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
JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) establishes standards for the entry and termination of prospective relief in civil actions challenging prison conditions. §§ 801-810, 110 Stat. 1321-66 to 1321-77. If prospective relief under an existing injunction does not satisfy these standards, a defendant or intervenor is entitled to “immediate termination” of that relief. 18 U. S. C. § 3626(b)(2) (1994 ed., Supp. IV). And under the PLRA’s “automatic stay” provision, a motion to terminate prospective relief “shall operate as a stay” of that relief during the period beginning 30 days after the filing of the motion (extendable to up to 90 days for “good cause”) and ending when the court rules on the motion. §§ 3626(e)(2), (3). The superintendent of Indiana’s Pendleton Correctional Facility, which is currently operating under an ongoing injunction to remedy violations of the Eighth Amendment regarding conditions of confinement, filed a motion to terminate prospective relief under the PLRA. Respondent prisoners moved to enjoin the operation of the automatic stay provision of § 3626(e)(2), arguing that it is unconstitutional. The District Court enjoined the stay, and the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed. We must decide whether a district court may enjoin the operation of the PLRA’s automatic stay provision and, if not, whether that provision violates separation of powers principles.
I A
This litigation began
JUSTICE O’CONNOR, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JusTICE KENNEDY, and JUSTICE BREYER join, dissenting.
Last Term, in Jones v. United States, 526 U. S. 227 (1999), this Court found that our prior cases suggested the following principle: “[U]nder the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the notice and jury trial guarantees of the Sixth Amendment, any fact (other than prior conviction) that increases the maximum penalty for a crime must be charged in an indictment, submitted to a jury, and proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id., at 243, n. 6. At the time, JUSTICE KENNEDY rightly criticized the Court for its failure to ex plain the origins, contours, or consequences of its purported constitutional principle; for the inconsistency of that principle with our prior cases; and for the serious doubt that the holding cast on sentencing systems employed by the Federal Government and States alike. Id., at 254, 264-272 (dissenting opinion). Today, in what will surely be remembered as a watershed change in constitutional law, the Court imposes as a constitutional rule the principle it first identified in Jones.
I
Our Court has long recognized that not every fact that bears on a defendant’s punishment need be charged in an indictment, submitted to a jury, and proved by the government beyond a reasonable doubt. Rather, we have held that the “legislature’s definition of the elements of the offense is usually dispositive.” McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U. S. 79, 85 (1986); see also Almendarez
JUSTICE O’CONNOR, with whom JUSTICE BREYER joins, concurring in the judgment.
In 1965, Congress passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 79 Stat. 27 (1965 Act). Under Title I, Congress provided monetary grants to States to address the needs of educationally deprived children of low-income families. Under Title II, Congress provided further monetary grants to States for the acquisition of library resources, textbooks, and other instructional materials for use by children and teachers in public and private elementary and secondary schools. Since 1965, Congress has reauthorized the Title I and Title II programs several times. Three Terms ago, we held in Agostini v. Felton, 521 U. S. 203 (1997), that Title I, as applied in New York City, did not violate the Establishment Clause. I believe that Agostini likewise controls the constitutional inquiry respecting Title II presented here, and requires the reversal of the Court of Appeals’ judgment that the program is unconstitutional as applied in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. To the extent our decisions in Meek v. Pit tenger, 421 U. S. 349 (1975), and Wolman v. Walter, 433 U. S. 229 (1977), are inconsistent with the Court’s judgment today, I agree that those decisions should be overruled. I therefore concur in the judgment.
I
I write separately because, in my view, the plurality announces a rule of unprecedented breadth for the evaluation of Establishment Clause challenges to government school aid programs. Reduced to its essentials
JUSTICE O’CONNOR, concurring.
The issue of abortion is one of the most contentious and controversial in contemporary American society. It presents extraordinarily difficult questions that, as the Court recognizes, involve “virtually irreconcilable points of view.” Ante, at 921. The specific question we face today is whether Nebraska’s attempt to proscribe a particular method of abortion, commonly known as “partial birth abortion,” is constitutional. For the reasons stated in the Court’s opinion, I agree that Nebraska’s statute cannot be reconciled with our decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992), and is therefore unconstitutional. I write separately to emphasize the following points.
First, the Nebraska statute is inconsistent with Casey because it lacks an exception for those instances when the banned procedure is necessary to preserve the health of the mother. See id., at 879 (plurality opinion). Importantly, Nebraska’s own statutory scheme underscores this constitutional infirmity. As we held in Casey, prior to viability “the woman has a right to choose to terminate her pregnancy.” Id., at 870. After the fetus has become viable, States may substantially regulate and even proscribe abortion, but any such regulation or proscription must contain an exception for instances “‘where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.'” Id., at 879 (quoting Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113,
JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U. S. 444 (1990), and United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U. S. 543 (1976), we held that brief, suspicionless seizures at highway checkpoints for the purposes of combating drunk driving and intercepting illegal immigrants were constitutional. We now consider the constitutionality of a highway checkpoint program whose primary purpose is the discovery and interdiction of illegal narcotics.
I
In August 1998, the city of Indianapolis began to operate vehicle checkpoints on Indianapolis roads in an effort to interdict unlawful drugs. The city conducted six such roadblocks between August and November that year, stopping
*Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the State of Kansas et al. by Carla J. Stovall, Attorney General of Kansas, Stephen R. McAllister, State Solicitor, Jared S. Maag, Assistant Attorney General, and John M. Bailey, Chief State’s Attorney of Connecticut, and by the Attorneys General for their respective States as follows: Bill Pryor of Alabama, Janet Napolitano of Arizona, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Bill Lockyer of California, Robert A. Butterworth of Florida, James E. Ryan of Illinois, Karen M. Freeman-Wilson of Indiana, Thomas J. Miller of Iowa, Michael C. Moore of Mississippi, Don Stenberg of Nebraska, W A. Drew Edmondson of Oklahoma, Jan Graham of Utah, and Mark L. Earley of Virginia; for the National League of Cities et al. by Richard Ruda and
PER CURIAM.
I
On December 8, 2000, the Supreme Court of Florida ordered that the Circuit Court of Leon County tabulate by hand 9,000 ballots in Miami-Dade County. It also ordered the inclusion in the certified vote totals of 215 votes identified in Palm Beach County and 168 votes identified in Miami-Dade County for Vice President Albert Gore, Jr., and Senator Joseph Lieberman, Democratic candidates for President and Vice President. The State Supreme Court noted that petitioner George W. Bush asserted that the net gain for Vice President Gore in Palm Beach County was 176 votes, and directed the Circuit Court to resolve that dispute on remand. Gore v. Harris, 772 So. 2d 1243, 1248, n. 6. The court further held that relief would require manual recounts in all Florida counties where so-called “undervotes” had not been subject to manual tabulation. The court ordered all manual recounts to begin at once. Governor Bush and Richard Cheney, Republican candidates for President and Vice President, filed an emergency application for a stay of this mandate. On December 9, we granted the application, treated the application as a petition for a writ of certiorari, and granted certiorari. Post, p. 1046.
JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. Washington State’s Community Protection Act of 1990 authorizes the civil commitment of “sexually violent predators,” persons who suffer from a mental abnormality or personality disorder that makes them likely to engage in predatory acts of sexual violence. Wash. Rev. Code § 71.09.010et seq.(1992). Respondent, Andre Brigham Young, is confined as a sexually violent predator at the Special Commitment Center (Center), for which petitioner is the superintendent. After respondent’s challenges to his commitment in state court proved largely unsuccessful, he instituted a habeas action under 28 U. S. C. § 2254, seeking release from confinement. The Washington Supreme Court had already held that the Act is civil,In re Young,122 Wash. 2d 1, 857 P. 2d 989 (1993) (en bane), and this Court held a similar commitment scheme for sexually violent predators in Kansas to be civil on its face,Kansasv.Hendricks,521 U. S. 346(1997). The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit nevertheless concluded that respondent could challenge the statute as being punitive “as applied” to him in violation of the
eral, and by the Attorneys General for their respective States as follows:
Bill Pryor of Alabama, Janet Napolitano of Arizona, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Bill Lockyer of California, Ken Salazar of Colorado, Robert A. Butterworth of Florida, James E. Ryan of Illinois, Thomas J. Miller of Iowa, Richard P. Ieyoub of Louisiana, J. Joseph Curran, Jr., of Maryland,
JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. This case concerns a seaman’s ability to sue a vessel owner in state court for personal injuries sustained aboard a vessel. Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over admiralty and maritime claims, but the jurisdictional statute “sav[es] to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled.” 28 U. s. C. § 1333(1). Another statute grants vessel owners the right to seek limited liability in federal court for claims of damage aboard their vessels. 46 U. S. C. App. § 181et seq.In this case, the District Court, after conducting proceedings to preserve the vessel owner’s right to seek limited liability, dissolved the injunction that prevented the seaman from litigating his personal injury claims in state court. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the vessel owner had a right to contest liability in federal court, and that the seaman did not have a saved remedy in state court. The question presented is whether the District Court abused its discretion in dissolving the injunction.
I
Petitioner, James F. Lewis, worked as a deckhand aboard the M/V Karen Michelle, owned by respondent, Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc. Petitioner claims that on March 17, 1998, he was injured aboard the M/V Karen Michelle when he tripped over a wire and hurt his back. App. 12. In April 1998, petitioner sued respondent in the Circuit Court of Mad ison County, Illinois. Petitioner claimed negligence under
JUSTICE O’CONNOR, with whom JUSTICE STEVENS, JusTICE GINSBURG, and JUSTICE BREYER join, dissenting.
The Fourth Amendment guarantees the right to be free from “unreasonable searches and seizures.” The Court recognizes that the arrest of Gail Atwater was a “pointless indignity” that served no discernible state interest, ante, at 347, and yet holds that her arrest was constitutionally permissible. Because the Court’s position is inconsistent with the explicit guarantee of the Fourth Amendment, I dissent.
I
A full custodial arrest, such as the one to which Ms. Atwater was subjected, is the quintessential seizure. See Payton v. New York, 445 U. S. 573, 585 (1980). When a full custodial arrest is effected without a warrant, the plain language of the Fourth Amendment requires that the arrest be reasonable. See ibid. It is beyond cavil that “[t]he touchstone of our analysis under the Fourth Amendment is always ‘the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen’s personal security.'” Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U. S. 106, 108-109 (1977) (per curiam) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 19 (1968)). See also, e. g., United States v. Ramirez, 523 U. S. 65, 71 (1998); Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U. S. 408, 411 (1997); Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U. S. 33, 39 (1996); Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U. S. 248, 250 (1991); United States v. Chadwick, 433 U. S. 1,9(1977).
We have “often looked to the common law in evaluating the reasonableness, for Fourth Amendment
JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court in part, concluding that petitioner, having failed to pursue remedies that were otherwise available to him to challenge his prior convictions while he was in custody on those convictions, may not now use a § 2255 motion directed at his federal sentence to collaterally attack those convictions. Pp. 378-383, 384.
(a) In Custis v. United States, 511 U. S. 485,490-497, this Court held that with the sole exception of convictions obtained in violation of the right to counsel, a defendant has no right under the ACCA or the Constitution to collaterally attack prior convictions at his federal sentencing proceeding. The considerations supporting that conclusion-ease of administration and the interest in promoting the finality of judgmentsare also present in the § 2255 context. A district court evaluating a § 2255 motion is as unlikely as a district court engaged in sentencing to have the documents necessary to evaluate claims arising from longpast proceedings in a different jurisdiction. Moreover, States retain a strong interest in preserving convictions they have obtained, as they impose a wide range of disabilities on those who have been convicted, even after their release. Pp. 378-380. (b) Although defendants may challenge their convictions for constitutional infirmity, it does not necessarily follow that a § 2255 motion is an appropriate vehicle for determining whether a conviction later used to enhance a federal sentence was unconstituti
JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, III-A, and IV, concluding that §2254 does not provide a remedy when a state prisoner challenges a current sentence on the ground that it was enhanced based on an allegedly unconstitutional prior conviction for which the petitioner is no longer in custody. Pp. 401-405,408.
(a) A § 2254 petitioner must first show that he is “in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court.” § 2254(a). Because Coss is no longer serving the sentences for his 1986 convictions, he cannot bring a federal habeas action directed solely at those convictions. However, his § 2254 petition can be (and has been) construed as asserting a challenge to the 1990 sentence he is currently serving, as enhanced by the allegedly invalid 1986 convictions. See Maleng v. Cook, 490 U. S. 488, 493. Thus, he satisfies §2254’s “in custody” requirement. Pp.401-402.
(b) The more important question here is the one left unanswered in Maleng: the extent to which a prior expired conviction may be subject to challenge in an attack upon a current sentence it was used to enhance. In Daniels v. United States, ante, p. 374, this Court held that a federal prisoner who has failed to pursue available remedies to challenge a prior conviction (or has done so unsuccessfully) may not collaterally attack that conviction through a motion under 28 U. S. C. § 2255 directed at the enhanced federal sentence. That holding is now extended to cover § 2254 petitions
JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. This case concerns the constitutionality of the retroactive application of a judicial decision abolishing the common law “year and a day rule.” At common law, the year and a day rule provided that no defendant could be convicted of murder unless his victim had died by the defendant’s act within a year and a day of the act. See,e. g., Louisville, E.&St. L. R. Co.v.Clarke,152 U. S. 230, 239 (1894); 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 197-198 (1769). The Supreme Court of Tennessee abolished the rule as it had existed at common law in Tennessee and applied its decision to petitioner to uphold his conviction. The question before us is whether, in doing so, the court denied petitioner due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
* Paula R. Voss filed a brief for the Tennessee Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys as amicus curiae urging reversal. I
Petitioner Wilbert K. Rogers was convicted in Tennessee state court of second degree murder. According to the undisputed facts, petitioner stabbed his victim, James Bowdery, with a butcher knife on May 6, 1994. One of the stab wounds penetrated Bowdery’s heart. During surgery to repair the wound to his heart, Bowdery went into cardiac arrest, but was resuscitated and survived the procedure. As a result, however, he had developed a condition known as “cerebral hypoxia,” which results from a loss of oxygen to the brain. Bowdery’s higher brain functions
JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court.
In 1989, we held that Johnny Paul Penry had been sentenced to death in violation of the Eighth Amendment because his jury had not been adequately instructed with respect to mitigating evidence. See Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U. S. 302 (1989) (Penry I). The State of Texas retried Penry in 1990, and that jury also found him guilty of capital murder and sentenced him to death. We now consider whether the jury instructions at Penry’s resentencing complied with our mandate in Penry 1. We also consider whether the admission into evidence of statements from a psychiatric report based on an uncounseled interview with Penry ran afoul of the Fifth Amendment.
I
Johnny Paul Penry brutally raped and murdered Pamela Carpenter on October 25, 1979. In 1980, a Texas jury found him guilty of capital murder. At the close of the penalty hearing, the jury was instructed to answer three statutorily mandated “special issues”:”‘(1) whether the conduct of the defendant that caused the death of the deceased was committed deliberately and with the reasonable expectation that the death of the deceased or another would result;”‘(2) whether there is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society; and”‘(3) if raised by the evidence, whether the conduct of the defendant in killing the deceased was unreasonable in response to the provocation, if any, by the deceased.'” Id., at 310
JUSTICE O’CONNOR, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA and JUSTICE THOMAS join, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with the Court’s disposition of this case as to Colorado’s first and fourth exceptions to the Special Master’s Third Report, concerning the award and determination of damages. I therefore join Parts I, IV, and V of the Court’s opinion. I do not concur in Parts II and III of the Court’s opinion because I believe that the award of prejudgment interest to Kansas, coming over half a century after the Arkansas River Compact’s (hereinafter Compact) negotiation and approval, is clearly improper under our precedents.
We are dealing with an interstate compact apportioning the flow of a river between two States. A compact is a contract. It represents a bargained-for exchange between its signatories and “remains a legal document that must be construed and applied in accordance with its terms.” Texas v. New Mexico, 482 U. S. 124, 128 (1987); see also Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Comm’n, 359 U. S. 275, 285 (1959) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting) (“A Compact is, after all, a contract”). It is a fundamental tenet of contract law that parties to a contract are deemed to have contracted with reference to principles of law existing at the time the contract was made. See, e. g., Norfolk & Western R. Co. v.
be required.” Third Report 63. Because the circumstances in Kansas involved short-short run situations, and because such short-short run situations generally involve higher
JUSTICE O’CONNOR, with whom JUSTICE SOUTER, JUSTICE GINSBURG, and JUSTICE BREYER join, dissenting.
In a long line of cases spanning nearly three decades, this Court has applied heightened scrutiny to legislative classifications based on sex. The Court today confronts another statute that classifies individuals on the basis of their sex. While the Court invokes heightened scrutiny, the manner in which it explains and applies this standard is a stranger to our precedents. Because the Immigration and N aturalization Service (INS) has not shown an exceedingly persuasive justification for the sex-based classification embodied in 8 U. S. C. § 1409(a)(4)-i. e., because it has failed to establish at least that the classification substantially relates to the achievement of important governmental objectives-I would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
I
Sex-based statutes, even when accurately reflecting the way most men or women behave, deny individuals opportunity. Such generalizations must be viewed not in isolation, but in the context of our Nation’s “‘long and unfortunate history of sex discrimination.'” J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel. T. B., 511 U. S. 127, 136 (1994) (quoting Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U. S. 677, 684 (1973) (plurality opinion)). Sex-based generalizations both reflect and reinforce “fixed notions concerning the roles and abilities of males and females.” Mississippi Univ. for Women v. Hogan, 458 U. S. 718, 725 (1982).
For these reasons, a party who seeks
JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. Title 28 U. S. C. § 2244(d)(2) (1994 ed., Supp. V) provides:
“The time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted toward any period of limitation under this subsection.” This case presents the question whether a federal habeas corpus petition is an “application for State postconviction or other collateral review” within the meaning of this provision.
I
In 1992, several judgments of conviction for robbery were entered against respondent Sherman Walker in the
Leon Friedman and Joshua L. Dratel filed a brief for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as amicus curiae urging affirmance.
Kent S. Scheidegger filed a brief for the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation as amicus curiae. New York state courts. The last of these convictions came in June 1992, when respondent pleaded guilty to robbery in the first degree in the New York Supreme Court, Queens County. Respondent was sentenced to 7 to 14 years in prison on this conviction.
Respondent unsuccessfully pursued a number of state remedies in connection with his convictions. It is unnecessary to describe all of these proceedings herein. Respondent’s last conviction was affirmed on June 12, 1995. Respondent was later denied leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals. Respondent also sought a writ of error coram nobis, which the
JUSTICE O’CONNOR, with whom JUSTICE STEVENS and JUSTICE BREYER join, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
The Court holds that a tribe has no power to regulate the activities of state officials enforcing state law on land owned and controlled by the tribe. The majority’s sweeping opinion, without cause, undermines the authority of tribes to “‘make their own laws and be ruled by them.'” Strate v. A-l Contractors, 520 U. S. 438, 459 (1997) (quoting Williams v. Lee, 358 U. S. 217, 220 (1959)). I write separately because Part II of the Court’s decision is unmoored from our precedents.
I A
Today, the Court finally resolves that Montana v. United States, 450 U. S. 544 (1981), governs a tribe’s civil jurisdiction over nonmembers regardless of land ownership. Ante, at 358-360. This is done with little fanfare, but the holding is significant because we have equivocated on this question in the past.
In Montana, we held that the Tribe in that case could not regulate the hunting and fishing activities of nonmembers on nontriballand located within the geographical boundaries of the reservation. 450 U. S., at 557. We explained that the Tribe’s jurisdiction was limited to two instances-where a consensual relationship exists between the Tribe and nonmembers, or where jurisdiction was necessary to preserve tribal sovereignty-and we concluded that neither instance applied. Id., at 565-567; ante, at 358-360.
Given the facts of Montana, it was not clear whether the status of the
JUSTICE O’CONNOR, dissenting.
I join Parts I and III of JUSTICE SCALIA’S dissenting opinion in this case. I do not join Part II because I believe that, assuming, arguendo, that the Suspension Clause guarantees some minimum extent of habeas review, the right asserted by the alien in this case falls outside the scope of that review for the reasons explained by JUSTICE SCALIA in Part II-B of his dissenting opinion. The question whether the Suspension Clause assures habeas jurisdiction in this particular case properly is resolved on this ground alone, and there is no need to say more.
JUSTICE O’CONNOR, dissenting.
For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in the companion case of INS v. St. Cyr, ante, p. 326, I agree with JUSTICE SCALIA’S proposed disposition of the instant case.
JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court.
In January 1999, the Attorney General of Massachusetts promulgated comprehensive regulations governing the advertising and sale of cigarettes, smokeless tobacco, and cigars. 940 Code of Mass. Regs. §§ 21.01-21.07, 22.01-22.09 (2000). Petitioners, a group of cigarette, smokeless tobacco, and cigar manufacturers and retailers, filed suit in Federal District Court claiming that the regulations violate federal law and the United States Constitution. In large measure, the District Court determined that the regulations are valid and enforceable. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, concluding that the regulations are not pre-empted by federal law and do not violate the First Amendment. The first question presented for our review is whether certain cigarette advertising regulations are pre-empted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (FCLAA), 79 Stat. 282, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 1331 et seq. The second question presented is whether certain regulations governing the advertising and sale of tobacco products violate the First Amendment.
for the City of Los Angeles et al. by Mark E. Haddad, James M. Harris, Joseph R. Guerra, and James K. Hahn; for the City of New York et al. by Michael D. Hess, Leonard J. Koerner, Elizabeth Susan Natrella, Richard M. Weinberg, and Sandra R. Gutman; for the American Legacy Foundation by A. Stephen Hut, Jr., John Payton, Patrick
JUSTICE O’CONNOR, concurring.
I join the Court’s opinion and write separately to explain more fully the circumstances in which a new rule is “made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court.” 28 U. S. C. § 2244(b)(2)(A) (1994 ed., Supp. V).
It is only through the holdings of this Court, as opposed to this Court’s dicta and as opposed to the decisions of any other court, that a new rule is “made retroactive… by the Supreme Court” within the meaning of § 2244(b)(2)(A). See ante, at 663; cf. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U. S. 362, 412 (2000). The clearest instance, of course, in which we can be said to have “made” a new rule retroactive is where we expressly have held the new rule to be retroactive in a case on collateral review and applied the rule to that case. But, as the Court recognizes, a single case that expressly holds a rule to be retroactive is not a sine qua non for the satisfaction of this statutory provision. Ante, at 666. This Court instead may “ma[k]e” a new rule retroactive through multiple holdings that logically dictate the retroactivity of the new rule. Ibid. To apply the syllogistic relationship described by JusTICE BREYER, post, at 672-673 (dissenting opinion), if we hold in Case One that a particular type of rule applies retroactively to cases on collateral review and hold in Case Two that a given rule is of that particular type, then it necessarily follows that the given rule applies retroactively to cases on collateral review. In such circumstan
JUSTICE O’CONNOR, concurring.
I join the opinion of the Court but with my understanding of how the issues discussed in Part II-B of the opinion must be considered on remand.
Part II-B of the Court’s opinion addresses the circumstance, present in this case, where a takings claimant has acquired title to the regulated property after the enactment of the regulation at issue. As the Court holds, the Rhode Island Supreme Court erred in effectively adopting the sweeping rule that the preacquisition enactment of the use restriction ipso facto defeats any takings claim based on that use restriction. Accordingly, the Court holds that petitioner’s claim under Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U. S. 104 (1978), “is not barred by the mere fact that title was acquired after the effective date of the state-imposed restriction.” Ante, at 630.
The more difficult question is what role the temporal relationship between regulatory enactment and title acquisition plays in a proper Penn Central analysis. Today’s holding does not mean that the timing of the regulation’s enactment relative to the acquisition of title is immaterial to the Penn Central analysis. Indeed, it would be just as much error to expunge this consideration from the takings inquiry as it would be to accord it exclusive significance. Our polestar instead remains the principles set forth in Penn Central itself and our other cases that govern partial regulatory takings. Under these cases, interference with investmentbacked
JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 allows eligible employees to appeal termination and other serious disciplinary actions to the Merit Systems Protection Board. 5 U. S. C. §§ 7512-7513. The Federal Circuit ruled that, when assessing the reasonableness of these actions, the Board may not consider prior disciplinary actions that are pending in collectively bargained grievance proceedings.212 F.3d 1296, 1298 (2000). Because the Board has broad discretion in determining how to review prior disciplinary actions and need not adopt the Federal Circuit’s rule, we now vacate and remand for further proceedings.
I
Respondent Maria Gregory worked for petitioner United States Postal Service as a letter technician with responsibil
*Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, by Mark D. Roth and Charles A. Hobbie; for the National Association of Letter Carriers, AFLCIO, by Keith E. Secular; for the National Employment Lawyers Association by Edward H. Passman and Paula A. Brantner; and for the National Treasury Employees Union by Gregory O’Duden, Barbara A. Atkin, and Kerry L. Adams. ity for overseeing letter carriers on five mail routes, and serving as a replacement carrier on those routes. App. to Pet. for Cert. A-iS. On April 7, 1997, respondent left work early to take her daughter to the doctor, ignoring her supervisor’s instructions to sort the mail for her route
JUSTICE O’CONNOR, with whom JUSTICE SOUTER joins, dissenting.
The Court today holds that 25 U. S. C. § 2719(d) (1994 ed.) clearly and unambiguously fails to give Indian Nations (Nations) the exemption from federal wagering excise and related occupational taxes enjoyed by the States. Because I believe § 2719(d) is subject to more than one interpretation, and because “statutes are to be construed liberally in favor of the Indians, with ambiguous provisions interpreted to their benefit,” Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe, 471 U. S. 759, 766 (1985), I respectfully dissent.
I
I agree with the Court that § 2719(d) incorporates an error in drafting. I disagree, however, that the section’s reference to chapter 35 is necessarily that error.
As originally proposed in the Senate, the bill that became the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) would have applied all gambling and wagering-related sections of the Internal Revenue Code to the Nations in the same manner as the States:”Provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, concerning the taxation and the reporting and withholding of taxes with respect to gambling or wagering operations shall apply to Indian gaming operations conducted pursuant to this Act the same as they apply to State operations.” S. 555, 100th Cong., 1st Sess., 37 (1987).
The Senate Indian Affairs Committee altered the language of this bill in two contradictory ways. It restricted the applicable Code sections to those relating to the “reporting and withholding of taxes
JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA or Act), 104 Stat. 328, 42 U. S. C. § 12101 et seq. (1994 ed. and Supp. V), a physical impairment that “substantially limits one or more… major life activities” is a “disability.” 42 U. S. C. § 12102(2)(A) (1994 ed.). Respondent, claiming to be disabled because of her carpal tunnel syndrome and other related impairments, sued petitioner, her former employer, for failing to provide her with a reasonable accommodation as required by the ADA. See § 12112(b)(5)(A). The District Court granted summary judgment to petitioner, finding that respondent’s impairments did not substantially limit any of her major life activities. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed, finding that the impairments substantially limited respondent in the major life activity of performing manual tasks, and therefore granting partial summary judgment to respondent on the issue of whether she was disabled under the ADA. We conclude that the Court of Appeals did not apply the proper standard in making this determination because it analyzed only a limited class of manual tasks and failed to ask whether respondent’s impairments prevented or restricted her from performing tasks that are of central importance to most people’s daily lives.
I
Respondent began working at petitioner’s automobile manufacturing plant in Georgetown, Kentucky, in August 1990. She was soon placed on an engine fabrication