Opinions
Opinions
Supreme Court
Sandra Day O'Connor served as a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court from 1981 to 2006. This page lists the opinions she wrote during her time on the court.
Post Retirement Opinions
After her retirement from the Supreme Court, Sandra Day O'Connor continued to hear cases in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit as a designated judge.
Arizona Appellate Court Opinions
Sandra Day O'Connor served as a judge on the Arizona Court of Appeals from 1980 to 1981. This page lists the opinions she wrote during her time on the state bench.
Filters
Filters
JUSTICE O’CONNOR, with whom JUSTICE SOUTER and JUSTICE THOMAS join, concurring in the judgment.
Logic and taxation are not always the best of friends.
Sonneborn Brothers v. Cureton, 262 U. S. 506, 522 (1923) (McReynolds, J., concurring). In cases like the one before us today, they can be complete strangers. That our tax laws can at times be in such disarray is a discomforting thought. I can understand why the plurality attempts to extrapolate a generalized estate tax valuation theory from one regulation and then to apply that theory to resolve this case, perhaps with the hope of making sense out of the applicable law. But where the applicability-not to mention the validity-of that theory is far from clear, the temptation to make order out of chaos at any cost should be resisted, especially when the question presented can be resolved-albeit imperfectlyby reference to more directly applicable sources. While JUSTICE SCALIA, JUSTICE BREYER, and I agree on this point, we disagree on the result ultimately dictated by these sources. I therefore write separately to explain why in my view the plurality’s result, though not its reasoning, is correct.
I
When a citizen or resident of the United States dies, the Federal Government imposes a tax on “all [of his] property, real or personal, tangible or intangible, wherever situated.” 26 U. S. C. §§ 2001(a), 2031(a). Specifically excluded from taxation, however, is certain property devised to the decedent’s spouse or to charity. Such testamenta
JUSTICE O’CONNOR, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA, JUSTICE THOMAS, and JUSTICE GINSBURG join, dissenting.
In sustaining the must-carry provisions of the Cable Television Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (Cable Act), Pub. L. 102-385, §§4-5, 106 Stat. 1460, against a First Amendment challenge by cable system operators and cable programmers, the Court errs in two crucial respects. First, the Court disregards one of the principal defenses of the statute urged by appellees on remand: that it serves a substantial interest in preserving “diverse,” “quality” programming that is “responsive” to the needs of the local community. The course of this litigation on remand and the proffered defense strongly reinforce my view that the Court adopted the wrong analytic framework in the prior phase of this case. See Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U. S. 622, 643-651 (1994) (Turner); id., at 675-680 (O’CONNOR, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Second, the Court misapplies the “intermediate scrutiny” framework it adopts. Although we owe deference to Congress’ predictive judgments and its evaluation of complex economic questions, we have an independent duty to identify with care the Government interests supporting the scheme, to inquire into the reasonableness of congressional findings regarding its necessity, and to examine the fit between its goals and its consequences. Edenfield v. Fane, 507 U. S. 761, 770-771 (1993); Sable Communications of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 492 U.
JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. This case concerns a lawsuit brought by five mothers in Arizona whose children are eligible to receive child support services from the State pursuant to Title IV -D of the Social Security Act, as added, 88 Stat. 2351, and as amended, 42 U. S. C. §§ 651-669b (1994 ed. and Supp. II). These custodial parents sued the director of Arizona’s child support agency
by the Attorneys General for their respective jurisdictions as follows: Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Bruce M. Botelho of Alaska, Daniel E. Lungren of California, Gale A. Norton of Colorado, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, M. Jane Brady of Delaware, Robert A. Butterworth of Florida, Michael J. Bowers of Georgia, Margery S. Bronster of Hawaii, Alan G. Lance of Idaho, Pamela S. Carter of Indiana, Thomas J. Miller of Iowa, Carla J. Stovall of Kansas, Richard P. Ieyoub of Louisiana, Andrew Ketterer of Maine, J. Joseph Curran, Jr., of Maryland, Scott Harshbarger of Massachusetts, Frank J. Kelley of Michigan, Mike Moore of Mississippi, Joseph P. Mazurek of Montana, Don Stenberg of Nebraska, Frankie Sue Del Papa of Nevada, Jeffrey R. Howard of New Hampshire, Peter Verniero of New Jersey, Dennis C. Vacco of New York, Michael F. Easley of North Carolina, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Betty D. Montgomery of Ohio, W A. Drew Edmondson of Oklahoma, Theodore R. Kulongoski of Oregon, Thomas W Corbett, Jr., of Pennsylvania, Jeffrey B. Pine of Rhode Island, Charles Molony Condon of South
JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. Respondent Jill Brown brought a claim for damages against petitioner Bryan County under Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1983. She alleged that a county police officer used
*Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the City of New York by Paul A. Crotty, Leonard J. Koerner, and John Hogrogian; for the National Association of Counties et al. by Richard Ruda, James I. Crowley, and Donald B. Ayer; and for the Washington Legal Foundation et al. by Daniel J. Popeo and Richard A. Samp.
Ogden N. Lewis, James D. Liss, Vincent T. Chang, Michele S. Warman, and Martha Davis filed a brief for the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund et al. as amici curiae urging affirmance. excessive force in arresting her, and that the county itself was liable for her injuries based on its sheriff’s hiring and training decisions. She prevailed on her claims against the county following a jury trial, and the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment against the county on the basis of the hiring claim alone. 67 F.3d 1174 (1995). We granted certiorari. We conclude that the Court of Appeals’ decision cannot be squared with our recognition that, in enacting § 1983, Congress did not intend to impose liability on a municipality unless deliberate action attributable to the municipality itself is the “moving force” behind the plaintiff’s deprivation of federal rights. Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U. S. 658,
JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. Today we clarify the relationship between § 2 and § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 79 Stat. 437, 439, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §§ 1973, 1973c. Specifically, we decide two questions: (i) whether preclearance must be denied under § 5 whenever a covered jurisdiction’s new voting “standard, practice, or procedure” violates § 2; and (ii) whether evidence that a new “standard, practice, or procedure” has a dilutive impact is always irrelevant to the inquiry whether the covered jurisdiction acted with “the purpose… of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color” under § 5. We answer both in the negative.
I
Appellee Bossier Parish School Board (Board) is a jurisdiction subject to the preclearance requirements of § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U. S. C. § 1973c, and must therefore obtain the approval of either the United States Attorney General or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia before implementing any changes to a voting “qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure.” The Board has 12 members who are elected from single-member districts by majority vote to serve 4-year terms. When the 1990 census revealed wide population disparities among its districts, see App. to Juris. Statement 93a (Stipulations of Fact and Law, 82), the Board decided to redraw the districts to equalize the population distribution.
During this process, the Board considered two
JUSTICE O’CONNOR, dissenting.
Although I agree with much of the reasoning set forth in Part II of the Court’s opinion, I disagree with its disposition of the case. I would instead vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case so that the Court of Appeals might consider the procedural bar issue in the first instance.
The Court holds that, as a general practice, a federal habeas court should consider whether the relief a habeas petitioner requests is a “new rule” under Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288 (1989), only after resolving the State’s argument that his claim is procedurally barred. Ante, at 525. U su
8 “As a matter of fact, the jury sentence is the sentence that is usually imposed by the Florida Supreme Court. The State has attached an appendix to its brief, see App. to Brief for Respondent A1-A 70, setting forth data concerning 469 capital cases that were reviewed by the Florida Supreme Court between 1980 and 1991. In 341 of those cases (73%), the jury recommended the death penalty; in none of those cases did the trial judge impose a lesser sentence. In 91 cases (19%), the jury recommended a life sentence; in all but one of those cases, the trial judge overrode the jury’s recommended life sentence and imposed a death sentence. In 69 of those overrides (77%), however, the Florida Supreme Court vacated the trial judge’s sentence and either imposed a life sentence itself or remanded for a new sentencing hearing.
“Two conclusions are evident. First, when
JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. Section 510 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 88 Stat. 895, makes it unlawful to
*Mary Ellen Signorille, Melvin Radowitz, and Ronald Dean filed a brief for the American Association of Retired Persons et al. as amici curiae urging reversal.
Robert N. Eccles, Karen M. Wahle, Jan S. Amundson, Quentin Riegel, Robert W Blanchette, and Kenneth P. Kolson filed a brief for the Employers Group et al. as amici curiae urging affirmance. “discharge, fine, suspend, expel, discipline, or discriminate against a participant or beneficiary [of an employee benefit plan] for the purpose of interfering with the attainment of any right to which such participant may become entitled under the plan.” 29 U. S. C. § 1140. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that § 510 only prohibits interference with the attainment of rights that are capable of “vesting,” as that term is defined in ERISA. We disagree.
I
The individual petitioners are former employees of respondent Santa Fe Terminal Services, Inc. (SFTS), a wholly owned subsidiary of respondent The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Co. (ATSF), which was responsible for transferring cargo between railcars and trucks at ATSF’s Hobart Yard in Los Angeles, California. While petitioners were employed by SFTS, they were entitled to retirement benefits under the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974, 88 Stat. 1312, as amended, 45 U. S. C. § 231 et seq., and to pension,
JUSTICE O’CONNOR, dissenting.
I do not disagree with our decision to grant certiorari in this case, but I agree with JUSTICE SCALIA-and for the reasons he states-that we should affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. This original action presents a dispute between the United States and the State of Alaska over the ownership of submerged lands along Alaska’s Arctic Coast. In 1979, with leave of the Court, 442 U. S. 937, the United States filed a bill of complaint setting out a dispute over the right to offer lands in the Beaufort Sea for mineral leasing. Alaska counterclaimed, seeking a decree quieting its title to coastal submerged lands within two federal reservations, the N ational Petroleum Reserve-Alaska and the Arctic National Wildlife Range (now the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge). The Court appointed a Special Master. 444 U. S. 1065 (1980). Between 1980 and 1986, the Special Master oversaw extensive hearings and briefing. Before us now are the report of the Special Master and the exceptions of the parties. We overrule Alaska’s exceptions and sustain that of the United States.
I
Alaska and the United States dispute ownership of lands underlying tidal waters off Alaska’s North Slope. The region is rich in oil, and each sovereign seeks the right to grant
*Briefs of amici curiae were filed for the State of Alabama et al. by Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General of California, Roderick E. Walston, Chief Assistant Attorney General, and Jan S. Stevens, Assistant Attorney General, and by the Attorneys General for their respective jurisdictions as follows: Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Grant Woods of Arizona, Jane Brady of Delaware, Margery
JUSTICE O’CONNOR, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA and JUSTICE THOMAS join, dissenting.
The Court holds today that an administrative law judge can award nominal worker’s compensation benefits to an injured longshoreman whose wage-earning capacity has not dropped, and probably will never drop, below his preinjury capacity. Because I believe that § 8(h) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA or Act), 33 U. S. C. § 908(h), requires that a worker be compensated if and only if a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that he has a reduced wage-earning capacity-that is, a present or future loss of earning powerI respectfully dissent.
As an initial matter, I note my agreement with some of the starting points for the Court’s analysis. It is common ground that “disability” under the LHWCA is an economic, rather than a medical, concept. Ante, at 126; Metropolitan Stevedore Co. v. Rambo, 515 U. S. 291, 297 (1995). Likewise, I agree that a worker’s eligibility for compensation (i. e., his disability) under the LHWCA turns on his wage-earning capacity, which depends on his ability to earn wages now and in the future. That is, I agree that an injured worker who is currently receiving high wages, but who is likely to be paid less in the future due to his injury, is disabled under the LHWCA and is therefore eligible for compensation today. See ante, at 128-129.
I part company with the Court first because, in my view, § 8(h) of the LHWCA, 33 U. S. C. § 908(h), requires an
JUSTICE O’CONNOR, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA and JUSTICE THOMAS join, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
The Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho seeks declaratory and injunctive relief precluding Idaho officials from regulating or interfering with its possession of submerged lands beneath Lake Coeur d’Alene. Invoking the doctrine of Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123 (1908), the Tribe argues that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar it from pursuing its claims against state officials in federal court. I agree with the Court that the Tribe’s claim cannot go forward in federal court.
In Young, the Court held that a federal court has jurisdiction over a suit against a state officer to enjoin official actions that violate federal law, even if the State itself is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. The Young doctrine recognizes that if a state official violates federal law, he is stripped of his official or representative character and may be personally liable for his conduct; the State cannot cloak the officer in its sovereign immunity. Id., at 159-160. Where a plaintiff seeks prospective relief to end a state officer’s ongoing violation of federal law, such a claim can ordinarily proceed in federal court. Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U. S. 267, 289-290 (1977). The doctrine is not, however, without limitations. A federal court cannot award retrospective relief, designed to remedy past violations of federallaw. See Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651, 668 (1974); Green v. Mansour,
JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Aguilar v. Felton, 473 U. S. 402 (1985), this Court held that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment barred the city of New York from sending public school teachers into parochial schools to provide remedial education to disadvantaged children pursuant to a congressionally mandated program. On remand, the District Court for the Eastern District of New York entered a permanent injunction reflecting our ruling. Twelve years later, petitionersthe parties bound by that injunction-seek relief from its operation. Petitioners maintain that Aguilar cannot be
tBriefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty by Kevin J. Hasson; for the Christian Legal Society et al. by Michael W McConnell, Thomas C. Berg, Steven T. McFarland, Kimberlee Wood Colby, and Samuel B. Casey; for the Knights of Columbus by James W Shannon, Jr.; for the National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Mfairs by Nathan Lewin and Dennis Rapps; for Senator Robert F. Bennett by Ronald D. Maines; and for Sarah Peter et al. by Michael Joseph Woodruff and Scott J. Ward.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the American Jewish Congress et al. by Norman Redlich, Marc D. Stern, Marvin E. Frankel, David J. Strom, Richard T. Foltin, J. Brent Walker, Melissa Rogers, Robert Chanin, John West, Elliot M. Mincberg, and Judith E. Schaeffer; and for Americans United for Separation of Church and State et al.
JUSTICE O’CONNOR, with whom JUSTICE BREYER joins except as to the first paragraph of Part I, dissenting.
I dissent from the Court’s disposition of this case. I agree with the Court that the issue before us is whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) is a proper exercise of Congress’ power to enforce § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But as a yardstick for measuring the constitutionality of RFRA, the Court uses its holding in Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U. S. 872 (1990), the decision that prompted Congress to enact RFRA as a means of more rigorously enforcing the Free Exercise Clause. I remain of the view that Smith was wrongly decided, and I would use this case to reexamine the Court’s holding there. Therefore, I would direct the parties to brief the question whether Smith represents the correct understanding of the Free Exercise Clause and set the case for reargument. If the Court were to correct the misinterpretation of the Free Exercise Clause set forth in Smith, it would simultaneously put our First Amendment jurisprudence back on course and allay the legitimate concerns of a majority in Congress who believed that Smith improperly restricted religious liberty. We would then be in a position to review RFRA in light of a proper interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause.
I
I agree with much of the reasoning set forth in Part II I-A of the Court’s opinion. Indeed, if I agreed with the Court’s standard in Smith, I would
JUSTICE O’CONNOR, concurring.* t
Death will be different for each of us. For many, the last days will be spent in physical pain and perhaps the despair that accompanies physical deterioration and a loss of control of basic bodily and mental functions. Some will seek medication to alleviate that pain and other symptoms.
The Court frames the issue in Washington v. Glucksberg as whether the Due Process Clause of the Constitution protects a “right to commit suicide which itself includes a right to assistance in doing so,” ante, at 723, and concludes that our Nation’s history, legal traditions, and practices do not support the existence of such a right. I join the Court’s opinions because I agree that there is no generalized right to “commit suicide.” But respondents urge us to address the narrower question whether a mentally competent person who is experiencing great suffering has a constitutionally cognizable interest in controlling the circumstances of his or her imminent death. I see no need to reach that question in the context of the facial challenges to the New York and Washington laws at issue here. See ibid. (“The Washington statute at issue in this case prohibits ‘aid[ing] another person to attempt suicide,’… and, thus, the question before us is whether the ‘liberty’ specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes a right to commit suicide which itself includes a right to assistance in doing so”). The parties and amici agree that in these States a patient who
JUSTICE O’CONNOR, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.
I write separately to explain why I view the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) as little more than an attempt by Congress to create “adult zones” on the Internet. Our precedent indicates that the creation of such zones can be constitutionally sound. Despite the soundness of its purpose, however, portions of the CDA are unconstitutional because they stray from the blueprint our prior cases have developed for constructing a “zoning law” that passes constitutional muster.
Appellees bring a facial challenge to three provisions of the CDA. The first, which the Court describes as the “indecency transmission” provision, makes it a crime to knowingly transmit an obscene or indecent message or image to a person the sender knows is under 18 years old. 47 U. S. C. § 223(a)(1)(B) (1994 ed., Supp. II). What the Court classifies as a single” ‘patently offensive display'” provision, see ante, at 859, is in reality two separate provisions. The first of these makes it a crime to knowingly send a patently offensive message or image to a specific person under the age of 18 (“specific person” provision). § 223(d)(1)(A). The second criminalizes the display of patently offensive messages or images “in a[ny] manner available” to minors (“display” provision). § 223(d)(1)(B). None of these provisions purports to keep indecent (or patently offensive) material away from adults, who have
JUSTICE O’CONNOR, concurring.* t
Death will be different for each of us. For many, the last days will be spent in physical pain and perhaps the despair that accompanies physical deterioration and a loss of control of basic bodily and mental functions. Some will seek medication to alleviate that pain and other symptoms.
The Court frames the issue in Washington v. Glucksberg as whether the Due Process Clause of the Constitution protects a “right to commit suicide which itself includes a right to assistance in doing so,” ante, at 723, and concludes that our Nation’s history, legal traditions, and practices do not support the existence of such a right. I join the Court’s opinions because I agree that there is no generalized right to “commit suicide.” But respondents urge us to address the narrower question whether a mentally competent person who is experiencing great suffering has a constitutionally cognizable interest in controlling the circumstances of his or her imminent death. I see no need to reach that question in the context of the facial challenges to the New York and Washington laws at issue here. See ibid. (“The Washington statute at issue in this case prohibits ‘aid[ing] another person to attempt suicide,’… and, thus, the question before us is whether the ‘liberty’ specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes a right to commit suicide which itself includes a right to assistance in doing so”). The parties and amici agree that in these States a patient who
JUSTICE O’CONNOR, concurring.
Our precedent and our Nation’s historical practices support the Court’s holding today. The Brady Act violates the Tenth Amendment to the extent it forces States and local law enforcement officers to perform background checks on prospective handgun owners and to accept Brady Forms from firearms dealers. See ante, at 922. Our holding, of course, does not spell the end of the objectives of the Brady Act. States and chief law enforcement officers may voluntarily continue to participate in the federal program. Moreover, the directives to the States are merely interim provisions scheduled to terminate November 30, 1998. Note following 18 U. S. C. § 922. Congress is also free to amend the interim program to provide for its continuance on a contractual basis with the States if it wishes, as it does with a number of other federal programs. See, e. g., 23 U. S. C. § 402 (conditioning States’ receipt of federal funds for highway safety program on compliance with federal requirements).
In addition, the Court appropriately refrains from deciding whether other purely ministerial reporting requirements imposed by Congress on state and local authorities pursuant to its Commerce Clause powers are similarly invalid. See, e. g., 42 U. S. C. § 5779(a) (requiring state and local law enforcement agencies to report cases of missing children to the Department of Justice). The provisions invalidated here, however, which directly compel state officials to administer a federal
JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. Under § 1 of the Sherman Act, 26 Stat. 209, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 1, “[e]very contract, combination…, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade” is illegal. InAlbrechtv.HeraldCo.,390 U. S. 145(1968), this Court held that vertical maximum price fixing is aper seviolation of that statute. In this case, we are asked to reconsider that decision in light of subsequent decisions of this Court. We conclude thatAlbrechtshould be overruled.
I
Respondents, Barkat U. Khan and his corporation, entered into an agreement with petitioner, State Oil Company, to lease and operate a gas station and convenience store owned
*Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the American Automobile Manufacturers Association et al. by Stephen M. Shapiro, Roy T. Englert, Jr., Donald M. Falk, Phillip D. Brady, and Charles H. Lockwood II; for the American Petroleum Institute by Edwin M. Zimmerman, Robert A. Long, Jr., G. William Frick, Harry M. Ng, and Douglas W Morris; for the Business Roundtable by Thomas B. Leary and Robert C. Weinbaum; and for the Newspaper Association of America et al. by William T. Lifiand, Patricia Farren, David S. J. Brown, Rene P. Milam, Peter C. Gould, Andrew Merdek, William T. Garcia, Cristina L. Mendoza, and George Freeman.
Briefs of amici curiae were filed for the Association of the Bar of the City of New York by Richard M. Steuer; for the Coalition for Fair Consumer Pricing by Steven B. Feirman, Barry M. Heller,
JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. The city of Chicago, like municipalities throughout the country, has an ordinance that provides for the designation and protection of historical landmarks. Chicago Municipal Code, Art. XVII, §§2-120-580 through 2-120-920 (1990). The city’s Landmarks Ordinance is administered by the Commission on Chicago Historical and Architectural Landmarks (Chicago Landmarks Commission or Commission). Pursuant to the Illinois Administrative Review Law, Ill. Compo Stat., ch. 735, §§ 5/3-103,5/3-104 (Supp. 1997), judicial review of final decisions of a municipal landmarks commission lies in state circuit court. In this case, we are asked to consider whether a lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County seeking judicial review of decisions of the Chicago Landmarks Commission may be removed to federal district court, where the case contains both federal constitutional and state administrative challenges to the Commission’s decisions.
I
Respondents International College of Surgeons and the United States Section of the International College of Surgeons (jointly ICS) own two properties on North Lake Shore Drive in the city of Chicago. In July 1988, the Chicago Landmarks Commission made a preliminary determination that seven buildings on Lake Shore Drive, including two
*Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the State of Indiana by Jeffrey A. Modisett, Attorney General, and Geoffrey Slaughter and Anthony Scott Chinn, Deputy
JUSTICE O’CONNOR, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA joins, concurring in the result.
As the plurality points out, we granted certiorari to address an important issue of constitutional law, and we ought not to decide the question if it has not been cleanly presented. In my view, it is sufficient to dismiss the writ that the instructions tendered by the District Court were ambiguous on whether the jury was asked to find, as is required by Staples v. United States, 511 U. S. 600 (1994), that petitioner “knew that the item he possessed was a silencer,” ante, at 257. As a result, it is at least unclear whether the question we intended to address in this case-whether a district court’s failure to instruct the jury on an element of an offense is harmless error where, at trial, the defendant admitted that element-is squarely presented. For that reason, I concur in the dismissal of the writ as improvidently granted. I share the plurality’s concern, ante this page, n. 7, that trial courts should structure their instructions in cases implicating Staples in a way that prevents the possible interpretation identified by JUSTICE KENNEDY in his dissent.
Notes
7 Of course, if the instruction merely required the jury to find that the defendant knowingly possessed a canvas bag, or knowingly possessed a dangerous item that might not have had the characteristics of a silencer, it would not have complied with Staples. Our disposition is based on our view that the instruction required the jury to find that
JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. The Privileges and Immunities Clause, U. S. Const., Art.
IV; § 2, provides that “[t]he Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” In this case, we consider whether a provision of New York law that effectively denies only nonresident taxpayers an income tax deduction for alimony paid is consistent with that constitutional command. We conclude that because New York has not adequately justified the discrimi natory treatment of nonresidents effected by N. Y. Tax Law § 631(b)(6), the challenged provision violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause.
I A
New York law requires nonresident individuals to pay tax on net income from New York real property or tangible personalty and net income from employment or business, trade, or professional operations in New York. See N. Y. Tax Law §§ 631(a), (b) (McKinney 1987). Under provisions enacted by the New York Legislature in 1987, the tax on such income is determined according to a method that takes into consideration the relationship between a nonresident taxpayer’s New York source income and the taxpayer’s total income, as reported to the Federal Government. § 601(e)(1).
Computation of the income tax nonresidents owe New York involves several steps. First, nonresidents must compute their tax liability “as if” they resided in New York. Ibid. The starting point for this computation is federal adjusted gross income, which,
JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. This case presents the question whether, in an 1894 statute that ratified an agreement for the sale of surplus tribal lands, Congress diminished the boundaries of the Yankton Sioux Reservation in South Dakota. The reservation was established pursuant to an 1858 Treaty between the United States and the Yankton Sioux Tribe. Subsequently, under the Indian General Allotment Act, Act of Feb. 8, 1887, 24 Stat. 388, 25 U. S. C. § 331 (Dawes Act), individual members of the Tribe received allotments of reservation land, and the Government then negotiated with the Tribe for the cession of the remaining, unallotted lands. The issue we confront illustrates the jurisdictional quandaries wrought by the allotment policy: We must decide whether a landfill constructed on non-Indian fee land that falls within the boundaries of the original Yankton Reservation remains subject to federal environmental regulations. If the divestiture of Indian property in 1894 effected a diminishment of Indian territory, then the ceded lands no longer constitute “Indian country” as defined by 18 U. S. C. § 1151(a), and the State now has primary jurisdiction over them. In light of the operative language of the 1894 Act, and the circumstances surrounding its passage, we hold that Congress intended to diminish the Yankton Reservation and consequently that the waste site is not in Indian country.
I A
At the outset of the 19th century, the Yankton Sioux Tribe held
JUSTICE O’CONNOR, with whom JUSTICE STEVENS, JUSTICE SOUTER, and JUSTICE BREYER join, dissenting.
In determining that respondents have standing under the zone-of-interests test to challenge the National Credit Union Administration’s (NCUA’s) interpretation of the “common bond” provision of the Federal Credit Union Act (FCUA), 12 U. S. C. § 1759, the Court applies the test in a manner that is contrary to our decisions and, more importantly, that all but eviscerates the zone-of-interests requirement. In my view, under a proper conception of the inquiry, “the interest sought to be protected by” respondents in this action is not “arguably within the zone of interests to be protected” by the common bond provision. Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp, 397 U. S. 150, 153 (1970). Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
I
Respondents brought this suit under § 10(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U. S. C. § 702. To establish their standing to sue here, respondents must demonstrate
lOWe have no need to consider § 109’s legislative history, which, as both courts below found, is extremely “murky” and a “slender reed on which to place reliance.” 90 F. 3d, at 530 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). O’CONNOR, J., dissenting
that they are “adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute.” Ibid.; see Air Courier Conference v. Postal Workers, 498 U. S. 517, 523 (1991); Lujan v. National Wildlife
JUSTICE O’CONNOR, with whom JUSTICE KENNEDY joins, concurring.
I join the Court’s opinion. I agree that our precedent supports the Court’s holding that respondent lacks Article III standing because its injuries cannot be redressed by a judgment that would, in effect, require only the payment of penalties to the United States Treasury. As the Court notes, ante, at 108, had respondent alleged a continuing or imminent violation of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA), 42 U. S. C. § 11046, the requested injunctive relief may well have redressed the asserted injury.
I also agree with the Court’s statement that federal courts should be certain of their jurisdiction before reaching the merits of a case. As the Court acknowledges, however, several of our decisions “have diluted the absolute purity of the rule that Article III jurisdiction is always an antecedent question.” Ante, at 101. The opinion of the Court adequately describes why the assumption of jurisdiction was defensible in those cases, see ante, at 98-100, and why it is not in this case, see ante, at 92-93. I write separately to note that, in my view, the Court’s opinion should not be read as cataloging an exhaustive list of circumstances under which federal courts may exercise judgment in “reserv[ing] difficult questions of… jurisdiction when the case alternatively could be resolved on the merits in favor of the same party,” Norton v. Mathews, 427 U. S. 524, 532 (1976).
JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. Section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code (Code) excepts from discharge in bankruptcy “any debt… for money,
property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit, to the extent obtained by… false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud.” 11 U. S. C. § 523(a)(2)(A). The issue in this case is whether § 523(a)(2)(A) bars the discharge of treble damages awarded on account of the debtor’s fraudulent acquisition of “money, property, services, or… credit,” or whether the exception only encompasses the value of the “money, property, services, or… credit” the debtor obtains through fraud. We hold that § 523(a)(2)(A) prevents the discharge of all liability arising from fraud, and that an award of treble damages therefore falls within the scope of the exception.
I
Petitioner owned several residential properties in and around Hoboken, New Jersey, one of which was subject to a local rent control ordinance. In 1989, the Hoboken Rent Control Administrator determined that petitioner had been charging rents above the levels permitted by the ordinance, and ordered him to refund to the affected tenants, who are respondents in this Court, $31,382.50 in excess rents charged. Petitioner did not comply with the order.
Petitioner subsequently filed for relief under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, seeking to discharge his debts. The tenants filed an adversary proceeding against petitioner in the Bankruptcy