6, supra; post, at 340-341, n. 3. The Court opinion in Pennsylvania v. West Virginia, like that in West, expressly rejected this argument along with the “no interstate commerce” rationale. 262 U. S., at 599-600. The law challenged in Foster-Fountain Packing Co. was passed in July 1926. The state legislature may have been encouraged to take such action by certain language in Lacoste v. Louisiana Dept. of Conservation, 263 U. S. 545 (1924), language also relied on by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals in this case. Lacoste upheld a Louisiana “severance” tax on the skins of all wild furbearing animals and alligators taken in the State. The Court cited Geer for the proposition that: “The wild animals within its borders are, so far as capable of ownership, owned by the State in its sovereign capacity for the common benefit of all of its people. Because of such ownership, and in the exercise of its police power the State may regulate and control the taking, subsequent use and property rights that may be acquired therein.” 263 U. S., at 549. Nevertheless, Lacoste expressly declined to uphold the tax “by virtue of the power of the State to prohibit, and therefore to condition, the removal of wild game from the State.” Ibid. Rather than reach this issue, the Court upheld the measure as a valid police regulation designed to conserve and protect wild animals, noting that the tax applied to all skins taken within the State, whether kept within the State or shipped out. Id., at 550-551. Thus, despite its citation of Geer, Lacoste is actually more compatible with the cases following the views of the Justices dissenting in Geer. The preamble to the Act read in part as follows: “To declare all shrimp and parts thereof in the waters of the State to be the property of the State of Louisiana, and to provide the manner and extent of their reduction to private ownership Foster-Fountain Packing Co. v. Haydel, 278 U. S., at 5 n. The Court cited these cases for the proposition that “[a] State is without power to prevent privately owned articles of trade from being shipped and sold in interstate commerce on the ground that they are required to satisfy local demands or because they are needed by the people of the State.” Id., at 10. “As the representative of its people, the State might have retained the shrimp for consumption and use therein. . . . But by permitting its shrimp to be taken and all the products thereof to be shipped and sold in interstate commerce, the State necessarily releases its hold and, as to the shrimp so taken, definitely terminates its control. Clearly such authorization and the taking in pursuance thereof put an end to the trust upon which the State is deemed to own or control the shrimp for the benefit of its people. And those taking the shrimp under the authority of the Act necessarily thereby become entitled to the rights of private ownership and the protection of the commerce clause.” Id., at 13. See Hicklin v. Orbeck, 437 U. S. 518, 531-532 (1978). The Court distinguished Geer on the same basis used in Foster-Fountain Packing Co., 334 U. S., at 404-406. Takahashi v. Fish & Game Comm’n, 334 U. S. 410, 420-421 (1948), decided the same day as Toomer, reviewed the cases distinguishing and questioning Geer and found the State's claim to “ownership” inadequate to justify a ban on commercial fishing by alien residents. “In more recent years . . . the Court has recognized that the States’ interest in regulating and controlling those things they claim to 'own,’ including wildlife, is by no means absolute. States may not compel the confinement of the benefits of their resources, even .their wildlife, to their own people whenever such hoarding and confinement impedes interstate commerce. Foster-Fountain Packing Co. v. Haydel, 278 U. S. 1 (1928) ; Pennsylvania v. West Virginia, 262 U. S. 553 (1923); West v. Kansas Natural Gas Co., 221 U. S. 229 (1911).” Baldwin v. Montana Fish & Game Comm’n, 436 U. S. 371, 385-386 (1978). See, e. g., Douglas v. Seacoast Products, Inc., 431 U. S. 265, 285 n. 21 (1977). “ [W] hatever [a State’s] ultimate purpose, it may not be accomplished by discriminating against articles of commerce coming from outside the State unless there is some reason, apart from their origin, to treat them differently.” Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U. S., at 626-627. See n. 1, supra. Section 4-115 (B) does not apply to persons transporting three dozen or less natural minnows outside the State. See n. 1, supra. In its brief, Oklahoma argues, apparently for the first time, that the discrimination against out-of-state sales of natural minnows is justified because minnows purchased in the State are more likely to be used for bait in state waters. Brief for Appellee 3. The State contends that minnows “returned” to state waters as bait do not upset the ecological balance as much as those that never “return.” The late appearance of this argument and the total absence of any record support for the questionable factual assumptions that underlie it give it the flavor of a post hoc rationalization. The State’s bare assertion is certainly inadequate to survive the scrutiny invoked by the facial discrimination of § 4r-115 (B). In any case, Oklahoma itself concedes that the “return” of natural minnows as bait is irrelevant to most aspects of preserving ecological balance. Brief for Appellee 4. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy 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 Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court. The question presented is whether an Ohio statute that prohibits the distribution of anonymous campaign literature is a “law... abridging the freedom of speech” within the meaning of the First Amendment. I On April 27, 1988, Margaret McIntyre distributed leaflets to persons attending a public meeting at the Blendon Middle School in Westerville, Ohio. At this meeting, the superintendent of schools planned to discuss an imminent referendum on a proposed school tax levy. The leaflets expressed Mrs. McIntyre’s opposition to the levy. There is no suggestion that the text of her message was false, misleading, or libelous. She had composed and printed it on her home computer and had paid a professional printer to make additional copies. Some of the handbills identified her as the author; others merely purported to express the views of “CONCERNED PARENTS AND TAX PAYERS.” Except for the help provided by her son and a friend, who placed some of the leaflets on car windshields in the school parking lot, Mrs. McIntyre acted independently. While Mrs. McIntyre distributed her handbills, an official of the school district, who supported the tax proposal, advised her that the unsigned leaflets did not conform to the Ohio election laws. Undeterred, Mrs. McIntyre appeared at another meeting on the next evening and handed out more of the handbills. The proposed school levy was defeated at the next two elections, but it finally passed on its third try in November 1988. Five months later, the same school official filed a complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission charging that Mrs. McIntyre's distribution of unsigned leaflets violated § 3599.09(A) of the Ohio Code. The commission agreed and imposed a fine of $100. The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas reversed. Finding that Mrs. McIntyre did not “mislead the public nor act in a surreptitious manner,” the court concluded that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to her conduct. App. to Pet. for Cert. A-34 to A-35. The Ohio Court of Appeals, by a divided vote, reinstated the fine. Notwithstanding doubts about the continuing validity of a 1922 decision of the Ohio Supreme Court upholding the statutory predecessor of § 3599.09(A), the majority considered itself bound by that precedent. Id., at A-20 to A-21, citing State v. Babst, 104 Ohio St. 167, 135 N. E. 525 (1922). The dissenting judge thought that our intervening decision in Talley v. California, 362 U. S. 60 (1960), in which we invalidated a city ordinance prohibiting all anonymous leafletting, compelled the Ohio court to adopt a narrowing construction of the statute to save its constitutionality. App. to Pet. for Cert. A-30 to A-31. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed by a divided vote. The majority distinguished Mrs. McIntyre’s case from Talley on the ground that § 3599.09(A) “has as its purpose the identification of persons who distribute materials containing false statements.” 67 Ohio St. 3d 391, 394, 618 N. E. 2d 152, 154 (1993). The Ohio court believed that such a law should be upheld if the burdens imposed on the First Amendment rights of voters are “‘reasonable’” and “‘nondiscriminatory.’” Id., at 396, 618 N. E. 2d, at 155, quoting Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U. S. 780, 788 (1983). Under that standard, the majority concluded that the statute was plainly valid: “The minor requirement imposed by R.C. 3599.09 that those persons producing campaign literature identify themselves as the source thereof neither impacts the content of their message nor significantly burdens their ability to have it disseminated. This burden is more than counterbalanced by the state interest in providing the voters to whom the message is directed with a mechanism by which they may better evaluate its validity. Moreover, the law serves to identify those who engage in fraud, libel or false advertising. Not only are such interests sufficient to overcome the minor burden placed upon such persons, these interests were specifically acknowledged in [First Nat. Bank of Boston v.] Bellotti[, 435 U. S. 765 (1978),] to be regulations of the sort which would survive constitutional scrutiny.” 67 Ohio St. 3d. at 396, 618 N. E. 2d, at 155-156. In dissent, Justice Wright argued that the statute should be tested under a more severe standard because of its significant effect “on the ability of individual citizens to.freely express their views in writing on political issues.” Id., at 398, 618 N. E. 2d, at 156-157. He concluded that § 3599.09(A) “is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest and is, therefore, unconstitutional as applied to McIntyre.” Id., at 401, 618 N. E. 2d, at 159. Mrs. McIntyre passed away during the pendency of this litigation. Even though the amount in controversy is only $100, petitioner, as the executor of her estate, has pursued her claim in this Court. Our grant of certiorari, 510 U. S. 1108 (1994), reflects our agreement with his appraisal of the importance of the question presented. II Ohio maintains that the statute under review is a reasonable regulation of the electoral process. The State does not suggest that all anonymous publications are pernicious or that a statute totally excluding them from the marketplace of ideas would be valid. This is a wise (albeit implicit) concession, for the anonymity of an author is not ordinarily a sufficient reason to exclude her work product from the protections of the First Amendment. “Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind.” Talley v. California, 362 U. S., at 64. Great works of literature have frequently been produced by authors writing under assumed names. Despite readers’ curiosity and the public’s interest in identifying the creator of a work of art, an author generally is free to decide whether or not to disclose his or her true identity. The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one’s privacy as possible. Whatever the motivation may be, at least in the field of literary endeavor, the interest in having anonymous works enter the marketplace of ideas unquestionably outweighs any public interest in requiring disclosure as a condition of entry. Accordingly, an author’s decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. The, freedom to publish anonymously extends beyond the literary realm. In Talley, the Court held that the First Amendment protects the distribution of unsigned handbills urging readers to boycott certain Los Angeles merchants who were allegedly engaging in discriminatory employment practices. 362 U. S. 60. Writing for the Court, Justice Black noted that “[persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all.” Id., at 64. Justice Black recalled England’s abusive press licensing laws and seditious libel prosecutions, and he reminded us that even the arguments favoring the ratification of the Constitution advanced in the Federalist Papers were published under fictitious names. Id., at 64-65. On occasion, quite apart from any threat of persecution, an advocate may believe her ideas will be more persuasive if her readers are unaware of her identity. Anonymity thereby provides a way for a writer who may be personally unpopular to ensure that readers will not prejudge her message simply because they do not like its proponent. Thus, even in the field of political rhetoric, where “the identity of the speaker is an important component of many attempts to persuade,” City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U. S. 43, 56 (1994) (footnote omitted), the most effective advocates have sometimes opted for anonymity. The specific holding in Talley related to advocacy of an economic boycott, but the Court’s reasoning embraced a respected tradition of anonymity in the advocacy of political causes. This tradition is perhaps best exemplified by the secret ballot, the hard-won right to vote one’s conscience without fear of retaliation. Ill California had defended the Los Angeles ordinance at issue in Talley as a law “aimed at providing a way to identify those responsible for fraud, false advertising and libel.” 362 U. S., at 64. We rejected that argument because nothing in the text or legislative history of the ordinance limited its application to those evils. Ibid. We then made clear that we did “not pass on the validity of an ordinance limited to prevent these or any other supposed evils.” Ibid. The Ohio statute likewise contains no language limiting its application to fraudulent, false, or libelous statements; to the extent, therefore, that Ohio seeks to justify § 3599.09(A) as a means to prevent the dissemination of untruths, its defense must fail for the same reason given in Talley. As the facts of this case demonstrate, the ordinance plainly applies even when there is no hint of falsity or libel. Ohio’s statute does, however, contain a different limitation: It applies only to unsigned documents designed to influence voters in an election. In contrast, the Los Angeles ordinance prohibited all anonymous handbilling “in any place under any circumstances.” Id., at 60-61. For that reason, Ohio correctly argues that Talley does not necessarily control the disposition of this case. We must, therefore, decide whether and to what extent the First Amendment’s protection of anonymity encompasses documents intended to influence the electoral process. Ohio places its principal reliance on eases such as Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U. S. 780 (1983); Storer v. Brown, 415 U. S. 724 (1974); and Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U. S. 428 (1992), in which we reviewed election code provisions governing the voting process itself. See Anderson, supra (filing deadlines); Storer, supra (ballot access); Burdick, supra (write-in voting); see also Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U. S. 208 (1986) (eligibility of independent voters to vote in party primaries). In those cases we refused to adopt “any ‘litmus-paper test’ that will separate valid from invalid restrictions.” Anderson, 460 U. S., at 789, quoting Storer, 415 U. S., at 730. Instead, we pursued an analytical process comparable to that used by courts “in ordinary litigation”: We considered the relative interests of the State and the injured voters, and we evaluated the extent to which the State’s interests necessitated the contested restrictions. Anderson, 460 U. S., at 789. Applying similar reasoning in this case, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld § 3599.09(A) as a “reasonable” and “nondiscriminatory” burden on the rights of voters. 67 Ohio St. 3d, at 396, 618 N. E. 2d, at 155, quoting Anderson, 460 U. S., at 788. The “ordinary litigation” test does not apply here. Unlike the statutory provisions challenged in Storer and Anderson, § 3599.09(A) of the Ohio Code does not control the mechanics of the electoral process. It is a regulation of pure speech. Moreover, even though this provision applies evenhandedly to advocates of differing viewpoints, it is a direct regulation of the content of speech. Every written document covered by the statute must contain “the name and residence or business address of the chairman, treasurer, or secretary of the organization issuing the same, or the person who issues, makes, or is responsible therefor.” Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3599.09(A) (1988). Furthermore, the category of covered documents is defined by their content — only those publications containing speech designed to influence the voters in an election need bear the required markings. Ibid. Consequently, we are not faced with an ordinary election restriction; this case “involves a limitation on political expression subject to exacting scrutiny.” Meyer v. Grant, 486 U. S. 414, 420 (1988). Indeed, as we have explained on many prior occasions, the category of speech regulated by the Ohio statute occupies the core of the protection afforded by the First Amendment: “Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates are integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution. The First Amendment affords the broadest protection to such political expression in order ‘to assure [the] unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.’ Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, 484 (1957). Although First Amendment protections are not confined to ‘the exposition of ideas,’ Winters v. New York, 333 U. S. 507, 510 (1948), ‘there is practically universal agreement that a major purpose of that Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs,... of course including] discussions of candidates....’ Mills v. Alabama, 384 U. S. 214, 218 (1966). This no more than reflects our ‘profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open,’ New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 270 (1964). In a republic where the people are sovereign, the ability of the citizenry to make informed choices among candidates for office is essential, for the identities of those who are elected will inevitably shape the course that we follow as a nation, As the Court observed in Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U. S. 265, 272 (1971), ‘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.’” Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 14-15 (1976) (per curiam). Of course, core political speech need not center on a candidate for office. The principles enunciated in Buckley extend equally to issue-based elections such as the school tax referendum that Mrs. McIntyre sought to influence through her handbills. See First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 776-777 (1978) (speech on income tax referendum “is at the heart of the First Amendment’s protection”). Indeed, the speech in which Mrs. McIntyre engaged — handing out leaflets in the advocacy of a politically controversial viewpoint — is the essence of First Amendment expression. See International Soc. for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee, 505 U. S. 672 (1992); Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U. S. 444 (1938). That this advocacy occurred in the heat of a controversial referendum vote only strengthens the protection afforded to Mrs. McIntyre’s expression: Urgent, important, and effective speech can be no less protected than impotent speech, lest the right to speak be relegated to those instances when it is least needed. See Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U. S. 1, 4 (1949). No form of speech is entitled to greater constitutional protection than Mrs. McIntyre’s. When a law burdens core political speech, we apply “exacting scrutiny,” and we uphold the restriction only if it is narrowly tailored to serve an overriding state interest. See, e. g., Bellotti, 435 U. S., at 786. Our precedents thus make abundantly clear that the Ohio Supreme Court applied a significantly more lenient standard than is appropriate in a case of this kind. IV Nevertheless, the State argues that, even under the strictest standard of review, the disclosure requirement in § 3599.09(A) is justified by two important and legitimate state interests. Ohio judges its interest in preventing fraudulent and libelous statements and its interest in providing the electorate with relevant information to be sufficiently compelling to justify the anonymous speech ban. These two interests necessarily overlap to some extent, but it is useful to discuss them separately. Insofar as the interest in informing the electorate means nothing more than the provision of additional information that may either buttress or undermine the argument in a document, we think the identity of the speaker is no different from other components of the document’s content that the author is free to include or exclude.. We have already held that the State may not compel a newspaper that prints editorials critical of a particular candidate to provide space for a reply by the candidate. Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U. S. 241 (1974). The simple interest in providing voters with additional relevant information does not justify a state requirement that a writer make statements or disclosures she would otherwise omit. Moreover, in the case of a handbill written by a private citizen who is not known to the recipient, the name and address of the author add little, if anything, to the reader’s ability to evaluate the document’s message. Thus, Ohio’s informational interest is plainly insufficient to support the constitutionality of its disclosure requirement. The state interest in preventing fraud and libel stands on a different footing. We agree with Ohio’s submission that this interest carries special weight during election campaigns when false statements, if credited, may have serious adverse consequences for the public at large. Ohio does not, however, rely solely on § 3599.09(A) to protect that interest. Its Election Code includes detailed and specific prohibitions against making or disseminating false statements during political campaigns. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§ 3599.09.1(B), 3599.09.2(B) (1988). These regulations apply both to candidate elections and to issue-driven ballot measures. Thus, Ohio’s prohibition of anonymous leaflets plainly is not its principal weapon against fraud. Rather, it serves as an aid to enforcement of the specific prohibitions and as a deterrent to the making of false statements by unscrupulous prevaricators. Although these ancillary benefits are assuredly legitimate, we are not persuaded that they justify § 3599.09(A)’s extremely broad prohibition. As this case demonstrates, the prohibition encompasses documents that are not even arguably false or misleading. It applies not only to the activities of candidates and their organized supporters, but also to individuals acting independently and using only their own modest resources. It applies not only to elections of public officers, but also to ballot issues that present neither a substantial risk of libel nor any potential appearance of corrupt advantage. It applies not only to leaflets distributed on the eve of an election, when the opportunity for reply is limited, but also to those distributed months in advance. It applies no matter what the character or strength of the author’s interest in anonymity. Moreover, as this case also demonstrates, the absence of the author’s name on a document does not necessarily protect either that person or a distributor of a forbidden document from being held responsible for compliance with the Election Code. Nor has the State explained why it can more easily enforce the direct bans on disseminating false documents against anonymous authors and distributors than against wrongdoers who might use false names and addresses in an attempt to avoid detection. We recognize that a State’s enforcement interest might justify a more limited identification requirement, but Ohio has shown scant cause for inhibiting the leafletting at issue here. V Finally, Ohio vigorously argues that our opinions in First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765 (1978), and Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1 (1976) (per curiam), amply support the constitutionality of its disclosure requirement. Neither case is controlling: The former concerned the scope of First Amendment protection afforded to corporations; the relevant portion of the latter concerned mandatory disclosure of campaign-related expenditures. Neither case involved a prohibition of anonymous campaign literature. In Bellotti, we reversed a judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts sustaining a state law that prohibited corporate expenditures designed to influence the vote on referendum proposals. 435 U. S. 765. The Massachusetts court had held that the First Amendment protects corporate speech only if its message pertains directly to the business interests of the corporation. Id., at 771-772. Consistently with our holding today, we noted that the “inherent worth of the speech in terms of its capacity for informing the public does not depend upon the identity of its source, whether corporation, association, union, or individual.” Id., at 777. We also made it perfectly clear that we were not deciding whether the First Amendment’s protection of corporate speech is coextensive with the protection it affords to individuals. Accordingly, although we commented in dicta on the prophylactic effect of requiring identification of the source of corporate advertising, that footnote did not necessarily apply to independent communications by an individual like Mrs. McIntyre. Our reference in the Bellotti footnote to the “prophylactic effect” of disclosure requirements cited a portion of our earlier opinion in Buckley, in which we stressed the importance of providing “the electorate with information ‘as to where political campaign money comes from and how it is spent by the candidate.’” 424 U. S., at 66. We observed that the “sources of a candidate’s financial support also alert the voter to the interests to which a candidate is most likely to be responsive and thus facilitate predictions of future performance in office.” Id., at 67. Those comments concerned contributions to the candidate or expenditures authorized by the candidate or his responsible agent. They had no reference to the kind of independent activity pursued by Mrs. McIntyre. Required disclosures about the level of financial support a candidate has received from various sources are supported by an interest in avoiding the appearance of corruption that has no application to this case. True, in another portion of the Buckley opinion we expressed approval of a requirement that even “independent expenditures” in excess of a threshold level be reported to the Federal Election Commission. Id., at 75-76. But that requirement entailed nothing more than an identification to the Commission of the amount and use of money expended in support of a candidate. See id., at 157-159,160 (reproducing relevant portions of the statute). Though such mandatory reporting undeniably impedes protected First Amendment activity, the intrusion is a far cry from compelled self-identification on all election-related writings. A written election-related document — particularly a leaflet — is often a personally crafted statement of a political viewpoint. Mrs. McIntyre’s handbills surely fit that description. As such, identification of the author against her will is particularly intrusive; it reveals unmistakably the content of her thoughts on a controversial issue. Disclosure of an expenditure and its use, without more, reveals far less information. It may be information that a person prefers to keep secret, and undoubtedly it often gives away something about the spender’s political views. Nonetheless, even though money may “talk,” its speech is less specific, less personal, and less provocative than a handbill — and as a result, when money supports an unpopular viewpoint it is less likely to precipitate retaliation. Not only is the Ohio statute’s infringement on speech more intrusive than the Buckley disclosure requirement, but it rests on different and less powerful state interests. The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, at issue in Buckley, regulates only candidate elections, not referenda or other issue-based ballot measures; and we construed “independent expenditures” to mean only those expenditures that “expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate.” Id., at 80. In candidate elections, the Government can identify a compelling state interest in avoiding the corruption that might result from campaign expenditures. Disclosure of expenditures lessens the risk that individuals will spend money to support a candidate as a quid pro quo for special treatment after the candidate is in office. Curriers of favor will be deterred by the knowledge that all expenditures will be scrutinized by the Federal Election Commission and by the public for just this sort of abuse. Moreover, the federal Act contains numerous legitimate disclosure requirements for campaign organizations; the similar requirements for independent expenditures serve to ensure that a campaign organization will not seek to evade disclosure by routing its expenditures through individual supporters. See Buckley, 424 U. S., at 76. In short, although Buckley may permit a more narrowly drawn statute, it surely is not authority for upholding Ohio’s open-ended provision. VI Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. See generally J. Mill, On Liberty and Considerations on Representative Government 1, 3-4 (R. McCallum ed. 1947). It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation — and their ideas from suppression — at the hand of an intolerant society. The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. But political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse. See Abrams v. United States, 250 U. S. 616, 630-631 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting). Ohio has not shown that its interest in preventing the misuse of anonymous election-related speech justifies a prohibition of all uses of that speech. The State may, and does, punish fraud directly. But it cannot seek to punish fraud indirectly by indiscriminately outlawing a category of speech, based on its content, with no necessary relationship to the danger sought to be prevented. One would be hard pressed to think of a better example of the pitfalls of Ohio’s blunderbuss approach than the facts of the case before us. The judgment of the Ohio Supreme Court is reversed. It is so ordered. The term “liberty” in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution makes the First Amendment applicable to the States. The Fourteenth Amendment reads, in relevant part: “No State shall... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law....” U. S. Const., Arndt. 14, §1. Referring to that Clause in his separate opinion in Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357 (1927), Justice Brandéis stated that “all fundamental rights comprised within the term liberty are protected by the Federal Constitution from invasion by the States. The right of free speech, the right to teach and the right of assembly are, of course, fundamental rights.” Id., at 373 (concurring opinion). Although the text of the First Amendment provides only that “Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech...,” Justice Brandéis’ view has been embedded in our law ever since. See First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellota, 435 U. S. 765, 779-780 (1978); see also Stevens, The Bill of Rights: A Century of Progress, 59 U. Chi. L. Rev. 13, 20, 25-26 (1992). The following is one of Mrs. McIntyre’s leaflets, in its original typeface: m & me 12 sasa. is* t£zx Last election Westerville Schools, asked us to vote yes for new buildings and expansions prograss. We gave then what they asked. We knew there was erewded conditions and new growth in the district. Now we find out there is a 4 aillion dollar deficit - WHY? We are told the 3 eiddle schools oust be split because of over-crowding, and yet we are told 3 schools are being closed *■ WHY? A sagnet school is not a full operating sehool, but a specials school. Residents were asked to work en a 20 sender cosnission to help formulate the new boundaries for 4 weeks they worked long and hard and cess up with a very workable plan. Their plan was totally disregarded * WHY? WASTE of tax payers dollars aust be stooped. Our children's education and welfare must cose first. WASTE £AN {ffl LONSER ££ TOLERATED. please vote no ISSUE 19 TWV* YOU. CONCERNED PARENTS ANO TAX PAYERS Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3599.09(A) (1988) provides: “No person shall write, print, post, or distribute, or cause to be written, printed, posted, or distributed, a notice, placard, dodger, advertisement, sample ballot, or any other form of general publication which is designed to promote the nomination or election or defeat of a candidate, or to promote the adoption or defeat of any issue, or to influence the voters in any election, or make an expenditure for the purpose of financing political communications through newspapers, magazines, outdoor advertising facilities, direct mailings, or other similar types of general public political advertising, or through flyers, handbills, or other nonperiodical printed matter, unless there appears on such form of publication in a conspicuous place or is contained within said statement the name and residence or business address of the chairman, treasurer, or secretary of the organization issuing the same, or the person who issues, makes, or is responsible therefor. The disclaimer ‘paid political advertisement’ is not sufficient to meet the requirements of this division. When such publication is issued by the regularly constituted central or executive committee of a political party, organized as provided in Chapter 3517. of the Revised Code, it shall be sufficiently identified if it bears the name of the committee and its chairman or treasurer. No person, firm, or corporation shall print or reproduce any notice, placard, dodger, advertisement, sample ballot, or any other form of publication' in violation of this section. This section does not apply to the transmittal of personal correspondence that is not reproduced by machine for general distribution. “The secretary of state may, by rule, exempt, from the requirements of this division, printed matter and certain other kinds of printed communications such as campaign buttons, balloons, pencils, or like items, the size or nature of which makes it unreasonable to add an identification or disclaimer. The disclaimer or identification, when paid for by a campaign committee, shall be identified by the words ‘paid for by’ followed by the name and address of the campaign committee and the appropriate officer of the committee, identified by name and title.” Section 3599.09(B) contains a comparable prohibition against unidentified communications uttered over the broadcasting facilities of any radio or television station. No question concerning that provision is raised in this case. Our opinion, therefore, discusses only written communications and, particularly, leaflets of the kind Mrs. McIntyre distributed. Cf. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U. S. 622, 637-638 (1994) (discussing application of First Amendment principles to regulation of television and radio). The complaint against Mrs. McIntyre also alleged violations of two other provisions of the Ohio Code, but those charges were dismissed and are not before this Court. American names such as Mark Twain (Samuel Langhorne Clemens) and O. Henry (William Sydney Porter) come readily to mind. Benjamin Franklin employed numerous different pseudonyms. See 2 W. Bruce, Benjamin FranWin Self-Revealed: A Biographical and Critical Study Based Mainly on His Own Writings, eh. 5 (2d ed. 1923). Distinguished French authors such as Voltaire (Francois Marie Arouet) and George Sand (Amandine Aurore Lucie Dupin), and British authors such as George Eliot (Mary Ann Evans), Charles Lamb (sometimes wrote as “Elia”), and Charles Dickens (sometimes wrote as “Boz”), also published under assumed names. Indeed, some believe the works of Shakespeare were actually written by the Earl of Oxford rather than by William Shaksper of Stratford-on-Avon. See C. Ogburn, The Mysterious William Shakespeare: The Myth & the Reality (2d ed. 1992); but see S. Schoenbaum, Shakespeare’s Lives (2d ed. 1991) (adhering to the traditional view that Shaksper was in fact the author). See also Stevens, The Shakespeare Canon of Statutory Construction, 140 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1373 (1992) (commenting on the competing theories). Though such a requirement might provide assistance to critics in evaluating the quality and significance of the writing, it is not indispensable. To draw an analogy from a nonliterary context, the now-pervasive practice of grading law school examination papers “blindly” (i. e., under a system in which the professor does not know whose paper she is grading) indicates that such evaluations are possible — indeed, perhaps more reliable — when any bias associated with the author’s identity is prescinded. That tradition is most famously embodied in the Federalist Papers, authored by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, but signed “Publius.” Publius’ opponents, the Anti-Federalists, also tended to publish under pseudonyms: prominent among them were “Cato,” believed to be New York Governor George Clinton; “Centinel,” probably Samuel Bryan or his father, Pennsylvania judge and legislator George Bryan; “The Federal Farmer,” who may have been Richard Henry Lee, a Virginia member of the Continental Congress and a signer of the Declaration of Independence; and “Brutus,” who may have been Robert Yates, a New York Supreme Court justice who walked out on the Constitutional Convention. 2 H. Storing, ed., The Complete Anti-Federalist (1981). A forerunner of all of these writers was the pre-Revolutionary War English pamphleteer “Junius,” whose true identity remains a mystery. See Encyclopedia of Colonial and Revolutionary America 220 (J. Faragher ed. 1990) (positing that “Junius” may have been Sir Phillip Francis). The “Letters of Junius” were “widely reprinted in colonial newspapers and lent considerable support to the revolutionary cause.” Powell v. McCormack, 395 U. S. 486, 531, n. 60 (1969). In his concurring opinion, Justice Harlan added these words: “Here the State says that this ordinance is aimed at the prevention of ‘fraud, deceit, false advertising, negligent use of words, obscenity, and libel,’ in that it will aid in the detection of those responsible for spreading material of that character. But the ordinance is not so limited, and I think it will not do for the State simply to say that the circulation of all anonymous handbills must be suppressed in order to identify the distributors of those that may be of an obnoxious character. In the absence of a more substantial showing as to Los Angeles' actual experience with the distribution of obnoxious handbills, such a generality is for me too remote to furnish a constitutionally acceptable justification for the deterrent effect on free speech which this all-embracing ordinance is likely to have.” 362 U. S., at 66-67 (footnote omitted). Arguably, the disclosure requirement places a more significant burden on advocates of unpopular causes than on defenders of the status quo. For purposes of our analysis, however, we assume the statute evenhandedly burdens all speakers who have a legitimate interest in remaining anonymous. Covered documents are those “designed to promote the nomination or election or defeat of a candidate, or to promote the adoption or defeat of any issue, or to influence the voters in any election....” § 3599.09(A). In Meyer, we unanimously applied strict scrutiny to invalidate an election-related law making it illegal to pay petition circulators for obtaining signatures to place an initiative on the state ballot Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

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 Marshall delivered the opinion of the Court. This case presents an appeal from a decision of the Arizona Supreme Court upholding an Arizona statute requiring a year's residence in a county as a condition to receiving nonemergency hospitalization or medical care at the county's expense. The constitutional question presented is whether this durational residence requirement is repugnant to the Equal Protection Clause as applied by this Court in Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U. S. 618 (1969). I Appellant Henry Evaro is an indigent suffering from a chronic asthmatic and bronchial illness. In early June 1971, Mr. Evaro moved from New Mexico to Phoenix in Maricopa County, Arizona. On July 8, 1971, Evaro had a severe respiratory attack and was sent by his attending physician to appellant Memorial Hospital, a nonprofit private community hospital. Pursuant to the Arizona statute governing medical care for indigents, Memorial notified the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors that it had in its charge an indigent who might qualify for county care and requested that Evaro be transferred to the County’s public hospital facility. In accordance with the approved procedures, Memorial also claimed reimbursement from the County in the amount of $1,202.60, for the care and services it had provided Evaro. Under Arizona law, the individual county governments are charged with the mandatory duty of providing.necessary hospital and medical care for their indigent sick. But the statute requires an indigent to have been a resident of the County for the preceding 12 months in order to be eligible for free nonemergency medical care. Maricopa County refused to admit Evaro to its public hospital or to reimburse Memorial solely because Evaro had not been a resident of the County for the preceding year. Appellees do not dispute that Evaro is an indigent or that he is a bona fide resident of Maricopa County. This action was instituted to determine whether appellee Maricopa County was obligated to provide medical care for Evaro or was liable to Memorial for the costs it incurred because of the County’s refusal to do so. This controversy necessarily requires an adjudication of the constitutionality of the Arizona dura-tional residence requirement for providing free medical care to indigents. The trial court held the residence requirement unconstitutional as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. In a prior three-judge federal court suit against Pinal County, Arizona, the District Court had also declared the residence requirement unconstitutional and had enjoined its future application in Pinal County. Valenciano v. Bateman, 323 F. Supp. 600 (Ariz. 1971). Nonetheless, the Arizona Supreme Court upheld the challenged requirement. To resolve this conflict between a federal court and the highest court of the State, we noted probable jurisdiction, 410 U. S. 981 (1973), and we reverse the judgment of the Arizona Supreme Court. II In determining whether the challenged durational residence provision violates the Equal Protection Clause, we must first determine what burden of justification the classification created thereby must meet, by looking to the nature of the classification and the individual interests affected. The Court considered similar durational residence requirements for welfare assistance in Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U. S. 618 (1969). The Court observed that those requirements created two classes of needy residents “indistinguishable from each other except that one is composed of residents who have resided a year or more, and the second of residents who have resided less than a year, in the jurisdiction. On the basis of this sole difference the first class [was] granted and second class [was] denied welfare aid upon which may depend the ability... to obtain the very means to subsist — food, shelter, and other necessities of life.” Id., at 627. The Court found that because this classification impinged on the constitutionally guaranteed right of interstate travel, it was to be judged by the standard of whether it promoted a compelling state interest. Finding such an interest wanting, the Court held the challenged residence requirements unconstitutional. Appellees argue that the residence requirement before us is distinguishable from those in Shapiro, while appellants urge that Shapiro is controlling. We agree with appellants that Arizona’s durational residence requirement for free medical care must be justified by a compelling state interest and that, such interests being lacking, the requirement is unconstitutional. Ill The right of interstate travel has repeatedly been recognized as a basic constitutional freedom. Whatever its ultimate scope, however, the right to travel was involved in only a limited sense in Shapiro. The Court was there concerned only with the right to migrate, “with intent to settle and abide” or, as the Court put it, “to migrate, resettle, find a new job, and start a new life.” Id., at 629. Even a bona fide residence requirement would burden the right to travel, if travel meant merely movement. But, in Shapiro, the Court explained that “[t]he residence requirement and the one-year waiting-period requirement are distinct and independent prerequisites” for assistance and only the latter was held to be unconstitutional. Id., at 636. Later, in invalidating a durational residence requirement for voter registration on the basis of Shapiro, we cautioned that our decision was not intended to “cast doubt on the validity of appropriately defined and uniformly applied bona fide residence requirements.” Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U. S. 330, 342 n. 13 (1972). IV The appellees argue that the instant county residence requirement is distinguishable from the state residence requirements in Shapiro, in that the former penalizes, not interstate, but rather intrastate, travel. Even were we to draw a constitutional distinction between interstate and intrastate travel, a question we do not now consider, such a distinction would not support the judgment of the Arizona court in the case before us. Appellant Evaro has been effectively penalized for his interstate migration, although this was accomplished under the guise of a county residence requirement. What would be unconstitutional if done directly by the State can no more readily be accomplished by a county at the State’s direction. The Arizona Supreme Court could have construed the waiting-period requirements to apply to intrastate but not interstate migrants; but it did not do so, and “it is not our function to construe a state statute contrary to the construction given it by the highest court of a State.” O’Brien v. Skinner, 414 U. S. 524, 531 (1974). V Although any durational residence requirement impinges to some extent on the right to travel, the Court in Shapiro did not declare such a requirement to be per se unconstitutional. The Court’s holding was conditioned, 394 U. S., at 638 n. 21, by the caveat that some “waiting-period or residence requirements... may not be penalties upon the exercise of the constitutional right of interstate travel.” The amount of impact required to give rise to the compelling-state-interest test was not made clear. The Court spoke of the requisite impact in two ways. First, we considered whether the waiting period would deter migration: “An indigent who desires to migrate... will doubtless hesitate if he knows that he must risk making the move without the possibility of falling back on state welfare assistance during his first year of residence, when his need may be most acute.” Id., at 629. Second, the Court considered the extent to which the residence requirement served to penalize the exercise of the right to travel. The appellees here argue that the denial of non-emergency medical care, unlike the denial of welfare, is not apt to deter migration; but it is far from clear that the challenged statute is unlikely to have any deterrent effect. A person afflicted with a serious respiratory ailment, particularly an indigent whose efforts to provide a living for his family have been inhibited by his incapacitating illness, might well think of migrating to the clean dry air of Arizona, where relief from his disease could also bring relief from unemployment and poverty. But he may hesitate if he knows that he must make the move without the possibility of falling back on the State for medical care should his condition still plague him or grow more severe during his first year of residence. It is true, as appellees argue, that there is no evidence in the record before us that anyone was actually deterred from traveling by the challenged restriction. But neither did the majority in Shapiro find any reason “to dispute the 'evidence that few welfare recipients have in fact been deterred [from moving] by residence requirements.’ Indeed, none of the litigants had themselves been deterred.” Dunn, 405 U. S., at 340 (citations omitted). An attempt to distinguish Shapiro by urging that a durational residence requirement for voter registration did not deter travel, was found to be a “fundamental misunderstanding of the law” in Dunn, supra, at 339-340: “Shapiro did not rest upon a finding that denial of welfare actually deterred travel. Nor have other 'right to travel’ cases in this Court always relied on the presence of actual deterrence. In Shapiro we explicitly stated that the compelling-state-interest test would be triggered by 'any classification which serves to penalize the exercise of that right [to travel]....’” (Emphasis in original; footnote omitted.) Thus, Shapiro and Dunn stand for the proposition that a classification which “operates to penalize those persons... who have exercised their constitutional right of interstate migration,” must be justified by a compelling state interest. Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U. S. 112, 238 (1970) (separate opinion of Brennan, White, and Marshall, JJ.) (emphasis added). Although any durational residence requirement imposes a potential cost on migration, the Court in Shapiro cautioned that some “waiting-period.[s]... may not be penalties.” 394 U. S., at 638 n. 21. In Dunn v. Blumstein, supra, the Court found that the denial of the franchise, “a fundamental political right,” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 562 (1964), was a penalty requiring application of the compelling-state-interest test. In Shapiro, the Court found denial of the basic “necessities of life” to be a penalty. Nonetheless, the Court has declined to strike down state statutes requiring one year of residence as a condition to lower tuition at state institutions of higher education. Whatever the ultimate parameters of the Shapiro penalty analysis, it is at least clear that medical care is as much “a basic necessity of life” to an indigent as welfare assistance. And, governmental privileges or benefits necessary to basic sustenance have often been viewed as being of greater constitutional significance than less essential forms of governmental entitlements. See, e. g., Shapiro, supra; Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254, 264 (1970); Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., 395 U. S. 337, 340-342 (1969). It would be odd, indeed, to find that the State of Arizona was required to afford Evaro welfare assistance to keep him from the discomfort of inadequate housing or the pangs of hunger but could deny him the medical care necessary to relieve him from the wheezing and gasping for breath that attend his illness. Nor does the fact that the durational residence requirement is inapplicable to the provision of emergency medical care save the challenged provision from constitutional doubt. As the Arizona Supreme Court observed, appellant “Evaro was an indigent person who required continued medical care for the preservation of his health and well being...,” even if he did not require immediate emergency care. The State could not deny Evaro care just because, although gasping for breath, he was not in immediate danger of stopping breathing altogether. To allow a serious illness to go untreated until it requires emergency hospitalization is to subject the sufferer to the danger of a substantial and irrevocable deterioriation in his health. Cancer, heart disease, or respiratory illness, if untreated for a year, may become all but irreversible paths to pain, disability, and even loss of life. The denial of medical care is all the more cruel in this context, falling as it does on indigents who are often without the means to obtain alternative treatment. Finally, appellees seek to distinguish Shapiro as involving a partially federally funded program. Maricopa County has received federal funding for its public hospital but, more importantly, this Court has held that whether or not a welfare program is federally funded is irrelevant to the applicability of the Shapiro analysis. Pease v. Hansen, 404 U. S. 70 (1971); Graham v. Richardson, 403 U. S. 365 (1971). Not unlike the admonition of the Bible that, “Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country,” Leviticus 24:22 (King James Version), the right of interstate travel must be seen as insuring new residents the same right to vital government benefits and privileges in the States to which they migrate as are enjoyed by other residents. The State of Arizona's durational residence requirement for free medical care penalizes indigents for exercising their right to migrate to and settle in that State. Accordingly, the classification created by the residence requirement, “unless shown to be necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest, is unconstitutional.” Shapiro, 394 U. S., at 634. (Emphasis in original.) VI We turn now to the question of whether the State has shown that its durational residence requirement is “legitimately defensible,” in that it furthers a compelling state interest. A number of purposes are asserted to be served by the requirement and we must determine whether these satisfy the appellees’ heavy burden of justification, and insure that the State, in pursuing its asserted objectives, has chosen means that do not unnecessarily burden constitutionally protected interests. NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415, 438 (1963). A The Arizona Supreme Court observed: “Absent a residence requirement, any indigent sick person... could seek admission to [Maricopa County’s] hospital, the facilities being the newest and most modern in the state, and the resultant volume would cause long waiting periods or severe hardship on [the] county if it tried to tax its property owners to support [these] indigent sick....” 108 Ariz. 373, 376, 498 P. 2d 461, 464. The County thus attempts to sustain the requirement as a necessary means to insure the fiscal integrity of its free medical care program by discouraging an influx of indigents, particularly those entering the County for the sole purpose of obtaining the benefits of its hospital facilities. First, a State may not protect the public fisc by drawing an invidious distinction between classes of its citizens, Shapiro, supra, at 633, so appellees must do more than show that denying free medical care to new residents saves money. The conservation of the taxpayers’ purse is simply not a sufficient state interest to sustain a durational residence requirement which, in effect, severely penalizes exercise of the right to freely migrate and settle in another State. See Rivera v. Dunn, 329 F. Supp. 554 (Conn. 1971), aff’d, 404 U. S. 1054 (1972). Second, to the extent the purpose of the requirement is to inhibit the immigration of indigents generally, that goal is constitutionally impermissible. And, to the extent the purpose is to deter only those indigents who take up residence in the County solely to utilize its new and modern public medical facilities, the requirement at issue is clearly overinclusive. The challenged durational residence requirement treats every indigent, in his first year of residence, as if he came to the jurisdiction solely to obtain free medical care. Such a classification is no more defensible than the waiting period in Shapiro, supra, of which the Court said: “[T]he class of barred newcomers is all-inclusive, lumping the great majority who come to the State for other purposes with those who come for the sole purpose of collecting higher benefits.” 394 U. S., at 631. Moreover, “a State may no more try to fence out those indigents who seek [better public medical facilities] than it may try to fence out indigents generally.” Ibid. An indigent who considers the quality of public hospital facilities in entering the State is no less deserving than one who moves into the State in order to take advantage of its better educational facilities. Id., at 631-632. It is also useful to look at the other side of the coin — at who will bear the cost of indigents’ illnesses if the County does not provide needed treatment. For those newly arrived residents who do receive at least hospital care, the cost is often borne by private nonprofit hospitals, like appellant Memorial — many of which are already in precarious financial straits. When absorbed by private hospitals, the costs of caring for indigents must be passed on to paying patients and “at a rather inconvenient time” — adding to the already astronomical costs of hospitalization which bear so heavily on the resources of most Americans. The financial pressures under which private nonprofit hospitals operate have already led many of them to turn away patients who cannot pay or to severely limit the number of indigents they will admit. And, for those indigents who receive no care, the cost is, of course, measured by their own suffering. In addition, the County’s claimed fiscal savings may well be illusory. The lack of timely medical care could cause a patient’s condition to deteriorate to a point where more expensive emergency hospitalization (for which no durational residence requirement applies) is needed. And, the disability that may result from letting an untreated condition deteriorate may well result in the patient and his family becoming a burden on the State’s welfare rolls for the duration of his emergency care, or permanently, if his capacity to work is impaired. The appellees also argue that eliminating the dura-tional residence requirement would dilute the quality of services provided to longtime residents by fostering an influx of newcomers and thus requiring the County’s limited public health resources to serve an expanded pool of recipients. Appellees assert that the County should be able to protect its longtime residents because of their contributions to the community, particularly through the past payment of taxes. We rejected this “contributory” rationale both in Shapiro and in Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U. S. 441, 450 n. 6 (1973), by observing: “[Such] reasoning would logically permit the State to bar new residents from schools, parks, and libraries or deprive them of police and fire protection. Indeed it would permit the State to apportion all benefits and services according to the past tax contributions of its citizens. The Equal Protection Clause prohibits such an apportionment of state services.” Shapiro, 394 U. S., at 632-633 (footnote omitted). Appellees express a concern that the threat of an influx of indigents would discourage “the development of modern and effective [public medical] facilities.” It is suggested that whether or not the durational residence requirement actually deters migration, the voters think that it protects them from low income families’ being attracted by the county hospital; hence, the requirement is necessary for public support of that medical facility. A State may not employ an invidious discrimination to sustain the political viability of its programs. As we observed in Shapiro, supra, at 641, “[p]erhaps Congress could induce wider state participation in school construction if it authorized the use of joint funds for the building of segregated schools,” but that purpose would not sustain such a scheme. See also Cole v. Housing Authority of the City of Newport, 435 F. 2d 807, 812-813 (CA1 1970). B The appellees also argue that the challenged statute serves some administrative objectives. They claim that the one-year waiting period is a convenient rule of thumb to determine bona fide residence. Besides not being factually defensible, this test is certainly overbroad to accomplish its avowed purpose. A mere residence requirement would accomplish the objective of limiting the use of public medical facilities to bona fide residents of the County without sweeping within its prohibitions those bona fide residents who had moved into the State within the qualifying period. Less drastic means, which do not impinge on the right of interstate travel, are available and employed to ascertain an individual’s true intentions, without exacting a protracted waiting period which may have dire economic and health consequences for certain citizens. See Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U. S. 479, 488 (1960). The Arizona State welfare agency applies criteria other than the duration of residency to determine whether an applicant is a bona fide resident. The Arizona Medical Assistance to the Aged law provides public medical care for certain senior citizens, conditioned only on residence. Pinal County, Arizona, has operated its public hospital without benefit of the durational residence requirement since the application of the challenged statute in that County was enjoined by a federal court in Valenciano v. Bateman, 323 F. Supp. 600 (Ariz. 1971). The appellees allege that the waiting period is a useful tool for preventing fraud. Certainly, a State has a valid interest in preventing fraud by any applicant for medical care, whether a newcomer or oldtime resident, Shapiro, 394 U. S., at 637, but the challenged provision is ill-suited to that purpose. An indigent applicant, intent on committing fraud, could as easily swear to having been a resident of the county for the preceding year as to being one currently. And, there is no need for the State to rely on the durational requirement as a safeguard against fraud when other mechanisms to serve that purpose are available which would have a less drastic impact on constitutionally protected interests. NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S., at 438. For example, state law makes it a crime to file an “untrue statement... for the purpose of obtaining hospitalization, medical care or outpatient relief” at county expense. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 11-297C (Supp. 1973-1974). See Dunn, 405 U. S., at 353-354; U. S. Dept. of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U. S. 528, 534 (1973). Finally, appellees assert that the waiting period is necessary for budget predictability, but what was said in Shapiro is equally applicable to the case before us: “The records... are utterly devoid of evidence that [the County] uses the one-year requirement as a means to predict the number of people who will require assistance in the budget year. [The appellees do not take] a census of new residents.... Nor are new residents required to give advance notice of their need for... assistance. Thus, the... authorities cannot know how many new residents come into the jurisdiction in any year, much less how many of them will require public assistance.” 394 U. S., at 634-635 (footnote omitted). Whatever the difficulties in projecting how many newcomers to a jurisdiction will require welfare assistance, it could only be an even more difficult and speculative task to estimate how many of those indigent newcomers will require medical care during their first year in the jurisdiction. The irrelevance of the one-year residence requirement to budgetary planning is further underscored by the fact that emergency medical care for all newcomers and more complete medical care for the aged are currently being provided at public expense regardless of whether the patient has been a resident of the County for the preceding year. See Shapiro, supra, at 635. VII The Arizona durational residence requirement for eligibility for nonemergency free medical care creates an “invidious classification” that impinges on the right of interstate travel by denying newcomers “basic necessities of life.” Such a classification can only be sustained on a showing of a compelling state interest. Appellees have not met their heavy burden of justification, or demonstrated that the State, in pursuing legitimate objectives, has chosen means which do not unnecessarily impinge on constitutionally protected interests. Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Arizona is reversed and the case remanded for further action not inconsistent with this opinion. So ordered. The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Blackmun concur in the result. Mr. Justice Douglas. The legal and economic aspects of medical care are enormous; and I doubt if decisions under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment are equal to the task of dealing with these matters. So far as interstate travel per se is considered, I share the doubts of my Brother Rehnquist. The present case, however, turns for me on a different axis. The problem has many aspects. The therapy of Arizona’s atmosphere brings many there who suffer from asthma, bronchitis, arthritis, and tuberculosis. Many coming are indigent or become indigent after arrival. Arizona does not deny medical help to “emergency” cases “when immediate hospitalization or medical care is necessary for the preservation of life or limb,” Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 11-297A (Supp. 1973-1974). For others, it requires a 12-month durational residence. The Act is not aimed at interstate travelers; it applies even to a long-term resident who moves from one county to another. As stated by the Supreme Court of Arizona in the present case: “The requirement applies to all citizens within the state including long term residents of one county who move to another county. Thus, the classification does not single out non-residents nor attempt to penalize interstate travel. The requirement is uniformly applied.” 108 Ariz. 373, 375, 498 P. 2d 461, 463. What Arizona has done, therefore, is to fence the poor out of the metropolitan counties, such as Maricopa County (Phoenix) and Pima County (Tucson) by use of a durational residence requirement. We are told that eight Arizona counties have no county hospitals and that most indigent care in those areas exists only on a contract basis. In San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 1, we had a case where Texas created a scheme by which school districts with a low property tax base, from which they could raise only meager funds, offered a lower quality of education to their students than the wealthier districts. That system was upheld against the charge that the state system violated the Equal Protection Clause. It was a closely divided Court and I was in dissent. I suppose that if a State can fence in the poor in educational programs, it can do so in medical programs. But to allow Arizona freedom to carry forward its medical program we must go one step beyond the San Antonio case. In the latter there was no legal barrier to movement into a better district. Here a one-year barrier to medical care, save for “emergency” care, is erected around the areas that have medical facilities for the poor. Congress has struggled with the problem. In the Kerr-Mills Act of 1960, 74 Stat. 987, 42 U. S. C. § 302 (b)(2), it added provisions to the Social Security Act requiring the Secretary'of Health, Education, and Welfare to disapprove any state plan for medical assistance to the aged (Medicaid) that excludes “any individual who resides in the state,” thus eliminating durational residence requirements. Maricopa County has received over $2 million in federal funds for hospital construction under the Hill-Burton Act, 42 U. S. C. § 291 et seq. Section 291c (e) authorizes the issuance of regulations governing the operation of Hill-Burton facilities. The regulations contain conditions that the facility to be constructed or modernized with the funds “will be made available to all persons residing in the territorial area of the applicant” and-that the applicant will render “a reasonable volume of services to persons unable to pay therefor.” The conditions of free services for indigents, however, may be waived if “not feasible from a financial viewpoint.” Prior to the application the state agency must obtain from the applicant an assurance “that there will be made available in the facility or portion thereof to be constructed or modernized a reasonable volume of services to persons unable to pay therefor. The requirement of an assurance from an applicant shall be waived if the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the State agency, subject to subsequent approval by the Secretary, that such a requirement is not feasible from a financial viewpoint.” 42 CFR § 53.111 (c)(1). So far as I can ascertain, the durational residence requirement imposed by Maricopa County has not been federally approved as a condition to the receipt of Hill-Burton funds. Maricopa County does argue that it is not financially feasible to provide free nonemergency medical care to new residents. Even so, the federal regulatory framework does not leave the County uncontrolled in determining which indigents will receive the benefit of the resources which are available. It is clear, for example, that the County could hot limit such service to whites out of a professed inability to service indigents of all races because 42 CFR § 53.112 (c) prohibits such discrimination in the operation of Hill-Burton facilities. It does not allow racial discrimination even against transients. Moreover, Hill-Burton Act donees are guided by 42 CFR § 53.111 (g), which sets out m some detail the criteria which must be used in identifying persons unable to pay for such services. The criteria include the patient’s health and medical insurance coverage, personal and family income, financial obligations and resources, and “similar factors.” Maricopa County, pursuant to the state law here challenged, employs length of county residence as an additional criterion in identifying indigent recipients of uncompensated nonemergency medical care. The federal regulations, however, do not seem to recognize that as an acceptable criterion. And, as we held in Thorpe v. Housing Authority, 393 U. S. 268; Mourning v. Family Publications Service, 411 U. S. 356, these federal conditions attached to federal grants are valid when “reasonably related to the purposes of the enabling legislation.” 393 U. S., at 280-281. It is difficult to impute to Congress approval of the durational residence requirement, for the implications of such a decision would involve weighty equal protection considerations by which the Federal Government, Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U. S. 497, as well as the States, are bound. The political processes rather than equal protection litigation are the ultimate solution of the present problem. But in the setting of this case the invidious discrimination against the poor, Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U. S. 663, not the right to travel interstate, is in my view the critical issue. APPENDIX TO OPINION OF DOUGLAS, J. Gourmand and Food — A Fable The people of Gourmand loved good food. They ate in good restaurants, donated money for cooking research, and instructed their government to safeguard all matters having to do with- food. Long ago, the food industry had been in total chaos. There were many restaurants, some very small. Anyone could call himself a chef or open a restaurant. In choosing a restaurant, one could never be sure that the meal would be good. A commission of distinguished chefs studied the situation and recommended that no one be allowed to touch food except for qualified chefs. “Food is too important to be left to amateurs,” they said. Qualified chefs were licensed by the state with severe penalties for anyone else who engaged in cooking. Certain exceptions were made for food preparation in the home, but a person could serve only his own family. Furthermore, to become a qualified chef, a man had to complete at least twenty-one years of training (including four years of college, four years of cooking school, and one year of apprenticeship). All cooking schools had to be first class. These reforms did succeed in raising the quality of cooking. But a restaurant meal became substantially more expensive. A second commission observed that not everyone could afford to eat out. “No one,” they said, “should be denied a good meal because of his income.” Furthermore, th&y argued that chefs should work toward the goal of giving everyone “complete physical and psychological satisfaction.” For those people who could not afford to eat out, the government declared that they should be allowed to do so as often as they liked and the government would pay. For others, it was recommended that they organize themselves in groups and pay part of their income into a pool that would undertake to pay the costs incurred by members in dining out. To insure the greatest satisfaction, the groups were set up so that a member could eat out anywhere and as often as he liked, could have as elaborate a meal as he desired, and would have to pay nothing or only a small percentage of the cost. The cost of joining such prepaid dining clubs rose sharply. Long ago, most restaurants would have one chef to prepare the food. A few restaurants were more elaborate, with chefs specializing in roasting, fish, salads, sauces, and many other things. People rarely went to these elaborate restaurants since they were so expensive. With the establishment of prepaid dining clubs, everyone wanted to eat at these fancy restaurants. At the same time, young chefs in school disdained going to cook in a small restaurant where they would have to cook everything. The pay was higher and it was much more prestigious to specialize and cook at a really fancy restaurant. Soon there were not enough chefs to keep the small restaurants open. With prepaid clubs and free meals for the poor, many people started eating their three-course meals at the elaborate restaurants. Then they began to increase the number of courses, directing the chef to “serve the best with no thought for the bill.” (Recently a 817-course meal was served.) The costs of eating out rose faster and faster. A new government commission reported as follows: (1) Noting that licensed chefs were being used to peel potatoes and wash lettuce, the commission recommended that these tasks be handed over to licensed dishwashers (whose three years of dishwashing training included cooking courses) or to some new category of personnel. (8) Concluding that many licensed chefs were overworked, the commission recommended that cooking schools be expanded, that the length of training be shortened, and that applicants with lesser qualifications be admitted. (3) The commission also observed that chefs were unhappy because people seemed to be more concerned about the decor and service than about the food. (In a recent taste test, not only could one patron not tell the difference between a 1930 and a 1970 vintage but he also could not distinguish between white and red wines. He explained that he always ordered the 1980 vintage because he knew that only a really good restaurant would stock such an expensive wine.) The commission agreed that weighty problems faced the nation. They recommended that a national prepayment group be established which everyone must join. They recommended that chefs continue to be paid on the basis of the number of dishes they prepared. They recommended that every Gourmandese be given the right to eat anywhere he chose and as elaborately as he chose and pay nothing. These recommendations were adopted. Large numbers of people spent all of their time ordering incredibly elaborate meals. Kitchens became marvels of new, expensive equipment. All those who were not consuming restaurant food were in the kitchen preparing it. Since no one in Gourmand did anything except prepare or eat meals, the country collapsed. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §11-291 (Supp. 1973-1974). Section 11-297A (Supp. 1973-1974) provides in relevant part that: “Except in emergency cases when immediate hospitalization or medical care is necessary for the preservation of life or limb no person shall be provided hospitalization, medical care or outpatient relief under the provisions of this article without first filing with a member of the board of supervisors of the county in which he resides a statement in writing, subscribed and sworn to under oath, that he is an indigent as shall be defined by rules and regulations of the state department of economic security, an unemployable totally dependent upon the state 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:

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 Alito delivered the opinion of the Court. This case presents the question whether a prisoner can satisfy the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s exhaustion requirement, 42 U. S. C. § 1997e(a), by filing an untimely or otherwise procedurally defective administrative grievance or appeal. We hold that proper exhaustion of administrative remedies is necessary. I A Congress enacted the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), 110 Stat. 1321-71, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1997e et seq., in 1996 in the wake of a sharp rise in prisoner litigation in the federal courts, see, e. g., Alexander v. Hawk, 159 F. 3d 1321, 1324-1325 (CA11 1998) (citing statistics). The PLRA contains a variety of provisions designed to bring this litigation under control. See, e. g., § 1997e(c) (requiring district courts to weed out prisoner claims that clearly lack merit); §1997e(e) (prohibiting claims for emotional injury without prior showing of physical injury); §1997e(d) (restricting attorney’s fees). A centerpiece of the PLRA’s effort “to reduce the quantity... of prisoner suits” is an “invigorated” exhaustion provision, § 1997e(a). Porter v. Nussle, 534 U. S. 516, 524 (2002). Before 1980, prisoners asserting constitutional claims had no obligation to exhaust administrative remedies. See Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U. S. 249, 251 (1971) (per curiam). In the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, § 7, 94 Stat. 352-353, Congress enacted a weak exhaustion provision, which authorized district courts to stay actions under Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, for a limited time while a prisoner exhausted “such plain, speedy, and effective administrative remedies as are available.” §1997e(a)(1) (1994 ed.). “Exhaustion under the 1980 prescription was in large part discretionary; it could be ordered only if the State’s prison grievance system met specified federal standards, and even then, only if, in the particular case, the court believed the requirement ‘appropriate and in the interests of justice.’” Nussle, supra, at 523 (quoting § 1997e). In addition, this provision did not require exhaustion if the prisoner sought only money damages and such relief was not available under the relevant administrative scheme. See McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U. S. 140, 150-151 (1992). The PLRA strengthened this exhaustion provision in several ways. Exhaustion is no longer left to the discretion of the district court, but is mandatory. See Booth v. Churner, 532 U. S. 731, 739 (2001). Prisoners must now exhaust all “available” remedies, not just those that meet federal standards. Indeed, as we held in Booth, a prisoner must now exhaust administrative remedies even where the relief sought—monetary damages—cannot be granted by the administrative process. Id., at 734. Finally, exhaustion of available administrative remedies is required for any suit challenging prison conditions, not just for suits under § 1983. Nussle, supra, at 524. B California has a grievance system for prisoners who seek to challenge their conditions of confinement. To initiate the process, an inmate must fill out a simple form, Dept, of Corrections, Inmate/Parolee Appeal Form, CDC 602 (12/87) (hereinafter Form 602), that is made “readily available to all inmates.” Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3084.1(c) (2004). The inmate must fill out two parts of the form: part A, which is labeled “Describe Problem,” and part B, which is labeled “Action Requested.” Then, as explained on Form 602 itself, the prisoner “must first informally seek relief through discussion with the appropriate staff member.” App. 40-41. The staff member fills in part C of Form 602 under the heading “Staff Response” and then returns the form to the inmate. If the prisoner is dissatisfied with the result of the informal review, or if informal review is waived by the State, the inmate may pursue a three-step review process. See §§3084.5(b)-(d). Although California labels this “formal” review (apparently to distinguish this process from the prior step), the three-step process is relatively simple. At the first level, the prisoner must fill in part D of Form 602, which states: “If you are dissatisfied, explain below.” Id., at 40. The inmate then must submit the form, together with a few other documents, to the appeals coordinator within 15 working days—three weeks—of the action taken. § 3084.6(c). This level may be bypassed by the appeals coordinator in certain circumstances. § 3084.5(b). Within 15 working days after an inmate submits an appeal, the reviewer must inform the inmate of the outcome by completing part E of Form 602 and returning the form to the inmate. If the prisoner receives an adverse determination at this first level, or if this level is bypassed, the inmate may proceed to the second level of review conducted by the warden. §§ 3084.5(c), (e)(1). The inmate does this by filling in part F of Form 602 and submitting the form within 15 working days of the prior decision. Within 10 working days thereafter, the reviewer provides a decision on a letter that is attached to the form. If the prisoner’s claim is again denied or the prisoner otherwise is dissatisfied with the result, the prisoner must explain the basis for his or her dissatisfaction on part H of the form and mail the form to the Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation within 15 working days. § 3084.5(e)(2). An inmate’s appeal may be rejected where “[t]ime limits for submitting the appeal are exceeded and the appellant had the opportunity to file within the prescribed time constraints.” § 3084.3(c)(6). C , Respondent is a prisoner who was convicted for murder and is serving a life sentence in the California prison system. In October 2000, respondent was placed in administrative segregation for allegedly engaging in “inappropriate activity” in the prison chapel. Two months later, respondent was returned to the general population, but respondent claims that he was prohibited from participating in “special programs,” including a variety of religious activities. Approximately six months after that restriction was imposed, respondent filed a grievance with prison officials challenging that action. That grievance was rejected as untimely because it was not filed within 15 working days of the action being challenged. See §§ 3084.3(c)(6), 3084.6(c). Respondent appealed that decision internally without success, and subsequently sued petitioners—California correctional officials—under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 in Federal District Court. The District Court granted petitioners’ motion to dismiss because respondent had not fully exhausted his administrative remedies as required by § 1997e(a). See App. to Pet. for Cert. 24-25. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and held that respondent had exhausted administrative remedies simply because no such remedies remained available to him. 403 F. 3d 620, 629-630 (2005). The Ninth Circuit’s decision, while consistent with the decision of a divided panel of the Sixth Circuit in Thomas v. Woolum, 337 F. 3d 720 (2003), conflicts with decisions of four other Courts of Appeals. See Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286 F. 3d 1022, 1025 (CA7) (“To exhaust remedies, a prisoner must file complaints and appeals in the place, and at the time, the prison’s administrative rules require”), cert. denied, 537 U. S. 949 (2002); Ross v. County of Bernalillo, 365 F. 3d 1181, 1185-1186 (CA10 2004) (same); Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F. 3d 218, 230 (CA3 2004) (same); Johnson v. Meadows, 418 F. 3d 1152, 1159 (CA11 2005) (same). We granted certiorari to address this conflict, 546 U. S. 1015 (2005), and we now reverse. II A The PLRA provides as follows: “No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” §1997e(a) (2000 ed.) (emphasis added). There is no dispute that this language requires a prisoner to “exhaust” administrative remedies, but the parties differ sharply in their understanding of the meaning of this requirement. Petitioners argue that this provision requires proper exhaustion. This means, according to petitioners, that a prisoner must complete the administrative review process in accordance with the applicable procedural rules, including deadlines, as a precondition to bringing suit in federal court. Respondent, on the other hand, argues that this provision demands what he terms “exhaustion simpliciter” Brief for Respondent 7. In his view, §1997e(a) simply means that a prisoner may not bring suit in federal court until administrative remedies are no longer available. Under this interpretation, the reason why administrative remedies are no longer available is irrelevant. Bare unavailability suffices even if this results from a prisoner’s deliberate strategy of refraining from filing a timely grievance so that the litigation of the prisoner’s claim can begin in federal court. The key for determining which of these interpretations of §1997e(a) is correct lies in the term of art “exhausted.” Exhaustion is an important doctrine in both administrative and habeas law, and we therefore look to those bodies of law for guidance. B “The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is well established in the jurisprudence of administrative law.” McKart v. United States, 395 U. S. 185, 193 (1969). “The doctrine provides 'that no one is entitled to judicial relief for a supposed or threatened injury until the prescribed administrative remedy has been exhausted.’” Ibid, (quoting Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 303 U. S. 41, 50-51 (1938)). Exhaustion of administrative remedies serves two main purposes. See McCarthy, 503 U. S., at 145. First, exhaustion protects “administrative agency authority.” Ibid. Exhaustion gives an agency “an opportunity to correct its own mistakes with respect to the programs it administers before it is haled into federal court,” and it discourages “disregard of [the agency’s] procedures.” Ibid. Second, exhaustion promotes efficiency. Ibid. Claims generally can be resolved much more quickly and economically in proceedings before an agency than in litigation in federal court. In some cases, claims are settled at the administrative level, and in others, the proceedings before the agency convince the losing party not to pursue the matter in federal court. See ibid.; Parisi v. Davidson, 405 U. S. 34, 37 (1972); McKart, supra, at 195. “And even where a controversy survives administrative review, exhaustion of the administrative procedure may produce a useful record for subsequent judicial consideration.” McCarthy, supra, at 145. Because of the advantages of administrative review, some aggrieved parties will voluntarily exhaust all avenues of administrative review before resorting to federal court, and for these parties an exhaustion requirement is obviously unnecessary. • Statutes requiring exhaustion serve a purpose when a significant number of aggrieved parties, if given the choice, would not voluntarily exhaust. Aggrieved parties may prefer not to exhaust administrative remedies for a variety of reasons. Although exhaustion promotes overall efficiency, a party may conclude—correctly or incorrectly— that exhaustion is not efficient in that party’s particular case. In addition, some aggrieved parties may prefer to proceed directly to federal court for other reasons, including bad faith. See Thomas, 337 F. 3d, at 752-753 (Rosen, J., dissenting in part and concurring in judgment). Because exhaustion requirements are designed to deal with parties who do not want to exhaust, administrative law creates an incentive for these parties to do what they would otherwise prefer not to do, namely, to give the agency a fair and full opportunity to adjudicate their claims. Administrative law does this by requiring proper exhaustion of administrative remedies, which “means using all steps that the agency holds out, and doing so properly (so that the agency addresses the issues on the merits).” Pozo, 286 F. 3d, at 1024 (emphasis in original). This Court has described the doctrine as follows: “[A]s a general rule... courts should not topple over administrative decisions unless the administrative body not only has erred, but has erred against objection made at the time appropriate under its practice.” United States v. L. A. Tucker Truck Lines, Inc., 344 U. S. 33, 37 (1952) (emphasis added). See also Sims v. Apfel, 530 U. S. 103, 108 (2000); id., at 112 (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (“On this underlying principle of administrative law, the Court is unanimous”); id., at 114-115 (Breyer, J., dissenting); Unemployment Compensation Comm’n of Alaska v. Aragon, 329 U. S. 143, 155 (1946); Hormel v. Helvering, 312 U. S. 552, 556-557 (1941); 2 K. Davis & R. Pierce, Administrative Law Treatise § 15:8, pp. 341-344 (3d ed. 1994). Proper exhaustion demands compliance with an agency’s deadlines and other critical procedural rules because no adjudicative system can function effectively without imposing some orderly structure on the course of its proceedings. c The law of habeas corpus has rules that are substantively similar to those described above. The habeas statute generally requires a state prisoner to exhaust state remedies before filing a habeas petition in federal court. See 28 U. S. C. §§ 2254(b)(1), (c). “This rule of comity reduces friction between the state and federal court systems by avoiding the ‘unseemliness]’ of a federal district court’s overturning a state-court conviction without the state courts having had an opportunity to correct the constitutional violation in the first instance.” O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U. S. 838, 845 (1999) (alteration in original). A state prisoner is generally barred from obtaining federal habeas relief unless the prisoner has properly presented his or her claims through one “complete round of the State’s established appellate review process.” Ibid. In practical terms, the law of habeas, like administrative law, requires proper exhaustion, and we have described this feature of habeas law as follows: “To... ‘protect the integrity’ of the federal exhaustion rule, we ask not only whether a prisoner has exhausted his state remedies, but also whether he has properly exhausted those remedies....” Id., at 848 (citation omitted; emphasis in original). The law of habeas, however, uses terminology that differs from that of administrative law. In habeas, the sanction for failing to exhaust properly (preclusion of review in federal court) is given the separate name of procedural default, although the habeas doctrines of exhaustion and procedural default “are similar in purpose and design and implicate similar concerns,” Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U. S. 1, 7 (1992). See also Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U. S. 722, 731-732 (1991). In habeas, state-court remedies are described as having been “exhausted” when they are no longer available, regardless of the reason for their unavailability. See Gray v. Netherland, 518 U. S. 152, 161 (1996). Thus, if state-court remedies are no longer available because the prisoner failed to comply with the deadline for seeking state-court review or for taking an appeal, those remedies are technically exhausted, ibid., but exhaustion in this sense does not automatically entitle the habeas petitioner to litigate his or her claims in federal court. Instead, if the petitioner procedurally defaulted those claims, the prisoner generally is barred from asserting those claims in a federal habeas proceeding. Id., at 162; Coleman, supra, at 744-751. Ill With this background in mind, we are persuaded that the PLRA exhaustion requirement requires proper exhaustion. A The text of 42 U. S. C. § 1997e(a) strongly suggests that the PLRA uses the term “exhausted” to mean what the term means in administrative law, where exhaustion means proper exhaustion. Section 1997e(a) refers to “such administrative remedies as are available,” and thus points to the doctrine of exhaustion in administrative law. B Construing §1997e(a) to require proper exhaustion also fits with the general scheme of the PLRA, whereas respondent’s interpretation would turn that provision into a largely useless appendage. The PLRA attempts to eliminate unwarranted federal-court interference with the administration of prisons, and thus seeks to “affor[d] corrections officials time and opportunity to address complaints internally before allowing the initiation of a federal case.” Nussle, 534 U. S., at 525. See also Booth, 532 U. S., at 739. The PLRA also was intended to “reduce the quantity and improve the quality of prisoner suits.” Nussle, supra, at 524. Requiring proper exhaustion serves all of these goals. It gives prisoners an effective incentive to make full use of the prison grievance process and accordingly provides prisons with a fair opportunity to correct their own errors. This is particularly important in relation to state corrections systems because it is “difficult to imagine an activity in which a State has a stronger interest, or one that is more intricately bound up with state laws, regulations, and procedures, than the administration of its prisons.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 475, 491-492 (1973). Proper exhaustion reduces the quantity of prisoner suits because some prisoners are successful in the administrative process, and others are persuaded by the proceedings not to file an action in federal court. Finally, proper exhaustion improves the quality of those prisoner suits that are eventually filed because proper exhaustion often results in the creation of an administrative record that is helpful to the court. When a grievance is filed shortly after the event giving rise to the grievance, witnesses can be identified and questioned while memories are still fresh, and evidence can be gathered and preserved. While requiring proper exhaustion serves the purposes of the PLRA, respondent’s interpretation of §1997e(a) would make the PLRA exhaustion scheme wholly ineffective. The benefits of exhaustion can be realized only if the prison grievance system is given a fair opportunity to consider the grievance. The prison grievance system will not have such an opportunity unless the grievant complies with the system’s critical procedural rules. A prisoner who does not want to participate in the prison grievance system will have little incentive to comply with the system’s procedural rules unless noncompliance carries a sanction, and under respondent’s interpretation of the PLRA noncompliance carries no significant sanction. For example, a prisoner wishing to bypass available administrative remedies could simply file a late grievance without providing any reason for failing to file on time. If the prison then rejects the grievance as untimely, the prisoner could proceed directly to federal court. And acceptance of the late grievance would not thwart the prisoner’s wish to bypass the administrative process; the prisoner could easily achieve this by violating other procedural rules until the prison administration has no alternative but to dismiss the grievance on procedural grounds. We are confident that the PLRA did not create such a toothless scheme. Respondent argues that his interpretation of the PLRA’s exhaustion provision would filter out frivolous claims because, by the time the deadline for filing a grievance has passed, the inmate may no longer wish to file suit. Brief for Respondent 43. But since the deadline for filing an administrative grievance is generally not very long—14 to 30 days according to the United States, see Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 29, and even less according to respondent, see Brief for Respondent 30, n. 17—it is doubtful that Congress thought requiring a prisoner to wait this long would provide much of a deterrent. Indeed, many prisoners would probably find it difficult to prepare, file, and serve a civil complaint before the expiration of the deadline for filing a grievance in many correctional systems. Respondent also contends that his interpretation of the PLRA exhaustion requirement would filter out frivolous claims because prisoners could not simply wait until the deadline for filing an administrative grievance had passed. According to respondent, “most grievance systems give administrators the discretion to hear untimely grievances,” and therefore a prisoner “will be required to file an untimely grievance, and thereby give the grievance system” the opportunity to address the complaint. Id., at 43. But assuming for the sake of argument that the premise of this argument is correct, i. e., that a court could never conclude that administrative remedies were unavailable unless an administrative decision had so held, but see Coleman, 501 U. S., at 735, n., a prisoner who does not want to participate in the prison grievance process would have little difficulty in forcing the prison to dismiss his administrative case on procedural grounds. Under the California system, for example, a prisoner has numerous opportunities to miss deadlines. Therefore, the task of engineering such a dismissal of a grievance on procedural grounds is unlikely to be sufficient to alter the conduct of a prisoner whose objective is to bypass the administrative process. C Finally, as interpreted by respondent, the PLRA exhaustion requirement would be unprecedented. Respondent has not pointed to any statute or case that purports to require exhaustion while at the same time allowing a party to bypass deliberately the administrative process by flouting the agency’s procedural rules. It is most unlikely that the PLRA, which was intended to deal with what was perceived as a disruptive tide of frivolous prisoner litigation, adopted an exhaustion requirement that goes further than any other model that has been called to our attention in permitting the wholesale bypassing of administrative remedies. Respondent identifies three models for the scheme of “exhaustion simpliciter” that he believes is set out in the PLRA, but none of these examples is apt. Respondent first looks to habeas law as it existed prior to Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U. S. 72 (1977). Before then, a federal habeas claim could be procedurally defaulted only if the prisoner deliberately bypassed state remedies. See Fay v. Noia, 372 U. S. 391, 438 (1963). It would be fanciful, however, to suggest that the PLRA exhaustion requirement was patterned on habeas law as it existed in the years between Fay and Wainwright. As respondent stresses, the PLRA was enacted contemporaneously with the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 110 Stat. 1214, which gave federal habeas review a structure markedly different from that which existed in the period between Fay and Wainwright. Furthermore, respondent’s interpretation of §1997e(a) would not duplicate the scheme that existed in habeas during that interval. As interpreted by respondent, §1997e(a) would permit a prisoner to bypass deliberately and flagrantly administrative review without any risk of sanction. Because it is unlikely that the PLRA was intended to permit this, the two Courts of Appeals that have held that § 1997e(a) does not require proper exhaustion both pointedly stated that their decisions did not allow a prisoner to bypass deliberately administrative remedies. See 403 F. 3d, at 629; Thomas, 337 F. 3d, at 732, and n. 4. Neither of these courts, however, explained how § 1997e(a) can be interpreted in this way—that is, so that it does not require proper exhaustion but somehow proscribes deliberate bypass. Apparently recognizing that such an interpretation neither has a statutory basis nor refers to a concept of exhaustion from an existing body of law, respondent does not contend that § 1997e(a) prohibits deliberate bypass; in his view, all that § 1997e(a) demands is that a prisoner wait until any opportunity for administrative review has evaporated. But in making this argument, respondent asks us to hold that the PLRA was meant to adopt an exhaustion scheme that stands in sharp contrast to both current and past habeas law and is unlike any other exhaustion scheme that has been called to our attention. Respondent next suggests that the PLRA exhaustion requirement was patterned on § 14(b) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 81 Stat. 607, codified at 29 U. S. C. § 633(b), and § 706(e) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 260, as redesignated and amended, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5(e), but these are implausible models. Neither of these provisions makes reference to the concept of exhaustion, and neither is in any sense an exhaustion provision. In Oscar Mayer & Co. v. Evans, 441 U. S. 750 (1979), we considered § 14(b) of the ADEA, which provides that, if a State has an agency to redress state-law age-related employment-discrimination claims, an ADEA claim may not be brought in federal court “before the expiration of sixty days after proceedings have been commenced under the State law.” 29 U. S. C. § 633(b) (emphasis added). This provision makes no reference to the exhaustion of state remedies, only to the “commence[ment]” of state proceedings, and this provision leaves no doubt that proper commencement of those proceedings is not required. As we noted, see Oscar Mayer, 441 U. S., at 759, § 14(b) of the ADEA states that the requirement of commencement is satisfied merely by sending the state agency a signed statement of the pertinent facts, and § 14(b) explicitly provides that the commencement requirement does not entail compliance with any other state procedural rule, including a deadline for initiating the state proceeding, id., at 760. We see little similarity between § 14(b), which merely requires the commencement of state proceedings and explicitly does not require timely commencement, and 42 U. S. C. § 1997e(a), which expressly requires exhaustion of available administrative remedies with no reference to a federally based limiting principle. Section 706(e) of Title VII is also fundamentally different from the PLRA exhaustion provision. As interpreted by this Court, § 706(e) means that a complainant who “initially institutes proceedings with a state or local agency with authority to grant or seek relief from the practice charged” must “file a charge” with that agency, or “have the EEOC refer the charge to that agency, within 240 days of the alleged discriminatory event....” EEOC v. Commercial Office Products Co., 486 U. S. 107, 110-111 (1988). Following the reasoning of Oscar Mayer, we held that this filing requirement did not demand that the charge submitted to the state or local authority be filed in compliance with the authority’s time limit. 486 U. S., at 123-125. Because § 706(e) of Title VII refers only to the filing of a charge with a state or local agency and not to the exhaustion of remedies, § 706(e) cannot be viewed as a model for the PLRA exhaustion provision. IV Respondent’s remaining arguments regarding the interpretation of 42 U. S. C. § 1997e(a) are unconvincing. Relying on the use of the term “until” in the phrase “until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted,” respondent contends that “[t]he use of the temporal word ‘until’... conveys a timing requirement: it assumes that the question to be answered is simply whether the prisoner can file suit now or must wait until later.” Brief for Respondent 11. Likewise, according to respondent, the use of the present tense (“such administrative remedies as are available,” §1997e(a) (emphasis added)) requires “a focus on whether any administrative remedies are presently available.” Id., at 12. But saying that a party may not sue in federal court until the party first pursues all available avenues of administrative review necessarily means that, if the party never pursues all available avenues of administrative review, the person will never be able to sue in federal court. Thus, § 1997e(a)’s use of the term “until” and the present tense does not support respondent’s position. Respondent attaches significance to the fact that the PLRA exhaustion provision does not expressly state that a prisoner must have “properly exhausted” available administrative remedies, whereas a tolling provision of the AEDPA provides that the time for filing a federal habeas petition is tolled during the period when “a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review... is pending.” 28 U. S. C. § 2244(d)(2) (emphasis added). In our view, respondent draws an unreasonable inference from the difference in the wording of these two provisions. Although the AEDPA and the PLRA were enacted at roughly the same time, they are separate and detailed pieces of legislation. Moreover, the AEDPA and PLRA provisions deal with separate issues: tolling in the case of the AEDPA and exhaustion in the case of the PLRA. Respondent maintains that his interpretation of the PLRA exhaustion provision is bolstered by another PLRA provision, 42 U. S. C. § 1997e(c)(2), that permits a district court to dismiss certain prisoner claims “without first requiring the exhaustion of administrative remedies.” According to respondent, this provision shows that Congress thought that, at the point when a district court might make such a ruling (which would typically be well after the filing of the complaint), a prisoner might still have the opportunity to exhaust administrative remedies. Because short administrative filing deadlines would make this impossible, respondent contends, Congress cannot have thought that a prisoner’s failure to comply with those deadlines would preclude litigation in federal court. Respondent’s argument is unconvincing for at least two reasons. First, respondent has not shown that Congress had reason to believe that every prison system would have relatively short and categorical filing deadlines. Indeed, respondent asserts that most grievance systems give administrators the discretion to hear untimely grievances. Second, even if dismissals under § 1997e(c)(2) typically occur when the opportunity to pursue administrative remedies has passed, § 1997e(c)(2) still serves a useful function by making it clear that the PLRA exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional, and thus allowing a district court to dismiss plainly meritless claims without first addressing what may be a much more complex question, namely, whether the prisoner did in fact properly exhaust available administrative remedies. Respondent next argues that the similarity between the wording of the PLRA exhaustion provision and the AEDPA exhaustion provision, 28 U. S. C. § 2254(c), shows that the PLRA provision was meant to incorporate the narrow technical definition of exhaustion that applies in habeas. We reject this argument for two reasons. First, there is nothing particularly distinctive about the wording of the habeas and PLRA exhaustion provisions. They say what any exhaustion provision must say—that a judicial remedy may not be sought or obtained unless, until, or before certain other remedies are exhausted. It is, therefore, unrealistic to infer from the wording of the PLRA provision that Congress framed and adopted that provision with habeas law and not administrative law in mind. Indeed, the wording of the PLRA provision (a prisoner may not bring an action with respect to prison conditions “until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted”) is strikingly similar to our description of the doctrine of administrative exhaustion (“ ‘no one is entitled to judicial relief for a supposed or threatened injury until the prescribed administrative remedy has been exhausted,’ ” McKart, 395 U. S., at 193 (emphasis added)). Second, respondent’s suggestion that the PLRA was meant to incorporate the same technical distinction that exists in habeas law without providing any sanction to prevent willful noncompliance—not even the deliberate bypass standard of Fay—would produce a scheme that in practical terms is radically different from the habeas scheme. Copying habeas’ narrow definition of exhaustion without furnishing any sanction to promote compliance would be like copying the design for an airplane but omitting one of the wings. Respondent contends that requiring proper exhaustion will lead prison administrators to devise procedural requirements that are designed to trap unwary prisoners and thus to defeat their claims. Respondent does not contend, however, that anything like this occurred in his case, and it is speculative that this will occur in the future. Corrections officials concerned about maintaining order in their institutions have a reason for creating and retaining grievance systems that provide—and that are perceived by prisoners as providing—a meaningful opportunity for prisoners to raise meritorious grievances. And with respect to the possibility that prisons might create procedural requirements for the purpose of tripping up all but the most skillful prisoners, while Congress repealed the “plain, speedy, and effective” standard, see 42 U. S. C. § 1997e(a)(1) (1994 ed.) (repealed 1996), we have no occasion here to decide how such situations might be addressed. Respondent argues that requiring proper exhaustion is harsh for prisoners, who generally are untrained in the law and are often poorly educated. This argument overlooks the informality and relative simplicity of prison grievance systems like California’s, as well as the fact that prisoners who litigate in federal court generally proceed pro se and are forced to comply with numerous unforgiving deadlines and other procedural requirements. * * * For these reasons, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and remand the case for proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. One can conceive of an inmate’s seeking to avoid creating an administrative record with someone that he or she views as a hostile factfinder, filing a lawsuit primarily as a method of making some corrections official’s life difficult, or perhaps even speculating that a suit will mean a welcome— if temporary—respite from his or her cell. The dissent makes two chief arguments regarding the doctrine of exhaustion in administrative law. Neither is sound. First, the dissent contends that, “in the absence of explicit statutory directive,” proper exhaustion is required only in proceedings that are in the nature of “appellate review proceedings.” Post, at 112 (opinion of Stevens, J.). The only authorities cited in support of this proposition are Sims v. Apfel, 530 U. S. 103, 108-109 (2000)—which concerns different questions, i. e., issue exhaustion and the distinction between adversarial and nonadversarial proceedings—and an amici brief, which in turns cites no supporting authority. See post, at 112 (citing Brief for Law Professors 1). The amici brief argues that “[t]he conceptual key to this case is [the] distinction” between an “original proceeding,” in which “the court is simply Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy 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 Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court. The Sixth Amendment reserves to juries the determination of any fact, other than the fact of a prior conviction, that increases a criminal defendant’s maximum potential sentence. Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U. S. 466 (2000); Blakely v. Washington, 542 U. S. 296 (2004). We have applied this principle in numerous cases where the sentence was imprisonment or death. The question here is whether the same rule applies to sentences of criminal fines. We hold that it does. I Petitioner Southern Union Company is a natural gas distributor. Its subsidiary stored liquid mercury, a hazardous substance, at a facility in Pawtucket, Rhode Island. In September 2004, youths from a nearby apartment complex broke into the facility, played with the mercury, and spread it around the facility and complex. The complex’s residents were temporarily displaced during the cleanup and most underwent testing for mercury poisoning. In 2007, a grand jury indicted Southern Union on multiple counts of violating federal environmental statutes. As relevant here, the first count alleged that the company knowingly stored liquid mercury without a permit at the Paw-tucket facility “[fjrom on or about September 19, 2002 until on or about October 19, 2004,” App. 104, in violation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), see 90 Stat. 2812, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 6928(d)(2)(A). A jury convicted Southern Union on this count following a trial in the District Court for the District of Rhode Island. The verdict form stated that Southern Union was guilty of unlawfully storing liquid mercury “on or about September 19, 2002 to October 19, 2004.” App. 140. Violations of the RCRA are punishable by, inter alia, “a fine of not more than $50,000 for each day of violation.” 16928(d). At sentencing, the probation office set a maximum fine of $38.1 million, on the basis that Southern Union violated the RCRA for each of the 762 days from September 19, 2002, through October 19, 2004. Southern Union objected that this calculation violated A-pprendi because the jury was not asked to determine the precise duration of the violation. The company noted that the verdict form listed only the violation’s approximate start date (i. e., “on or about”), and argued that the court’s instructions permitted conviction if the jury found even a 1-day violation. Therefore, Southern Union maintained, the only violation the jury necessarily found was for one day, and imposing any fine greater than the single-day penalty of $50,000 would require factfinding by the court, in contravention of Apprendi. The Government acknowledged the jury was not asked to specify the duration of the violation, but argued that Ap-prendi does not apply to criminal fines. The District Court disagreed and held that Apprendi applies. But the court concluded from the “content and context of the verdict all together” that the jury found a 762-day violation. App. to Pet. for Cert. 46a. The court therefore set a maximum potential fine of $38.1 million, from which it imposed a fine of $6 million and a “community service obligatio[n]” of $12 million. App. 154. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit rejected the District Court’s conclusion that the jury necessarily found a violation of 762 days. 630 F. 3d 17, 36 (2010). But the Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence because it also held, again in contrast to the District Court, that Apprendi does not apply to criminal fines. 630 F. 3d, at 33-36. Other Circuits have reached the opposite conclusion. See United States v. Pfaff, 619 F. 3d 172 (CA2 2010) (per cu-riarn); United States v. LaGrou Distribution Sys., Inc., 466 F. 3d 585 (CA7 2006). We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict, 565 U. S. 1057 (2011), and now reverse. II A This case requires us to consider the scope of the Sixth Amendment right of jury trial, as construed in Apprendi. Under Apprendi, “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” 530 U. S., at 490. The “‘statutory maximum’ for Apprendi purposes is the maximum sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant.” Blakely, 542 U. S., at 303 (emphasis deleted). Thus, while judges may exercise discretion in sentencing, they may not “inflic[t] punishment that the jury’s verdict alone does not allow.” Id., at 304. Apprendi’& rule is “rooted in longstanding common-law practice.” Cunningham v. California, 549 U. S. 270, 281 (2007). It preserves the “historic jury function” of “determining whether the prosecution has proved each element of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” Oregon v. Ice, 555 U. S. 160, 163 (2009). We have repeatedly affirmed this rule by applying it to a variety of sentencing schemes that allowed judges to find facts that increased a defendant’s maximum authorized sentence. See Cunningham, 549 U. S., at 274-275 (elevated “upper term” of imprisonment); United States v. Booker, 543 U. S. 220, 226-227, 233-234 (2005) (increased imprisonment range for defendant under then-mandatory Federal Sentencing Guidelines); Blakely, 542 U. S., at 299-300 (increased imprisonment above statutorily prescribed “standard range”); Ring v. Arizona, 536 U. S. 584, 588-589 (2002) (death penalty authorized upon finding existence of aggravating factors); Apprendi, 530 U. S., at 468-469 (extended term of imprisonment based on violation of a “hate crime” statute). . While the punishments at stake in those cases were imprisonment or a death sentence, we see no principled basis under Apprendi for treating criminal fines differently. Ap-prendi'“core concern” is to reserve to the jury “the determination of facts that warrant punishment for a specific statutory offense.” Ice, 555 U. S., at 170. That concern applies whether the sentence is a criminal fine or imprisonment or death. Criminal fines, like these other forms of punishment, are penalties inflicted by the sovereign for the commission of offenses. Fines were by far the most common form of noncapital punishment in colonial America. They are frequently imposed today, especially upon organizational defendants who cannot be imprisoned. And the amount of a fine, like the maximum term of imprisonment or eligibility for the death penalty, is often calculated by reference to particular facts. Sometimes, as here, the fact is the duration of a statutory violation; under other statutes it is the amount of the defendant’s gain or the victim’s loss, or some other factor. In all such cases, requiring juries to find beyond a reasonable doubt facts that determine the fine’s maximum amount is necessary to implement Apprendi’s “animating principle”: the “preservation of the jury’s historic role as a bulwark between the State and the accused at the trial for an alleged offense.” Ice, 555 U. S., at 168. In stating Apprendi’s rule, we have never distinguished one form of punishment from another. Instead, our decisions broadly prohibit judicial factfinding that increases maximum criminal “sentenced],” “penalties,” or “punishment[s]”—terms that each undeniably embrace fines. E. g., Blakely, 542 U. S., at 304; Apprendi, 530 U. S., at 490; Ring, 536 U. S., at 589. The Government objects, however, that fines are less onerous than incarceration and the death sentence. The Government notes that Apprendi itself referred to the physical deprivation of liberty that imprisonment occasions, see 530 U. S., at 484, and that we have placed more weight on imprisonment than on fines when construing the scope of the Sixth Amendment rights to counsel and jury trial. See Blanton v. North Las Vegas, 489 U. S. 538, 542-543 (1989) (jury trial); Scott v. Illinois, 440 U. S. 367, 373-374 (1979) (counsel). Therefore, the Government concludes, fines categorically “do not implicate” the “primary concerns motivating Apprendi.” Brief for United States 23-25. This argument fails because its conclusion does not follow from its premise. Where a fine is so insubstantial that the underlying offense is considered “petty,” the Sixth Amendment right of jury trial is not triggered, and no Apprendi issue arises. See, e. g., Muniz v. Hoffman, 422 U. S. 454, 477 (1975) ($10,000 fine imposed on labor union does not entitle union to jury trial); see also Blanton, 489 U. S., at 541 (no jury trial right for “petty” offenses, as measured by the “severity of the maximum authorized penalty” (internal quotation marks omitted)). The same, of course, is true of offenses punishable by relatively brief terms of imprisonment—these, too, do not entitle a defendant to a jury trial. See id., at 543 (establishing a rebuttable presumption that offenses punishable by six months’ imprisonment or less are petty); Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 159-162 (1968). But not all fines are insubstantial, and not all offenses punishable by fines are petty. See, e. g., Mine Workers v. Bagwell, 512 U. S. 821, 838, n. 5 (1994) (criminal contempt fine of $52 million imposed on union “unquestionably is a serious contempt sanction” that triggers right of jury trial). The federal twice-the-gain-or-loss statute, in particular, see 18 U. S. C. § 3571(d), has been used to obtain substantial judgments against organizational defendants. See, e. g., Amended Judgment in United States v. LG Display Co., Ltd., No. 08-CR-803-SI (ND Cal.), pp. 1-2 ($400 million fine for conviction of single count of violating Sherman Antitrust Act); Judgment in United States v. Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, No. 08-CR-367-RJL (D DC), pp. 1-2, 5 ($448.5 million fine for two violations of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act); United States Sentencing Commission, 2010 Annual Report, ch. 5, p. 38 (noting fine of $1,195 billion imposed on pharmaceutical corporation for violations of food and drug laws). And, where the defendant is an individual, a large fine may “engender ‘a significant infringement of personal freedom.’ ” Blanton, 489 U. S., at 542 (quoting Frank v. United States, 395 U. S. 147, 151 (1969)); see also 18 U. S. C. § 3572(a)(2) (requiring court to consider “the burden that the fine will impose upon the defendant” in determining whether to impose a fine and in what amount). The Government thus asks the wrong question by comparing the severity of criminal fines to that of other punishments. So far as Apprendi is concerned, the relevant question is the significance of the fine from the perspective of the Sixth Amendment’s jury trial guarantee. Where a fine is substantial enough to trigger that right, Apprendi applies in full. As we said in Cunningham, “Asking whether a defendant’s basic jury-trial right is preserved, though some facts essential to punishment are reserved for determination by the judge,... is the very inquiry Apprendi’s ‘bright-line rule’ was designed to exclude.” 549 U. S., at 291. This case is exemplary. The RCRA subjects Southern Union to a maximum fine of $50,000 for each day of violation. 42 U. S. C. § 6928(d). The Government does not deny that, in light of the seriousness of that punishment, the company was properly accorded a jury trial. And the Government now concedes the District Court made factual findings that increased both the “potential and actual” fine the court imposed. Brief for United States 28. This is exactly what Apprendi guards against: judicial factfinding that enlarges the maximum punishment a defendant faces beyond what the jury’s verdict or the defendant’s admissions allow. B In concluding that the rule of Apprendi does not apply to criminal fines, the Court of Appeals relied on our decision in Ice. Ice addressed the question whether, when a defendant is convicted of multiple offenses, Apprendi forbids judges to determine facts that authorize the imposition of consecutive sentences. 555 U. S., at 164. In holding that Apprendi does not, Ice emphasized that juries historically played no role in deciding whether sentences should run consecutively or concurrently. See 555 U. S., at 168-169. The Court of Appeals reasoned that juries were similarly uninvolved in setting criminal fines. 630 F. 3d, at 35. The Court of Appeals was correct to examine the historical record, because “the scope of the constitutional jury right must be informed by the historical role of the jury at common law.” Ice, 555 U. S., at 170. See also, e. g., Blakely, 542 U. S., at 301-302; Apprendi, 530 U. S., at 477-484. But in our view, the record supports applying Apprendi to criminal fines. To be sure, judges in the Colonies and during the founding era “possessed a great deal of discretion” in determining whether to impose a fine and in what amount. Lillquist 640-641; see also Preyer 350. Often, a fine’s range “was apparently without limit except insofar as it was within the expectation on the part of the court that it would be paid.” Ibid. For some other offenses, the maximum fine was capped by statute. See, e. g., id., at 333 (robbery, larceny, burglary, and other offenses punishable in Massachusetts Bay Colony “by fines of up to £5”); Act of Feb. 28, 1803, ch. 9, § 7, 2 Stat. 205 (any consul who gives a false certificate shall “forfeit and pay a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars, at the discretion of the court”); K. Stith & J. Cabranes, Fear of Judging: Sentencing Guidelines in the Federal Courts 9 (1998) (describing federal practice). The exercise of such sentencing discretion is fully consistent with Apprendi, which permits courts to impose “judgment within the range prescribed by statute.” 530 U. S., at 481 (emphasis in original). Nor, a fortiori, could there be an Apprendi violation where no maximum is prescribed. Indeed, in surveying the historical record that formed the basis of our holding in Apprendi, we specifically considered the English practice with respect to fines, which, as was true of many colonial offenses, made sentencing largely “dependent upon judicial discretion.” See id., at 480, n. 7; see also Jones v. United States, 526 U. S. 227, 244-245 (1999); 4 W. Blaekstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 372-378 (1769) (hereinafter Blaekstone). And even then, as the dissent acknowledges, post, at 370-371 (opinion of Breyer, J.), there is authority suggesting that English juries were required to find facts that determined the authorized pecuniary punishment. See 1 T. Starkie, A Treatise on Criminal Pleading 187-188 (1814) (In cases “where the offence, or its defined measure of punishment, depends upon” property’s specific value, the value “must be proved precisely as it is laid [in the indictment], and any variance will be fatal”); see also id., at 188 (“[I]n the case of usury, where the judgment depends upon the quantum taken, the usurious contract must be averred according to the fact; and a variance from it, in evidence, would be fatal, because the penalty is apportioned to the value” (emphasis in original)); 2 W. Hawkins, A Treatise of the Pleas of the Crown, ch. 25, § 75, pp. 234-235 (3d ed. 1739) (doubting whether “it be needful to set forth the Value of the Goods in an Indictment of Trespass for any other Purpose than to aggravate the Fine”). In any event, the salient question here is what role the jury played in prosecutions for offenses that did peg the amount of a fine to the determination of specified facts— often, the value of damaged or stolen property. See Apprendi, 530 U. S., at 502, n. 2 (Thomas, J., concurring). Our review of state and federal decisions discloses that the predominant practice was for such facts to be alleged in the indictment and proved to the jury. See, e. g., Commonwealth v. Smith, 1 Mass. 245, 247 (1804) (declining to award judgment of treble damages for all stolen items in larceny prosecution when indictment alleged value of only some of the items); Clark v. People, 2 Ill. 117, 120-121 (1833) (arson indictment must allege value of destroyed building because statute imposed “a fine equal in value to the property burned”); State v. Garner, 8 Port. 447, 448 (Ala. 1839) (same in malicious mischief prosecution where punishment was fine “not exceeding four fold the value of the property injured or destroyed”); Ritchey v. State, 7 Blackf. 168, 169 (Ind. 1844) (same in arson prosecution because, “[i]n addition to imprisonment in the penitentiary, the guilty person is liable to a fine not exceeding double the value of the property destroyed”); Hope v. Commonwealth, 50 Mass. 134, 137 (1845) (the “value of the property alleged to be stolen must be set forth in the indictment” in part because “[o]ur statutes . . . prescribe the punishment for larceny, with reference to the value of the property stolen”); State v. Goodrich, 46 N. H. 186, 188 (1865) (“It may also be suggested, that, in the case of simple larceny, the respondent may be sentenced to pay the owner of the goods stolen, treble the value thereof, which is an additional reason for requiring the [value of the .stolen items] to be stated [in the indictment]”); United States v. Woodruff, 68 F. 536, 538 (Kan. 1895) (“[T]he defendant is entitled to his constitutional right of trial by jury” to ascertain “the exact sum for which a fine may be imposed”). The rule that juries must determine facts that set a fine’s maximum amount is an application of the “two longstanding tenets of common-law criminal jurisprudence” on which Apprendi is based: First, “the 'truth of every accusation’ against a defendant 'should afterwards be confirmed by the unanimous suffrage of twelve of his equals and neighbours.’ ” Blakely, 542 U. S., at 301 (quoting 4 Blackstone 343). And second, “ ‘an accusation which lacks any particular fact which the law makes essential to the punishment is ... no accusation within the requirements of the common law, and it is no accusation in reason.’” 542 U. S., at 301-302 (quoting 1 J. Bishop, Criminal Procedure § 87, p. 55 (2d ed. 1872)). Indeed, Bishop’s leading treatise on criminal procedure specifically identified cases involving fines as evidence of the proposition that “the indictment must, in order to inform the court what punishment to inflict, contain an averment of every particular thing which enters into the punishment.” Id., § 540, at 330 (discussing Clark and Garner). This principle, Bishop explained, “pervades the entire system of the adjudged law of criminal procedure. It is not made apparent to our understandings by a single case only, but by all the cases.” Criminal Procedure § 81, at 51. See also Apprendi, 530 U. S., at 510-511 (Thomas, J., concurring) (explaining that Bishop grounded this principle in “well-established common-law practice . . . and in the provisions of Federal and State Constitutions guaranteeing notice of an accusation in all criminal cases, indictment by a grand jury for serious crimes, and trial by jury”). As counterevidence that juries historically did not determine facts relevant to criminal fines, the Government points to two decisions from this Court. One is United States v. Murphy, 16 Pet. 203 (1842), which considered whether an interested witness was competent to testify in a larceny .prosecution brought under a provision of the Crimes Act of 1790. Murphy’s only relevance to this case is that the Crimes Act authorized a fine of up to four times the value of the stolen property, and the Court remarked that “the fine is, as to its amount, purely in the discretion of the Court.” Id., at 209. But this statement is best read as permitting the court to select a fine from within the maximum authorized by jury-found facts—a practice, as noted, that accords with Apprendi. Such a reading is consistent with the fact that the indictment in Murphy alleged the value of the stolen items, see 16 Pet., at 207-208, and with the practice of contemporary courts addressing the same statute, see United States v. Holland, 26 F. Cas. 343, 345 (No. 15,378) (CC SDNY 1843) (trial court instructs jury “to assess the value of the property taken” in order to determine maximum fine); Pye v. United States, 20 F. Cas. 99 (No. 11,488) (CC DC 1842) (value of stolen items alleged in indictment). The Government and dissent place greater reliance on United States v. Tyler, 7 Cranch 285 (1812). But like Murphy, this decision involved no constitutional question. Rather, it construed a federal embargo statute that imposed a fine of four times the valúe of the property intended to be exported. The indictment identified the property at issue as “pearl-ashes,” but the jury’s guilty verdict referred instead to “‘pot-ashes [that] were worth two hundred and eighty dollars.’” Tyler, 7 Cranch, at 285. The question was whether the discrepancy rendered the verdict “not sufficiently certain as to the value of the property charged in the indictment,” i. e., pearl-ashes. Ibid. The Court held that the discrepancy was immaterial, on the ground that “under this law, no valuation by the jury was necessary to enable the Circuit Court to impose the proper fine.” Ibid. The Court’s reasoning is somewhat opaque, but appears to rest on the text of the embargo statute, which directed that the defendant “shall, upon conviction, be . . . fined a sum by the Court.” Ibid. In any event, nothing in the decision purports to construe the Sixth Amendment. And, insofar as Tyler reflects prevailing practice, it bears noting that both the indictment and verdict identified the value of the property at issue. See Tr. 2 in Tyler, 7 Cranch 285, reprinted in Appellate Case Files of the Supreme Court of the United States, 1792-1831, National Archives Microfilm Publications No. 214 (1962), roll 18 (indictment: “nineteen barrels of pearl-ashes, which were then and there of the value of six hundred dollars”). Whatever the precise meaning of this decision, it does not outweigh the ample historical evidence showing that juries routinely found facts that set the maximum amounts of fines. Ill The Government’s remaining arguments, echoed by the dissent (see post, at 381-386), are unpersuasive. The Government first submits that, when it comes to fines, “the judicially found facts typically involve only quantifying the harm caused by the defendant’s offense”—for example, how long did the violation last, or how much money did the defendant gain (or the victim lose)?—“as opposed to defining a separate set of acts for punishment.” Brief for United States 25. Only the latter determination, the Government contends, implicates Apprendi’s concerns. This argument has two defects. First, it rests on an assumption that Apprendi and its progeny have uniformly rejected: that in determining the maximum punishment for an offense, there is a constitutionally significant difference between a fact that is an “element” of the offense and one that is a “sentencing factor.” See, e. g., 530 U. S., at 478; Ring, 536 U. S., at 605. Second, we doubt the coherence of this distinction. This case proves the point. Under 42 U. S. C. § 6928(d), the fact that will ultimately determine the maximum fine Southern Union faces is the number of days the company violated the statute. Such a finding is not fairly characterized as merely “quantifying the harm” Southern Union caused. Rather, it is a determination that for each given day, the Government has proved that Southern Union committed all of the acts constituting the offense. The Government next contends that applying Apprendi to fines will prevent States and the Federal Government from enacting statutes that, like § 6928(d), calibrate fines to a defendant’s culpability, thus providing just punishment and reducing unwarranted sentencing disparity. But the Government presents a false choice. As was true in our prior Apprendi cases, and remains so here, legislatures are free to enact statutes that constrain judges’ discretion in sentencing—Apprendi requires only that such provisions be administered in conformance with the Sixth Amendment. Last, the Government argues that requiring juries to determine facts related to fines will cause confusion (because expert testimony might be needed to guide the inquiry); or prejudice the defendant (who might have to deny violating a statute while simultaneously arguing that any violation was minimal); or be impractical (at least when the relevant facts are unknown or unknowable until the trial is completed). These arguments rehearse those made by the dissents in our prior Apprendi cases. See Booker, 543 U. S., at 329 (Breyer, J., dissenting in part); Blakely, 542 U. S., at 318-320 (O’Connor, J., dissenting); id., at 330-340 (Breyer, J., dissenting); Apprendi, 530 U. S., at 555-559 (same). Here, as there, they must be rejected. For even if these predictions are accurate, the rule the Government espouses is unconstitutional. That “should be the end of the matter.” Blakely, 542 U. S., at 313. But here there is particular reason to doubt the strength of these policy concerns. Apprendi is now more than a decade old. The reliance interests that underlie many of the Government’s arguments are by this point attenuated. Nor, in our view, does applying Apprendi’s rule to criminal fines mark an unexpected extension of the doctrine. Most Circuits to have addressed the issue already embrace this position, see Pfaff, 619 F. 3d, at 175-176; LaGrou Distribution Sys., 466 F. 3d, at 594; United States v. Yang, 144 Fed. Appx. 521, 524 (CA6 2005), as did the Government prior to Ice, see Brief in Opposition 11, n. 2. In light of the reasons given in this opinion, the dramatic departure from precedent would be to hold criminal fines exempt from Apprendi. * * * We hold that the rule of Apprendi applies to the imposition of criminal fines. 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. See Preyer, Penal Measures in the American Colonies: An Overview, 26 Am. J. Legal Hist. 326, 350 (1982) (hereinafter Preyer); see also Lill-quist, The Puzzling Return of Jury Sentencing: Misgivings About Apprendi, 82 N. C. L. Rev. 621, 640-641 (2004) (hereinafter Lillquist); Browning-Ferris Industries of Vt., Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., 492 U. S. 257, 290 (1989) (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (fines were “the preferred penal sanction” in England by the 17th century). “Imprisonment,” in contrast, “although provided for as a punishment in some colonies, was not a central feature of criminal punishment until a later time.” Preyer 329; see also Lillquist 641-643. In 2011, a fine was imposed on 9% of individual defendants and on 70.6% of organizational defendants in the federal system. See United States Sentencing Commission, 2011 Annual Report, ch. 5, pp. 34, 40. See, e.g., 12 U.S.C. § 1467a(i)(1); 15 U.S.C. § 717t(b); 16 U.S.C. § 825o(b); Cal. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 25515(a) (West Supp. 2012); Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 25-7-122.1(1)(b) and (e) (2011); Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 21, § 34C (West 2010); N. J. Stat. Ann. § 13:1E-99.89(f) (West Supp. 2012). See, e. g., 18 U. S. C. § 3571(d) (fine “not more than the greater of twice the gross gain or twice the gross loss”); Fla. Stat. § 775.083(1)(f) (2010) (same); Tex. Parks & Wild. Code Ann. § 12.410(c) (West 2002) (same); see also 18 U. S. C. § 645 (fine for embezzlement by officers of United States courts of up to twice the value of the money embezzled); § 201(b) (fine for bribery of public officials of up to three times the value of the bribe). Ice also stated in dicta that applying Apprendi to consecutive-versus-concurrent sentencing determinations might imperil a variety of sentencing decisions judges commonly make, including “the imposition of statutorily prescribed fines.” 555 U. S., at 171. The Court of Appeals read this statement to mean that Apprendi does not apply to criminal fines. 630 F. 3d, at 34. We think the statement is at most ambiguous, and more likely refers to the routine practice of judges’ imposing fines from within a range authorized by jury-found facts. Such a practice poses no problem under Apprendi because the penalty does not exceed what the jury’s verdict permits. See 530 U. S., at 481. In any event, our statement in Ice was unnecessary to the judgment and is not binding. Central Va. Community College v. Katz, 546 U. S. 356, 363 (2006). The dissent believes these decisions are inapposite because some of them arose in States that authorized juries, rather than judges, to impose sentence. See post, at 377-379. But this fact was not the basis of the decisions; rather, the courts required value to be alleged and proved to the jury because “the extent of the punishment . . . depend[s] upon the value of the property consumed or injured.” Ritchey, 7 Blackf., at 169; see also, e. g., Clark, 2 Ill., at 120-121 (same). And as Bishop explained, this requirement of proof originated not from a unique feature of jury sentencing, but from longstanding common-law principles—a point to which the dissent notably does not respond. 1 J. Bishop, Criminal Procedure §§ 81, 540 (2d ed. 1872). See infra, at 356. Nor, for that matter, do larceny cases “presenft] a special circumstance.” Post, at 379. Such decisions invoked the same reasoning as the other cases just mentioned. See, e. g., Hope, 50 Mass., at 137 (value must be proved because, among other things, “[o]ur statutes ... prescribe the punishment for larceny ... with reference to the value of the property stolen”); Goodrich, 46 N. H., at 188 (same). Bishop made this point explicit: “[Value] must be alleged wherever it is an element to be considered by the court in determining the punishment, and it is immaterial whether the particular crime is larceny or any other crime.” Criminal Procedure § 541, at 331 (emphasis added). At the end of the day, the only evidence the dissent musters that judges found fine-enhancing facts are United States v. Tyler, 7 Cranch 285 (1812), and one lower court decision restating Tyler’s holding. See post, at 374-376. We address Tyler below. See infra, at 357-358. We will not keep the reader in suspense: Pot-ash and pearl-ash are alkaline salts of differing causticity that “for a long time [were] amongst the most valuable articles of manufacture and commerce” in parts of early America. D. Townsend, Principles and Observations Applied to the Manufacture and Inspection of Pot and Pearl Ashes 3 (1793). See also Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., 563 U. S. 776, 785 (2011). In this vein, the dissent speculates that today’s decision may “nudg[e] our [criminal justice] system” further in favor of plea bargains at the expense of jury trials. Post, at 386. But groups representing the interests of defendants—whom the dissent’s rule purportedly favors—tell us the opposite is true. See Brief for Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America et al. as Amici Curiae 5 (“[Exempting criminal fines from Apprendi makes innocent defendants more likely to plead guilty”). Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

A

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court. Two years ago, we ordered that a certificate of appealability, under 28 U. S. C. § 2253(c), be issued to habeas petitioner Miller-El, affording review of the District Court’s rejection of the claim that prosecutors in his capital murder trial made peremptory strikes of potential jurors based on race. Today we find Miller-El entitled to prevail on that claim and order relief under § 2254. I In the course of robbing a Holiday Inn in Dallas, Texas, in late 1985, Miller-El and his accomplices bound and gagged two hotel employees, whom Miller-El then shot, killing one and severely injuring the other. During jury selection in Miller-El’s trial for capital murder, prosecutors used peremptory strikes against 10 qualified black venire members. Miller-El objected that the strikes were based on race and could not be presumed legitimate, given a history of excluding black members from criminal juries by the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office. The trial court received evidence of the practice alleged but found no “systematic exclusion of blacks as a matter of policy” by that office, App. 882-883, and therefore no entitlement to relief under Swain v. Alabama, 380 U. S. 202 (1965), the case then defining and marking the limits of relief from racially biased jury selection. The court denied Miller-El’s request to pick a new jury, and the trial ended with his death sentence for capital murder. While an appeal was pending, this Court decided Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U. S. 79 (1986), which replaced Swain’s threshold requirement to prove systemic discrimination under a Fourteenth Amendment jury claim, with the rule that discrimination by the prosecutor in selecting the defendant’s jury sufficed to establish the constitutional violation. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals then remanded the matter to the trial court to determine whether Miller-El could show that prosecutors in his case peremptorily struck prospective black jurors because of race. Miller-El v. State, 748 S. W. 2d 459 (1988) (en banc). The trial court found no such demonstration. After reviewing the voir dire record of the explanations given for some of the challenged strikes, and after hearing one of the prosecutors, Paul Macaluso, give his justification for those previously unexplained, the trial court accepted the stated race-neutral reasons for the strikes, which the judge called “completely credible [and] sufficient” as the grounds for a finding of “no purposeful discrimination.” Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Upon Remand from the Court of Criminal Appeals in State v. Miller-El, No. 8668-NL (5th Crim. Dist. Ct., Dallas County, Tex., Jan. 13, 1989), pp. 5-6, App. 928-929. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, stating it found “ample support” in the voir dire record for the race-neutral explanations offered by prosecutors for the peremptory strikes. Miller-El v. State, No. 69,677 (Sept. 16, 1992) (per curiam), p. 2, App. 931. Miller-El then sought habeas relief under 28 U. S. C. §2254, again pressing his Batson claim, among others not now before us. The District Court denied relief, Miller-El v. Johnson, Civil No. 3:96-CV-1992-H (ND Tex., June 5, 2000), App. 987, and the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit precluded appeal by denying a certificate of appealability, Miller-El v. Johnson, 261 F. 3d 445 (2001). We granted certiorari to consider whether Miller-El was entitled to review on the Batson claim, Miller-El v. Cockrell, 534 U. S. 1122 (2002), and reversed the Court of Appeals. After examining the record of Miller-El’s extensive evidence of purposeful discrimination by the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office before and during his trial, we found an appeal was in order, since the merits of the Batson claim were, at the least, debatable by jurists of reason. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U. S. 322 (2003). After granting a certificate of appealability, the Fifth Circuit rejected Miller-El’s Batson claim on the merits. 361 F. 3d 849 (2004). We again granted certiorari, 542 U. S. 936 (2004), and again we reverse. a < It is well known that prejudices often exist against particular classes in the community, which sway the judgment of jurors, and which, therefore, operate in some cases to deny to persons of those classes the full enjoyment of that protection which others enjoy.” Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 309 (1880); see also Batson v. Kentucky, supra, at 86. Defendants are harmed, of course, when racial discrimination in jury selection compromises the right of trial by impartial jury, Strauder v. West Virginia, supra, at 308, but racial minorities are harmed more generally, for prosecutors drawing racial lines in picking juries establish “state-sponsored group stereotypes rooted in, and reflective of, historical prejudice,” J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel. T. B., 511 U. S. 127, 128 (1994). Nor is the harm confined to minorities. When the government’s choice of jurors is tainted with racial bias, that “overt wrong... casts doubt over the obligation of the parties, the jury, and indeed the court to adhere to the law throughout the trial....” Powers v. Ohio, 499 U. S. 400, 412 (1991). That is, the very integrity of the courts is jeopardized when a prosecutor’s discrimination “invites cynicism respecting the jury’s neutrality,” ibid., and undermines public confidence in adjudication, Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U. S. 42, 49 (1992); Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U. S. 614, 628 (1991); Batson v. Kentucky, supra, at 87. So, “[f]or more than a century, this Court consistently and repeatedly has reaffirmed that racial discrimination by the State in jury selection offends the Equal Protection Clause.” Georgia v. McCollum, supra, at 44; see Strauder v. West Virginia, supra, at 308, 310; Norris v. Alabama, 294 U. S. 587, 596 (1935); Swain v. Alabama, supra, at 223-224; Batson v. Kentucky, supra, at 84; Powers v. Ohio, supra, at 404. The rub has been the practical difficulty of ferreting out discrimination in selections discretionary by nature, and choices subject to myriad legitimate influences, whatever the race of the individuals on the panel from which jurors are selected. In Swain v. Alabama, we tackled the problem of “the quantum of proof necessary” to show purposeful discrimination, 380 U. S., at 205, with an eye to preserving each side’s historical prerogative to make a peremptory strike or challenge, the very‘nature of which is traditionally “without a reason stated,” id., at 220. The Swain Court tried to relate peremptory challenge to equal protection by presuming the legitimacy of prosecutors’ strikes except in the face of a longstanding pattern of discrimination: when “in case after case, whatever the circumstances,” no blacks served on ju-ríes, then “giving even the widest leeway to the operation of irrational but trial-related suspicions and antagonisms, it would appear that the purposes of the peremptory challenge [were] being perverted.” Id., at 223-224. Swain’s demand to make out a continuity of discrimination over time, however, turned out to be difficult to the point of unworkable, and in Batson v. Kentucky, we recognized that this requirement to show an extended pattern imposed a “crippling burden of proof” that left prosecutors’ use of pe-remptories “largely immune from constitutional scrutiny.” 476 U. S., at 92-93. By Batson’s day, the law implementing equal protection elsewhere had evolved into less discouraging standards for assessing a claim of purposeful discrimination, id., at 93-95 (citing, e. g., Washington v. Davis, 426 U. S. 229 (1976), and Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U. S. 252 (1977)), and we accordingly held that a defendant could make out a prima facie case of discriminatory jury selection by “the totality of the relevant facts” about a prosecutor’s conduct during the defendant’s own trial. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U. S., at 94, 96. “Once the defendant makes a prima facie showing, the burden shifts to the State to come forward with a neutral explanation for challenging... jurors” within an arguably targeted class. Id., at 97. Although there may be “any number of bases on which a prosecutor reasonably [might] believe that it is desirable to strike a juror who is not excusable for cause..., the prosecutor must give a clear and reasonably specific explanation of his legitimate reasons for exercising the challeng[e].” Id., at 98, n. 20 (internal quotation marks omitted). “The trial court then will have the duty to determine if the defendant has established purposeful discrimination.” Id., at 98. Although the move from Swain to Batson left a defendant free to challenge the prosecution without having to cast Swain’s wide net, the net was not entirely consigned to history, for Batson’s individualized focus came with a weakness of its own owing to its very emphasis on the particular reasons a prosecutor might give. If any facially neutral reason sufficed to answer a Batson challenge, then Batson would not amount to much more than Swain. Some stated reasons are false, and although some false reasons are shown up within the four corners of a given case, sometimes a court may not be sure unless it looks beyond the case at hand. Hence Batson’s explanation that a defendant may rely on “all relevant circumstances” to raise an inference of purposeful discrimination. 476 U. S., at 96-97. B This case comes to us on review of a denial of habeas relief sought under 28 U. S. C. §2254, following the Texas trial court’s prior determination of fact that the State’s race-neutral explanations were true, see Purkett v. Elem, 514 U. S. 765, 769 (1995) (per curiam); Batson v. Kentucky, supra, at 98, n. 21. Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Miller-El may obtain relief only by showing the Texas conclusion to be “an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(2). Thus we presume the Texas court’s factual findings to be sound unless Miller-El rebuts the “presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence.” § 2254(e)(1). The standard is demanding but not insatiable; as we said the last time this case was here, “[d]eference does not by definition preclude relief.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U. S., at 340. r-H J-H H-\ A The numbers describing the prosecution’s use of perempto-ries are remarkable. Out of 20 black members of the 108-person venire panel for Miller-El’s trial, only 1 served. Although 9 were excused for cause or by agreement, 10 were peremptorily struck by the prosecution. Id., at 331. “The prosecutors used their peremptory strikes to exclude 91% of the eligible African-American venire members.... Happenstance is unlikely to produce this disparity.” Id., at 342. More powerful than these bare statistics, however, are side-by-side comparisons of some black venire panelists who were struck and white panelists allowed to serve. If a prosecutor’s proffered reason for striking a black panelist applies just as well to an otherwise-similar nonblack who is permitted to serve, that is evidence tending to prove purposeful discrimination to be considered at Batson’s third step. Cf. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U. S. 133, 147 (2000) (in employment discrimination cases, “[p]roof that the defendant’s explanation is unworthy of credence is simply one form of circumstantial evidence that is probative of intentional discrimination, and it may be quite persuasive”). While we did not develop a comparative juror analysis last time, we did note that the prosecution’s reasons for exercising peremptory strikes against some black panel members appeared equally on point as to some white jurors who served. Miller-El v. Cockrell, supra, at 343. The details of two panel member comparisons bear this out. The prosecution used its second peremptory strike to exclude Billy Jean Fields, a black man who expressed unwavering support for the death penalty. On the questionnaire filled out by all panel members before individual examination on the stand, Fields said that he believed in capital punishment, Joint Lodging 14, and during questioning he disclosed his belief that the State acts on God's behalf when it imposes the death penalty. “Therefore, if the State exacts death, then that’s what it should be.” App. 174. He testified that he had no religious or philosophical reservations about the death penalty and that the death penalty deterred crime. Id., at 174-175. He twice averred, without apparent hesitation, that he could sit on Miller-El’s jury and make a decision to impose this penalty. Id., at 176-177. Although at one point in the questioning, Fields indicated that the possibility of rehabilitation might be relevant to the likelihood that a defendant would commit future acts of violence, id., at 183, he responded to ensuing questions by saying that although he believed anyone could be rehabilitated, this belief would not stand in the way of a decision to impose the death penalty: “[B]ased on what you [the prosecutor] said as far as the crime goes, there are only two things that could be rendered, death or life in prison. If for some reason the testimony didn’t warrant death, then life imprisonment would give an individual an opportunity to rehabilitate. But, you know, you said that the jurors didn’t have the opportunity to make a personal decision in the matter with reference to what I thought or felt, but it was just based on the questions according to the way the law has been handed down.” Id., at 185 (alteration omitted). Fields also noted on his questionnaire that his brother had a criminal history. Joint Lodging 13. During questioning, the prosecution went into this, too: “Q Could you tell me a little bit about that? “A He was arrested and convicted on [a] number of occasions for possession of a controlled substance. “Q Was that here in Dallas? “A Yes. “Q Was he involved in any trials or anything like that? “A I suppose of sorts. I don’t really know too much about it. “Q Was he ever convicted? "A Yeah, he served time. “Q Do you feel that that would in any way interfere with your service on this jury at all? “A No.” App. 190 (alteration omitted). Fields was struck peremptorily by the prosecution, with prosecutor James Nelson offering a race-neutral reason: “[W]e... have concern with reference to some of his statements as to the death penalty in that he said that he could only give death if he thought a person could not be rehabilitated and he later made the comment that any person could be rehabilitated if they find God or are introduced to God and the fact that we have a concern that his religious feelings may affect his jury service in this case.” Id., at 197 (alteration omitted). Thus, Nelson simply mischaracterized Fields’s testimony. He represented that Fields said he would not vote for death if rehabilitation was possible, whereas Fields unequivocally stated that he could impose the death penalty regardless of the possibility of rehabilitation. Perhaps Nelson misunderstood, but unless he had an ulterior reason for keeping Fields off the jury we think he would have proceeded differently. In light of Fields’s outspoken support for the death penalty, we expect the prosecutor would have cleared up any misunderstanding by asking further questions before getting to the point of exercising a strike. If, indeed, Fields’s thoughts on rehabilitation did make the prosecutor uneasy, he should have worried about a number of white panel members he accepted with no evident reservations. Sandra Hearn said that she believed in the death penalty “if a criminal cannot be rehabilitated and continues to commit the same type of crime.” Id., at 429. Hearn went so far as to express doubt that at the penalty phase of a capital case she could conclude that a convicted murderer “would probably commit some criminal acts of violence in the future.” Id., at 440. “People change,” she said, making it hard to assess the risk of someone’s future dangerousness. “[T]he evidence would have to be awful strong.” Ibid. But the prosecution did not respond to Hearn the way it did to Fields, and without delving into her views about rehabilitation with any further question, it raised no objection to her serving on the jury. White panelist Mary Witt said she would take the possibility of rehabilitation into account in deciding at the penalty phase of the trial about a defendant’s probability of future dangerousness, 6 Record of Voir Dire 2433 (hereinafter Record), but the prosecutors asked her no further question about her views on reformation, and they accepted her as a juror, id., at 2464-2465. Latino venireman Fernando Gutierrez, who served on the jury, said that he would consider the death penalty for someone who could not be rehabilitated, App. 777, but the prosecutors did not question him further about this view. In sum, nonblack jurors whose remarks on rehabilitation could well have signaled a limit on their willingness to impose a death sentence were not questioned further and drew no objection, but the prosecution expressed apprehension about a black juror’s belief in the possibility of reformation even though he repeatedly stated his approval of the death penalty and testified that he could impose it according to state legal standards even when the alternative sentence of life imprisonment would give a defendant (like everyone else in the world) the opportunity to reform. The unlikelihood that his position on rehabilitation had anything to do with the peremptory strike of Fields is underscored by the prosecution’s response after Miller-El’s lawyer pointed out that the prosecutor had misrepresented Fields’s responses on the subject. A moment earlier the prosecutor had finished his misdescription of Fields’s views on potential rehabilitation with the words, “Those are our reasons for exercising our... strike at this time.” Id., at 197. When defense counsel called him on his misstatement, he neither defended what he said nor withdrew the strike. Id., at 198. Instead, he suddenly came up with Fields’s brother’s prior conviction as another reason for the strike. Id., at 199. It would be difficult to credit the State’s new explanation, which reeks of afterthought. While the Court of Appeals tried to bolster it with the observation that no seated juror was in Fields’s position with respect to his brother, 361 F. 3d, at 859-860, the court’s readiness to accept the State’s substitute reason ignores not only its pretextual timing but the other reasons rendering it implausible. Fields’s testimony indicated he was not close to his brother, App. 190 (“I don’t really know too much about it”), and the prosecution asked nothing further about the influence his brother’s history might have had on Fields, as it probably would have done if the family history had actually mattered. See, e.g., Ex parte Travis, 776 So. 2d 874, 881 (Ala. 2000) (“[T]he State’s failure to engage in any meaningful voir dire examination on a subject the State alleges it is concerned about is evidence suggesting that the explanation is a sham and a pretext for discrimination”). There is no good reason to doubt that the State’s afterthought about Fields’s brother was anything but makeweight. The Court of Appeals’s judgment on the Fields strike is unsupportable for the same reason the State’s first explanation is itself unsupportable. The Appeals Court’s description of Fields’s voir dire testimony mentioned only his statements that everyone could be rehabilitated, failing to note that Fields affirmed that he could give the death penalty if the law and evidence called for it, regardless of the possibility of divine grace. The Court of Appeals made no mention of the fact that the prosecution mischaracterized Fields as saying he could not give death if rehabilitation were possible. 361 F. 3d, at 856. In sum, when we look for nonblack jurors similarly situated to Fields, we find strong similarities as well as some differences. But the differences seem far from significant, particularly when we read Fields’s voir dire testimony in its entirety. Upon that reading, Fields should have been an ideal juror in the eyes of a prosecutor seeking a death sentence, and the prosecutors’ explanations for the strike cannot reasonably be accepted. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U. S., at 339 (the credibility of reasons given can be measured by “how reasonable, or how improbable, the explanations are; and by whether the proffered rationale has some basis in accepted trial strategy”). The prosecution’s proffered reasons for striking Joe Warren, another black venireman, are comparably unlikely. Warren gave this answer when he was asked what the death penalty accomplished: “I don’t know. It’s really hard to say because I know sometimes you feel that it might help to deter crime and then you feel that the person is not really suffering. You’re taking the suffering away from him. So it’s like I said, sometimes you have mixed feelings about whether or not this is punishment or, you know, you’re relieving personal punishment.” App. 205; 3 Record 1532. The prosecution said nothing about these remarks when it struck Warren from the panel, but prosecutor Paul Macaluso referred to this answer as the first of his reasons when he testified at the later Batson hearing: “I thought [Warren’s statements on voir dire] were inconsistent responses. At one point he says, you know, on a case-by-case basis and at another point he said, well, I think — I got the impression, at least, that he suggested that the death penalty was an easy way out, that they should be made to suffer more.” App. 909. On the face of it, the explanation is reasonable from the State’s point of view, but its plausibility is severely undercut by the prosecution’s failure to object to other panel members who expressed views much like Warren’s. Kevin Duke, who served on the jury, said, “sometimes death would be better to me than — being in prison would be like dying every day and, if you were in prison for life with no hope of parole, I[’d] just as soon have it over with than be in prison for the rest of your life.” Id., at 372. Troy Woods, the one black panelist to serve as juror, said that capital punishment “is too easy. I think that’s a quick relief.... I feel like [hard labor is] more of a punishment than putting them to sleep.” Id., at 408. Sandra Jenkins, whom the State accepted (but who was then struck by the defense) testified that she thought “a harsher treatment is life imprisonment with no parole.” Id., at 542. Leta Girard, accepted by the State (but also struck by the defense) gave her opinion that “living sometimes is a worse — is worse to me than dying would be.” Id., at 624. The fact that Macaluso’s reason also applied to these other panel members, most of them white, none of them struck, is evidence of pretext. The suggestion of pretext is not, moreover, mitigated much by Macaluso’s explanation that Warren was struck when the State had 10 peremptory challenges left and could afford to be liberal in using them. Id., at 908. If that were the explanation for striking Warren and later accepting panel members who thought death would be too easy, the prosecutors should have struck Sandra Jenkins, whom they examined and accepted before Warren. Indeed, the disparate treatment is the more remarkable for the fact that the prosecutors repeatedly questioned Warren on his capacity and willingness to impose a sentence of death and elicited statements of his ability to do so if the evidence supported that result and the answer to each special question was yes, id., at 202.2, 202.3, 205, 207, whereas the record before us discloses no attempt to determine whether Jenkins would be able to vote for death in spite of her view that it was easy on the convict, id., at 541-546. Yet the prosecutors accepted the white panel member Jenkins and struck the black venireman Warren. Macaluso’s explanation that the prosecutors grew more sparing with peremptory challenges as the jury selection wore on does, however, weaken any suggestion that the State’s acceptance of Woods, the one black juror, shows that race was not in play. Woods was the eighth juror, qualified in the fifth week of jury selection. Joint Lodging 125. When the State accepted him, 11 of its 15 peremptory strikes were gone, 7 of them used to strike black panel members. Id., at 137. The juror questionnaires show that at least three members of the venire panel yet to be questioned on the stand were opposed to capital punishment, Janice Mackey, id., at 79; Paul Bailey, id., at 63; and Anna Keaton, id., at 55. With at least three remaining panel members highly undesirable to the State, the prosecutors had to exercise prudent restraint in using strikes. This late-stage decision to accept a black panel member willing to impose a death sentence does not, therefore, neutralize the early-stage decision to challenge a comparable venireman, Warren. In fact, if the prosecutors were going to accept any black juror to obscure the otherwise consistent pattern of opposition to seating one, the time to do so was getting late. The Court of Appeals pretermitted these difficulties by stating that the prosecution’s reason for striking Warren was a more general ambivalence about the penalty and his ability to impose it, 361 F. 3d, at 856-857 (and the dissent presses that explanation here, post, at 286-289). But this rationalization was erroneous as a matter of fact and as a matter of law. As to fact, Macaluso said nothing about any general ambivalence. He simply alluded to the possibility that Warren might think the death penalty too easy on some defendants, saying nothing about Warren’s ability to impose the penalty when it appeared to be warranted. On the contrary, though Warren had indeed questioned the extent to which the death penalty served a purpose in society, App. 205, he explained his position in response to the very next question: it was not any qualm about imposing what society generally deems its harshest punishment, but his concern that the death penalty might not be severe enough, ibid. When Warren was asked whether he could impose the death penalty he said he thought he could; when told that answering yes to the special issue questions would be tantamount to voting for death he said he could give yes answers if the evidence supported them. Id., at 207. As for law, the rule in Batson provides an opportunity to the prosecutor to give the reason for striking the juror, and it requires the judge to assess the plausibility of that reason in light of all evidence with a bearing on it. 476 U. S., at 96-97; Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U. S., at 339. It is true that peremptories are often the subjects of instinct, Batson v. Kentucky, supra, at 106 (Marshall, J., concurring), and it can sometimes be hard to say what the reason is. But when illegitimate grounds like race are in issue, a prosecutor simply has got to state his reasons as best he can and stand or fall on the plausibility of the reasons he gives. A Batson challenge does not call for a mere exercise in thinking up any rational basis. If the stated reason does not hold up, its pretextual significance does not fade because a trial judge, or an appeals court, can imagine a reason that might not have been shown up as false. The Court of Appeals’s and the dissent’s substitution of a reason for eliminating Warren does nothing to satisfy the prosecutors’ burden of stating a racially neutral explanation for their own actions. The whole of the voir dire testimony subject to consideration casts the prosecution’s reasons for striking Warren in an implausible light. Comparing his strike with the treatment of panel members who expressed similar views supports a conclusion that race was significant in determining who was challenged and who was not. B The case for discrimination goes beyond these comparisons to include broader patterns of practice during the jury selection. The prosecution’s shuffling of the venire panel, its en-quiry into views on the death penalty, its questioning about minimum acceptable sentences: all indicate decisions probably based on race. Finally, the appearance of discrimination is confirmed by widely known evidence of the general policy of the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office to exclude black venire members from juries at the time Miller-El’s jury was selected. The first clue to the prosecutors’ intentions, distinct from the peremptory challenges themselves, is their resort during voir dire to a procedure known in Texas as the jury shuffle. In the State’s criminal practice, either side may literally reshuffle the cards bearing panel members’ names, thus rearranging the order in which members of a venire panel are seated and reached for questioning. Once the order is established, the panel members seated at the back are likely to escape voir dire altogether, for those not questioned by the end of the week are dismissed. As we previously explained, “the prosecution’s decision to seek a jury shuffle when a predominant number of African-Americans were seated in the front of the panel, along with its decision to delay a formal objection to the defense’s shuffle until after the new racial composition was revealed, raise a suspicion that the State sought to exclude African-Americans from the jury. Our concerns are amplified by the fact that the state court also had before it, and apparently ignored, testimony demonstrating that the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office had, by its own admission, used this process to manipulate the racial composition of the jury in the past.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, supra, at 346. In this case, the prosecution and then the defense shuffled the cards at the beginning of the first week of voir dire; the record does not reflect the changes in order. App. 113-114. At the beginning of the second week, when a number of black members were seated at the front of the panel, the prosecution shuffled. 2 Record 836-837. At the beginning of the third week, the first four panel members were black. The prosecution shuffled, and these black panel members ended up at the back. Then the defense shuffled, and the black panel members again appeared at the front. The prosecution requested another shuffle, but the trial court refused. App. 124-132. Finally, the defense shuffled at the beginning of the fourth and fifth weeks of voir dire; the record does not reflect the panel’s racial composition before or after those shuffles. Id., at 621-622; 9 Record 3585-3586. The State notes in its brief that there might be racially neutral reasons for shuffling the jury, Brief for Respondent 36-37, and we suppose there might be. But no racially neutral reason has ever been offered in this case, and nothing stops the suspicion of discriminatory intent from rising to an inference. The next body of evidence that the State was trying to avoid black jurors is the contrasting voir dire questions posed respectively to black and nonblack panel members, on two different subjects. First, there were the prosecutors’ statements preceding questions about a potential juror’s thoughts on capital punishment. Some of these prefatory statements were cast in general terms, but some followed the so-called graphic script, describing the method of execution in rhetorical and clinical detail. It is intended, Miller-El contends, to prompt some expression of hesitation to consider the death penalty and thus to elicit plausibly neutral grounds for a peremptory strike of a potential juror subjected to it, if not a strike for cause. If the graphic script is given to a higher proportion of blacks than whites, this is evidence that prosecutors more often wanted blacks off the jury, absent some neutral and extenuating explanation. As we pointed out last time, for 94% of white venire panel members, prosecutors gave a bland description of the death penalty before asking about the individual’s feelings on the subject. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U. S., at 332. The abstract account went something like this: “I feel like it [is] only fair that we tell you our position in this case. The State of Texas... is actively seeking the death penalty in this case for Thomas Joe Miller-El. We anticipate that we will be able to present to a jury the quantity and type of evidence necessary to convict him of capital murder and the quantity and type of evidence sufficient to allow a jury to answer these three questions over here in the affirmative. A yes answer to each of those questions results in an automatic death penalty from Judge McDowell.” App. 564-565. Only 6% of white venire panelists, but 53% of those who were black, heard a different description of the death penalty before being asked their feelings about it. This is an example of the graphic script: “I feel like you have a right to know right up front what our position is. Mr. Kinne, Mr. Macaluso and myself, representing the people of Dallas County and the state of Texas, are actively seeking the death penalty for Thomas Joe Miller-El.... “We do that with the anticipation that, when the death penalty is assessed, at some point Mr. Thomas Joe Miller-El — the man sitting right down there — will be taken to Huntsville and will be put on death row and at some point taken to the death house and placed on a gurney and injected with a lethal substance until he is dead as a result of the proceedings that we have in this court on this case. So that’s basically our position going into this thing.” Id., at 572-573 (alteration omitted). The State concedes that this disparate questioning did occur but argues that use of the graphic script turned not on a panelist’s race but on expressed ambivalence about the death penalty in the preliminary questionnaire. Prosecutors were trying, the argument goes, to weed out noncommittal or uncertain jurors, not black jurors. And while some white venire members expressed opposition to the death penalty on their questionnaires, they were not read the graphic script because their feelings were already clear. The State says that giving the graphic script to these panel members would only have antagonized them. Brief for Respondent 27-32. This argument, however, first advanced in dissent when the case was last here, Miller-El v. Cockrell, supra, at 364-368 (opinion of Thomas, J.), and later adopted by the State and the Court of Appeals, simply does not fit the facts. Looking at the answers on the questionnaires, and at voir dire testimony expressly discussing answers on the questionnaires, we find that black venire members were more likely than nonblacks to receive the graphic script regardless Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy 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. For the reasons discussed below, we have concluded that deciding this case would require us to resolve a constitutional question that may be entirely hypothetical, and we accordingly dismiss the writ as improvidently granted. I In 1985, the Federal Trade Commission initiated enforcement proceedings against petitioners, six title insurance companies, alleging that they conspired to fix prices in 13 States including Arizona and Wisconsin. Shortly after that, private parties in the affected States filed 12 different “tag-along” antitrust class actions, seeking treble damages and injunctive relief. Those private suits were consolidated for pretrial purposes pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1407 (the federal multidistrict litigation statute), and were transferred to the District Court for the .Eastern District of Pennsylvania as MDL No. 633. In January 1986, spurred on by an intervening decision of this Court that substantially weakened the claims against petitioners, see Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference, Inc. v United States, 471 U. S. 48 (1985), petitioners and the class representatives in MDL No. 633 reached a settlement. The settlement extinguished all money damages claims against petitioners by those “ ‘purchasers and insureds, who purchased or received title insurance... from any title insurance underwriter . . . with respect to real estate located in any of the thirteen Affected States during the period from January 1, 1981 to December 31, 1985,’ ” a class that included the respondents. In re Real Estate Title and Settlement Services Antitrust Litigation, 1986-1 Trade Cases ¶ 67, 149, pp. 62, 921, 62, 924 (ED Pa. 1986) (quoting settlement agreement). To the plaintiffs, the settlement agreement awarded injunctive relief, an increased amount of coverage on any title insurance policy that class members bought during the class period, an increased amount of coverage on specified title insurance policies that class members might purchase from petitioners during a future 1-year period, and payment of attorney’s fees and costs of the lawsuit. The District Court provisionally certified the settlement class (as stipulated by the class representatives and petitioners) under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1) and (b)(2), and provisionally accepted the settlement. At the ensuing final settlement hearing, the State of Wisconsin objected to the proposed settlement both as a class member and as parens patriae for its resident class members, claiming that the action could not be certified under Rule 23(b)(2) because the relief sought in the complaints was primarily monetary. Wisconsin also claimed (and was joined in this by the State of Arizona, both as a class member and as parens patriae) that due process required that the proposed class members have an opportunity to opt out of the class. The District Court ultimately rejected these objections, certified the classes under Rules 23(b)(1)(A) and (b)(2), and accepted the settlement. The Third Circuit affirmed without opinion, In re Real Estate Title and Settlement Services Antitrust Litigation, 815 F. 2d 695 (1987) (judgment order), and we denied certiorari, 485 U. S. 909 (1988). In 1990, respondent Brown filed the present action in District Court in Arizona on behalf of Arizona and Wisconsin title insurance consumers, alleging that petitioners had conspired to fix rates for title-search services in those States in violation of the federal antitrust laws. The District Court granted petitioners summary judgment on the ground, among others, that respondents, as parties to the MDL No. 633 suit, were bound by the judgment entered pursuant to the settlement. The Ninth Circuit reversed, accepting respondents' contention that it would violate due process to accord res judicata effect to a judgment in a class action that involved money damages claims (or perhaps that involved primarily money damages claims) against a plaintiff in the previous suit who had not been afforded a right to opt out on those claims. 982 F. 2d 386, 392 (1992). Before the Ninth Circuit, respondents did not (and indeed could not) challenge whether the class in the MDL No. 633 litigation was properly certified under Rules 23(b)(1)(A) and (b)(2). And in this Court, petitioners present only a single question — viz., “[w]hether a federal court may refuse to enforce a prior federal class action judgment, properly certified under Rule 23, on grounds that absent class members have a constitutional due process right to opt out of any class action which asserts monetary claims on their behalf.” Pet. for Cert. i. II That certified question is of no general consequence if, whether or not absent class members have a constitutional right to opt out of such actions, they have a right to do so under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Such a right would exist if, in actions seeking monetary damages, classes can be certified only under Rule 23(b)(3), which permits opt-out, and not under Rules 23(b)(1) and (b)(2), which do not. See Rules 23(c)(2) and (c)(3). That is at least a substantial possibility — and we would normally resolve that preliminary nonconstitutional question before proceeding to the constitutional claim. See New York City Transit Authority v. Beazer, 440 U. S. 568, 582-583 (1979). The law of res judicata, however, prevents that question from being litigated here. It was conclusively determined in the MDL No. 633 litigation that respondents’ class fit within Rules 23(b)(1)(A) and (b)(2); even though that determination may have been wrong, it is conclusive upon these parties, and the alternative of using the Federal Rules instead of the Constitution as the means of imposing an opt-out requirement for this settlement is no longer available. The most obvious consequence of this unavailability is, as we have suggested, that our resolution of the posited constitutional question may be quite unnecessary in law, and of virtually no practical consequence in fact, except with respect to these particular litigants. Another consequence, less apparent, is that resolving the constitutional question on the assumption of proper certification under the Rules may lead us to the wrong result. If the Federal Rules, which generally are not affirmatively enacted into law by Congress, see 28 U. S. C. §§ 2072(a), (b), 2074(a), are not entitled to that great deference as to constitutionality which we accord federal statutes, see, e. g., Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U. S. 57, 64 (1981); Walters v. National Assn. of Radiation Survivors, 473 U. S. 305, 319-320 (1985), they at least come with the imprimatur of the rulemaking authority of this Court. In deciding the present case, we must assume either that the lack of opt-out opportunity in these circumstances was decreed by the Rules or that it was not (though the parties are bound by an erroneous holding that it was). If we make the former assumption we may approve, in the mistaken deference to prior Supreme Court action and congressional acquiescence, action that neither we nor Congress would independently think constitutional. If we make the latter assumption, we may announce a constitutional rule that is good for no other federal class action. Neither option is attractive. The one reason to proceed is to achieve justice in this particular case. Even if the constitutional question presented is hypothetical as to everyone else, it would seem to be of great practical importance to these litigants. But that is ordinarily not sufficient reason for our granting certiorari— even when unnecessary constitutional pronouncements are not in the picture. Moreover, as matters have developed it is not clear that our resolution of the constitutional question will make any difference even to these litigants. On the day we granted certiorari we were informed that the parties had reached a settlement designed to moot the petition, which now awaits the approval of the District Court. In these circumstances, we think it best to dismiss the writ as improvidently granted. Certification under Rule 23(b)(1)(A) requires that the prosecution of separate actions would create a risk of “inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the class- which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing the class.” Certification under Rule 23(b)(2) requires that “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.” Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

I

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr. Justice Brennan delivered the opinion of the Court. This declaratory judgment action was brought by petitioner, in March 1955 in the District Court for the Southern District of New York, to obtain a judgment against the District Director of Immigration declaring that petitioner was eligible for suspension of deportation and restraining the Director from taking him into custody for deportation. The District Court dismissed the complaint, without reaching the merits, upon the procedural ground “that the Attorney General [of the United States] and/or the Commissioner [of Immigration] are indispensable parties to the instant action.” The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed, not only for the reason given by the District Court, but also upon the ground that, because the petitioner is “an alien who 'has made application’ to be relieved from military service,” he is debarred from citizenship as a matter of law and “hence is not eligible for an order suspending deportation.” This Court granted certiorari. Deportation proceedings had been instituted because petitioner had entered the United States on April 2, 1951, on a temporary visa and remained beyond the period for which he was admitted. Petitioner was found deport-able but was given permission to depart voluntarily, in lieu of deportation. Petitioner’s timely application for suspension of deportation under § 19 (e) of the Immigration Act of 1917, as amended, was denied by the Immigration and Naturalization Service because it found that petitioner did not satisfy a prerequisite for the application of that section — eligibility for naturalization. His ineligibility was based on a finding that in August 1943 petitioner, as a citizen and subject of Colombia, then a World War II neutral, applied under § 3 (a) of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, as amended, for relief from service with the United States armed forces. Section 3 (a) provided that “any person who makes such application shall thereafter be debarred from becoming a citizen of the United States.” The petitioner was admitted to the United States for permanent residence in February 1942, during World War II. On June 16, 1943, he executed Selective Service System Form DSS 304, “Alien’s Personal History and Statement,” which gave the alien a choice of inserting “do” or “do not” in the statement: “I .object to service in the land or naval forces of the United States.” The petitioner inserted the word' “do.” The form contained this notice: “. . . If you are a citizen or subject of a neutral country, and you do not wish to serve in the land or naval forces of the United States, you may apply to your local board for Application by Alien for Relief from Military Service (Form 301) which, when executed by you and filed with the local board, will relieve you from the obligation to serve in the land or naval forces of the United States, but will also debar you from thereafter becoming a citizen of the United States.” On August 26, 1943, the petitioner executed Form DSS 301, “Application by Alien for Relief from Military Service.” The form contained the following paragraph: “I do hereby make application to be relieved from liability for training and service in the land or naval forces of the United States, under the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, as amended, in accordance with the act of Congress, approved December 20, 1941. I understand that the making of this application to be relieved from such liability will debar rae from becoming a citizen of the United States. ...” Selective Service Regulations required the local board to follow prescribed formalities to place a neutral applying for relief from service in Class IV-C and to notify the alien of the classification. The board did not comply with these regulations in petitioner’s case. Its first formal action was taken after the Selective Service System notified the board, on December 20, 1943, that Colombia, on November 26, 1943, had changed its neutral status to that of a cobelligerent with the United States. On January 27, 1944, five months after the petitioner filed the Form DSS 301, the board notified the petitioner that he was classified I-A, available for military service, and ordered him to report for preinduction physical examination. He reported as ordered, but failed to pass the physical examination and, on March 2, 1944, was reclassified IV-F, physically defective. The petitioner argues that neither the Attorney General nor the Commissioner of Immigration is a necessary party to this action. The respondent offers no argument in opposition. We hold that neither the Attorney General nor the Commissioner is a necessary party. This Court in Shaughnessy v. Pedreiro, 349 U. S. 48, held that determination of the question of indispensability of parties is dependent, not on the nature of the decision attacked, but on the ability and authority of the defendant before the court to effectuate the relief which the alien seeks. In this case the petitioner asks to have the order of deportation suspended and to restrain the District Director from deporting him. Because the District Director is the official who would execute the deportation, he is a sufficient party. It is not a basis for distinction of Pedreiro that suspension of deportation, rather than deportation itself, is involved in this action. The petitioner’s argument on the merits challenges the holding of the Court of Appeals that the execution and filing of Form DSS 301 had the effect as a matter of law of debarring him from becoming a citizen of the United States. He contends that debarment could result only if the local board affirmatively granted the relief applied for by classifying him IV-C on its records and giving him notice of its action. We hold that the petitioner’s voluntary act of executing and filing, and allowing to remain on file, the legally sufficient application Form DSS 301 effected his debarment from citizenship under §3 (a). The explicit terms of the section debar the neutral alien “who makes such application” for immunity from military service. Legislative history shows this to be the effect contemplated by Congress. This same construction has been adopted in the few court decisions which refer to the section, and administrative construction has consistently given the section this meaning. The neutral alien in this country during the war was at liberty to refuse to bear arms to help us win the struggle, but the price he paid for his unwillingness was permanent debarment from United States citizenship. The petitioner argues that in any event § 315 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, and not § 3 (a) of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, governs this case. Section 315 of the 1952 Act enacts a two-pronged requirement for the determination of permanent ineligibility for citizenship: the alien must be one “who applies or has applied for exemption,” and also one who “is or was relieved or discharged from such training or service on such ground.” That section has no application here. The 1952 law had not been enacted when the petitioner applied for relief from deportation in 1951 and by its terms is expressly made inapplicable to proceedings for suspension of deportation under § 19 of the Immigration Act of 1917 pending, as here, on the effective date of the 1952 law. Affirmed. The action was instituted pursuant to § 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 60 Stat. 243, 5 U. S. C. § 1009, and the general jurisdictional provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 66 Stat. 230, 8 U. S. C. § 1329. 130 F. Supp. 30, 31. 229 F. 2d 592, 593. 351 U. S. 981. Section 19 (c) of the Immigration Act of 1917, as amended, provided in pertinent part: “In the case of any alien . . . who is deportable under any law of the United -States and who has proved good moral character for the preceding five years, the Attorney General may (1) permit such alien to depart the United States tp any country of his choice at his own expense, in lieu of deportation; or (2) suspend deportation of such alien if he is not ineligible for naturalization ... if he finds (a) that such deportation would result in serious e'eonomic detriment to a citizen . . . who is the spouse ... or mihor child of such deportable alien . . . .” 39 Stat. 889, as amended, 54 Stat. 671, 62 Stat. 1206, 8 U. S. C. (1946 ed., Supp. V) § 155. Section 3 (a) of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, as amended, provided in pertinent part: “Except as otherwise provided in this Act, every male citizen of the United States, and every other male person residing in the United States, who is between the ages of eighteen and forty-five , . . shall be liable for training and service in the land or naval forces of the United States: Provided, That any citizen or subject of a neutral country shall be relieved from liability for training and service under this Act if, prior to his induction into the land or naval forces, he has made application to be relieved from such liability in the manner prescribed by and in accordance with rules and regulations prescribed by the President, but any person who makes such application shall thereafter be debarred from becoming a citizen of the United States . . . .” 54 Stat. 885, as amended, 55 Stat. 845, 56 Stat. 1019, 50 U. S. C. App. (1940 ed., Supp. II) § 303 (a). This form was authorized by Selective Service System Order No. 75, 7 Fed. Reg. 3424. This form was authorized by Selective Service System Order No. 54, 7 Fed. Reg. 1104. 32 CFR, 1943 Cum. Supp., § 622.43 (b); 32 CFR, 1943 Cum. Supp., § 623.1; 32 CFR, 1943 Cum. Supp., § 623.61. The Court of Appeals made that distinction and held that not Pedreiro but its decision in De Pinho Vaz v. Shaughnessy, 208 F. 2d 70, controlled. 229 F. 2d, at 593. The petitioner’s claim that he executed the application in the belief that he was required to do so to obtain assignment to a Latin American contingent of the United States Army was rejected, after hearing, by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. In fact, the Board of Immigration Appeals found that petitioner “fully understood the legal consequences, of his action and that he was not duly influenced by other considerations.” Cf. Moser v. United States, 341 U. S. 41. This appears in both the House and Senate Reports. The House Report states: “. . . In the case of citizens or subjects of any neutral country, special provision is made to enable them, upon application, to be relieved from the liability for service, but the making of such appli cation will debar them, from becoming citizens of the United States. . . .” (Emphasis added.) H. R. Rep. No. 1508, 77th Cong., 1st Sess. 4. The Senate Report states: “. . . Under the bill reported by the committee, aliens would be liable whether or not they had declared their intention to become citizens. However, aliens who are citizens or subjects of a neutral country would be relieved of liability upon making application in the manner prescribed by the President, but the making of such application will debar them from ever becoming citizens of the United States. . . .” (Emphasis added.) S. Rep. No. 915, 77th Cong., 1st Sess. 2. Mannerfrid v. United States, 200 F. 2d 730; Navarro v. Landon, 108 F. Supp. 922; see Machado v. McGrath, 90 U. S. App. D. C. 70, 74, 193 F. 2d 706, 710. See McGrath v. Kristensen, 340 U. S. 162, 172: “By the terms of the statute, that bar only comes into existence when an alien resident liable for service asks to be relieved.” (Emphasis added.) See Moser v. United States, 341 U. S. 41, 45: Section 3 (a) "imposed the condition that neutral aliens residing here who claimed such immunity would be debarred from citizenship.” (Emphasis added.) See quotations from Forms DSS 304 and DSS 301 in text. And see, Selective Service Regulations, § 622.43, effective March 16, 1942, 7 Fed. Reg. 2087. Section 622.43, as revised, effective October 1, 1943, 8 Fed. Reg. 13672, read: “. . . (a) In Class IV-C shall be placed any registrant: ... (2) Who is an alien and who is a citizen or subject of a neutral country . . . and who . . . files with his local board an Application by Alien for Relief from Military Service (Form 301) The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, §315, provides: “(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 405 (b), any alien who applies or has applied for exemption or discharge from training or service in the Armed Forces or in the National Security Training Corps of the United States on the ground that he is an alien, and is or was relieved or discharged from such training or service on such ground, shall be permanently ineligible to become a citizen of the United States. “(b) The records of the Selective Service System or of the National Military Establishment shall be conclusive as to whether an alien was relieved or discharged from such liability for training or service because he was an alien.” 66 Stat. 242, 8 U. S. C. § 1426. The 1952 law became effective in December 1952. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, §405 (a), provides: “Nothing contained in this Act, unless otherwise specifically provided therein, shall be construed ... to affect . . . proceedings . . . brought, ... or existing, at the time this Act shall take effect; but as to all such . . . proceedings, . . . the statutes or parts of statutes repealed by this Act are, unless otherwise specifically provided therein, hereby continued in force and effect. . . . An application for suspension of deportation under section 19 of the Immigration Act of 1917, as amended . . . which is pending on the date of enactment of this Act, shall be regarded as a proceeding within the meaning of this subsection.” 66 Stat. 280, 8 U. S. C. § 1101, note. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy F. Attorneys G. Unions H. Economic Activity I. Judicial Power J. Federalism K. Interstate Relations L. Federal Taxation M. Miscellaneous N. Private Action Answer:

B

sc_issuearea

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states. Mr. Justice Stewart delivered the opinion of the Court. Since 1919 the petitioner, Almota Farmers Elevator & Warehouse Co., has conducted grain elevator operations on land adjacent to the tracks of the Oregon-Washington. Railroad & Navigation Co. in the State of Washington. It has occupied the land under a series of successive leases from the railroad. In 1967, the Government instituted this eminent domain proceeding to acquire the petitioner’s property interest by condemnation. At that time there were extensive buildings and other improvements that had been erected on the land by the petitioner, and the then-current lease had 7y% years to run. In the District Court the Government contended that just compensation for the leasehold interest, including the structures, should be “the fair market value of the legal rights possessed by the defendant by virtue of the lease as of the date of taking,” and that no consideration should be given to any additional value based on the expectation that the lease might be renewed. The petitioner urged that, rather than this technical “legal rights theory,” just compensation should be measured by what a willing buyer would pay in an open market for the petitioner’s leasehold. As a practical matter, the controversy centered upon the valuation to be placed upon the structures and their appurtenances. The parties stipulated that the Government had no need for these improvements and that the petitioner had a right to remove them. But that stipulation afforded the petitioner only what scant salvage value the buildings might bring. The Government offered compensation for the loss of the use and occupancy of the buildings only over the remaining term of the lease. The petitioner contended that this limitation upon compensation for the use of the structures would fail to award what a willing buyer would have paid for the lease with the improvements, since such a buyer would expect to have the lease renewed and to continue to use the improvements in place. The value of the buildings, machinery, and equipment in place would be substantially greater than their salvage value at the end of the lease term, and a purchaser in an open market would pay for the anticipated use of the buildings and for the savings he would realize from not having to construct new improvements himself. In sum, the dispute concerned whether Almota would have to be satisfied with its right to remove the structures with their consequent salvage value or whether it was entitled to an award reflecting the value of the improvements in place beyond the lease term. In a pretrial ruling, the District Court accepted the petitioner's theory and held that Almota was to be compensated for the full market value of its leasehold “and building improvements thereon as of the date of taking . . . , the total value of said leasehold and improvements ... to be what the interests of said company therein could have been then sold for upon the open market considering all elements and possibilities whatsoever found to then affect the market value of those interests including, but not exclusive of, the possibilities of renewal of the lease and of the landlord requiring the removal of the improvements in the event of there being no lease renewal.” The court accordingly ruled that the petitioner was entitled to the full fair market value of the use of the land and of the buildings in place as they stood at the time of the taking, without limitation of such use to the remainder of the term of the existing lease. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, 450 F. 2d 125; it accepted the Government’s theory that a tenant’s expectancy in a lease renewal was. not a compensable legal interest and could not be included in the valuation of structures that the tenant had built on the property. It rejected any award for the use of improvements beyond the lease term as “compensation for expectations disappointed by the exercise of the sovereign power of eminent domain, expectations not based upon any legally protected right, but based only . . . upon ‘a speculation on a chance.’ ” 450 F. 2d, at 129. The court explicitly refused to follow an en banc decision of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, relied upon by the District Court, which had held that for condemnation purposes improvements made by a lessee are to be assessed at their value in place over their useful life without regard to the term of the lease. United States v. Certain Property, Borough of Manhattan, 388 F. 2d 596, 601. In view of this conflict in the circuits, we granted certiorari, 405 U. S. 1039, to decide an important question of eminent domain law: “Whether, upon condemnation of a leasehold, a lessee with no right of renewal is entitled to receive as compensation the market value of its improvements without regard to the remaining term of its lease, because of the expectancy that the lease would have been renewed.” We find that the view of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is in accord with established principles of just-compensation law under the Fifth Amendment, and therefore reverse the judgment before us and reinstate the judgment of the District Court. The Fifth Amendment provides that private property shall not be taken for public use without “just compensation.” “And ‘just compensation’ means the full monetary equivalent of the property taken. The owner is to be put in the same position monetarily as he would have occupied if his property had not been taken.” United States v. Reynolds, 397 U. S. 14, 16 (footnotes omitted). See also United States v. Miller, 317 U. S. 369, 373. To determine such monetary equivalence, the Court early established the concept of “market value”: the owner is entitled to the fair market value of his property at the time of the taking. New York v. Sage, 239 U. S. 57, 61. See also United States v. Reynolds, supra, at 16; United States v. Miller, supra, at 374. And this value is normally to be ascertained from “what a willing buyer would pay in cash to a willing seller.” Ibid. See United States v. Virginia Electric & Power Co., 365 U. S. 624, 633. By failing to value the improvements in place over their useful life — taking into account the possibility that the lease might be renewed as well as the possibility that it might not — the Court of Appeals in this case failed to recognize what a willing buyer would have paid for the improvements. If there had been no condemnation, Almota would have continued to use the improvements during a renewed lease term, or if it sold the improvements to the fee owner or to a new lessee at the end of the lease term, it would have been compensated for the buyer’s ability to use the improvements in place over their useful life. As Judge Friendly wrote for the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: “Lessors do desire, after all, to keep their properties leased, and an existing tenant usually has the inside track to a renewal for all kinds of reasons — avoidance of costly alterations, saving of brokerage commissions, perhaps even ordinary decency on the part of landlords. Thus, even when the lease has expired, the condemnation will often force the tenant to remove or abandon the fixtures long before he would otherwise have had to, as well as deprive him of the opportunity to deal with the landlord or a new tenant — the only two people for whom the fixtures would have a value unaffected by the heavy costs of disassembly and reassembly. The con-demnor is not entitled to the benefit of assumptions, contrary to common experience, that the fixtures would be removed at the expiration of the stated term.” United States v. Certain Property, Borough of Manhattan, 388 F. 2d, at 601-602 (footnote omitted). It seems particularly likely in this case that Almota could have sold the leasehold at a price that would have reflected the continued ability of the buyer to use the improvements over their useful life. Almota had an unbroken succession of leases since 1919, and it was in the interest of the railroad, as fee owner, to continue leasing the property, with its grain elevator facilities, in order to promote grain shipments over its lines. In a free market, Almota would hardly have sold the leasehold to a purchaser who paid only for the use of the facilities over the remainder of the lease term, with Almota retaining the right thereafter to remove the facilities — in effect, the right of salvage. “Because these fixtures diminish in value upon removal, a measure of damages less than their fair market value for use in place would constitute a substantial taking without just compensation. ‘[I]t is intolerable that the state, after condemning a factory or warehouse, should surrender to the owner a stock of secondhand machinery and in so doing discharge the full measure of its duty.' ” United States v. 1,132.50 Acres of Land, 441 F. 2d 356, 358. United States v. Petty Motor Co., 327 U. S. 372, upon which the Government primarily relies, does not lead to a contrary result. The Court did indicate that the measure of damages for the condemnation of a leasehold is to be measured in terms of the value of its use and occupancy for the remainder of the lease term, and the Court refused to elevate an expectation of renewal into a com-pensable legal interest. But the Court was not dealing there with the fair market value of improvements. Unlike Petty Motor, there is no question here of creating a legally cognizable value where none existed, or of compensating a mere incorporeal expectation. The petitioner here has constructed the improvements and seeks only their fair market value. Petty Motor should not be read to allow the Government to escape paying what a willing buyer would pay for the same property. The Government argues that it would be unreasonable to compensate Almota for the value of the improvements measured over their useful life, since the Government could purchase the fee and wait until the expiration of the lease term to take possession of the land. Once it has purchased the fee, the argument goes, there is no further expectancy that the improvements will be used during their useful life since the Government will assuredly require their removal at the end of the term. But the taking for the dam was one act requiring proceedings against owners of two interests. At the time of that “taking” Almota had an expectancy of continued occupancy of its grain elevator facilities. The Government must pay just compensation for those interests “probably within the scope of the project from the time the Government was committed to it.” United States v. Miller, 317 U. S., at 377. Cf. United States v. Reynolds, 397 U. S., at 16-18. It may not take advantage of any depreciation in the property taken that is attributable to the project itself. Id., at 16; United States v. Virginia Electric & Power Co., 365 U. S., at 635-636. At the time of the taking in this case, there was an expectancy that the improvements would be used beyond the lease term. But the Government has sought to pay compensation on the theory that at that time there was no possibility that the lease would be renewed and the improvements used beyond the lease term. It has asked that the improvements be valued as though there were no possibility of continued use. That is not how the market would have valued such improvements; it is not what a private buyer would have paid Almota. “The constitutional requirement of just compensation derives as much content from the basic equitable principles of fairness, United States v. Commodities Trading Cory., 339 U. S. 121, 124 (1950), as it does from technical concepts of property law.” United States v. Fuller, post, at 490. It is, of course, true that Almota should be in no better position than if it had sold its leasehold to a private buyer. But its position should surely be no worse. The judgment before us is reversed and the judgment of the District Court reinstated. This was the statement of the question presented by the Government in opposing the grant of the petition for certiorari. As the petitioner phrased the question, the Court was asked to decide: “In awarding just compensation to a tenant in the condemnation of a leasehold interest in real property, including tenant owned building improvements and fixtures situated thereon, may an element of great inherent value in the improvements be excluded merely because it does not, by itself, rise to the status of a legal property right.” (Emphasis added.) The compensation to which Almota is entitled is hardly “totally set free from [its] property interest,” as the dissent suggests. Post, at 484. The improvements are assuredly “private property” that the Government has “taken” and for which it acknowledges it must pay compensation. The only dispute in this case is over how those improvements are to be valued, not over whether Almota is to receive additional compensation for business losses. Almota may well be unable to operate a grain elevator business elsewhere; it may well lose the profits and other values of a going business, but it seeks compensation for none of that. Mitchell v. United States, 267 U. S. 341, did hold that the Government %vas not obliged to pay for business losses caused by condemnation. But it assuredly did not hold that the Government could fail to provide fair compensation for business improvements that are taken — dismiss them as worth no more than scrap value — simply because it did not intend to use them. Indeed, in Mitchell the Government paid compensation both for the land, including its “adaptability for use in a particular business,” id., at 344, and for the improvements thereon. Hence, this is not a case where the petitioner is seeking compensation for lost opportunities, see United States ex rel. TVA v. Powelson, 319 U. S. 266, 281-282; Omnia Commercial Co. v. United States, 261 U. S. 502. The petitioner seeks only the fair value of the property taken by the Government. Nor is this a case where compensation is to be paid for “the value added to fee lands by their potential use in connection with [Government] permit lands,” United States v. Fuller, post, p. 488, at 494, for neither action by the Government nor location adjacent to public property contributed any element of value to Almota’s leasehold interest. It was established at oral argument that while the. Government had contracted to acquire the railroad’s interest, it had not acquired the fee at the time of the taking of the leasehold, nor did it have possession at the time of the trial or appeal. “It frequently happens in the ease of a lease for a long term of years that the tenant erects buildings or puts fixtures into the buildings for his own use. Even if the buildings or fixtures are attached to the real estate and would pass with a conveyance of the land, as between landlord and tenant they remain personal property. In the absence of a special agreement to the contrary, such buildings or fixtures may be removed by the tenant at any time during the continuation of the lease, provided such removal may be made without injury to the freehold. This rule, however, exists entirely for the protection of the tenant, and cannot be invoked by the condemnor. If the buildings or fixtures are attached to the real estate, they must be treated as real estate in determining the total award. But in apportioning the award, they are treated as personal property and credited to the tenant.” 4 P. Nichols, Eminent Domain § 13.121 [2] (3d rev. ed. 1971) (footnotes omitted). Similarly, the dissent today would value the petitioner’s interest after the Government has condemned the underlying fee, and thus after the value of the petitioner’s interest has been diminished because the risk of nonrenewal of the lease has materialized. But there was only one “taking,” and at the time of that “taking” there was not only a risk that the lease would not be renewed, but a possibility that it would be and that the improvements would be used over their useful life. Question: What is the issue area of the decision? A. Criminal Procedure B. Civil Rights C. First Amendment D. Due Process E. Privacy 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