Federal Taxation, John Paul Stevens, Lewis Powell, Majority, Warren Burger, William Rehnquist

Commissioner v. Engle

Federal Taxation, John Paul Stevens, Lewis Powell, Majority, Warren Burger, William Rehnquist / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court.

These consolidated cases present the question whether §§ 611-613A of the Internal Revenue Code (Code), 26 U.S.C. §§ 611-613A, entitle taxpayers to an allowance for percentage depletion on lease bonus or advance royalty income received from lessees of their oil and gas mineral interests.

I

A

Ever since enacting the earliest income tax laws, Congress has subsidized the development of our Nation’s natural resources. Toward this end, Congress has allowed holders of economic interests in mineral deposits, including oil and gas wells, to deduct from their taxable incomes the larger of two depletion allowances: cost or percentage. [ Footnote 1 ] Under cost depletion, taxpayers amortize the cost of their wells over their total productive lives. [ Footnote 2 ] Under percentage depletion, taxpayers deduct a statutorily specified percentage of the “gross income” generated from the property, irrespective of actual costs incurred. [ Footnote 3 ] Through these depletion provisions, Congress has permitted taxpayers to recover the investments they have made in mineral deposits and to generate additional capital for further exploration and production of the Nation’s mineral resources.

Taxpayers have historically preferred the allowance for percentage, as opposed to cost, depletion on wells that are good producers, because the tax benefits are significantly greater. Prior to 1975, it was well settled that taxpayers leasing their interests

Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, David Souter, Economic Activity, John Paul Stevens, Majority, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, William Rehnquist

Cohen v. de la Cruz

Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, David Souter, Economic Activity, John Paul Stevens, Majority, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, William Rehnquist / By

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

Dissent, Privacy, Thurgood Marshall

FBI v. Abramson

Dissent, Privacy, Thurgood Marshall / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR, with whom JUSTICE MARSHALL joins, dissenting.

Justice Frankfurter once explained the limits of statutory construction as follows:

[T]he courts are not at large…. They are under the constraints imposed by the judicial function in our democratic society. As a matter of verbal recognition, certainly, no one will gainsay that the function in construing a statute is to ascertain the meaning of words used by the legislature. To go beyond it is to usurp a power which our democracy has lodged in its elected legislature…. A judge must not rewrite a statute, neither to enlarge nor to contract it. Whatever temptations the statesmanship of policymaking might wisely suggest, construction must eschew interpolation and evisceration. He must not read in by way of creation. He must not read out except to avoid patent nonsense or internal contradiction…. * * * *” [T]he only sure safeguard against crossing the line between adjudication and legislation is an alert recognition of the necessity not to cross it and instinctive, as well as trained, reluctance to do so.

Frankfurter, Some Reflections on the Reading of Statutes, 47 Colum.L.Rev. 527, 533, 535 (1947).

The Court does not approach this case in that spirit. Instead, it redrafts the statutory phrase “investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes” to exempt investigatory records that “were not compiled for law enforcement purposes,” ante at 456 U. S. 623 (emphasis added). [ Footnote 2/1 ] Unfortunately,

Criminal Procedure, John Paul Stevens, Partial concurrence, partial dissent

Estelle v. McGuire

Criminal Procedure, John Paul Stevens, Partial concurrence, partial dissent / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR, with whom JUSTICE STEVENS joins, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I agree with the Court that the evidence of battered child syndrome was relevant. The State had to prove that Mark McGuire intended to kill his daughter, and the evidence that Tori was a battered child was probative of causation and intent. I therefore join Part I of the Court’s opinion.

I do not join Part II of the opinion because I think there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury misapplied the prior acts instruction. The trial court instructed the jury that evidence of Tori’s prior injuries had been admitted to show that McGuire had committed offenses similar to that for which he was on trial, and that, if the jury found a “clear connection” between the prior offenses and the charged offense, “it may be logically concluded that if the Defendant committed other offenses, he also committed the crime charged in this case.” App.41. In my view, the instruction encouraged the jury to assume that McGuire had inflicted the prior injuries and then directed the jury to conclude that the prior abuser was the murderer. Because the instruction may have relieved the State of its burden of proving the identity of Tori’s murderer beyond a reasonable doubt, I would hold that the instruction was error and remand to the Court of Appeals for a determination of whether that error was harmless.

The fact that a 6-month-old child was repeatedly beaten in the course of her short life is so horrifying

Concurrence, First Amendment, Thurgood Marshall

Estate of Thornton v. Caldor Inc

Concurrence, First Amendment, Thurgood Marshall / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR, with whom JUSTICE MARSHALL joins, concurring.

The Court applies the test enunciated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602, 403 U. S. 612 -613 (1971), and concludes that Conn.Gen.Stat. § 53-303e(b) (1985) has a primary effect that impermissibly advances religion. I agree, and I join the Court’s opinion and judgment. In my view, the Connecticut Sabbath law has an impermissible effect because it conveys a message of endorsement of the Sabbath observance.

All employees, regardless of their religious orientation, would value the benefit which the statute bestows on Sabbath observers -the right to select the day of the week in which to refrain from labor. Yet Connecticut requires private employers to confer this valued and desirable benefit only on those employees who adhere to a particular religious belief. The statute singles out Sabbath observers for special and, as the Court concludes, absolute protection without according similar accommodation to ethical and religious beliefs and practices of other private employees. There can be little doubt that an objective observer or the public at large would perceive this statutory scheme precisely as the Court does today. Ante at 472 U. S. 708 -710. The message conveyed is one of endorsement of a particular religious belief, to the detriment of those who do not share it. As such, the Connecticut statute has the effect of advancing religion, and cannot withstand Establishment Clause scrutiny.

I do not read the Court’s

Criminal Procedure, Dissent, Lewis Powell, Warren Burger, William Rehnquist

Enmund v. Florida

Criminal Procedure, Dissent, Lewis Powell, Warren Burger, William Rehnquist / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE POWELL, and JUSTICE REHNQUIST join, dissenting.

Today the Court holds that the Eighth Amendment prohibits a State from executing a convicted felony murderer. I dissent from this holding not only because I believe that it is not supported by the analysis in our previous cases, but also because today’s holding interferes with state criteria for assessing legal guilt by recasting intent as a matter of federal constitutional law.

I

The evidence at trial showed that, at approximately 7:30 a.m. on April 1, 1975, Sampson and Jeanette Armstrong approached the back door of Thomas and Eunice Kersey’s farmhouse on the pretext of obtaining water for their overheated car. [ Footnote 2/1 ] When Thomas Kersey retrieved a water jug to help the Armstrongs, Sampson Armstrong grabbed him, held a gun to him, and told Jeanette Armstrong to take his wallet. Hearing her husband’s cries for help, Eunice Kersey came around the side of the house with a gun and shot Jeanette Armstrong. Sampson Armstrong, and perhaps Jeanette Armstrong, returned the fire, killing both of the Kerseys. [ Footnote 2/2 ] The Armstrongs dragged the bodies into the kitchen, took Thomas Kersey’s money, and fled to a nearby car, where the petitioner, Earl Enmund, was waiting to help the Armstrongs escape. Record 1348-1351. [ Footnote 2/3 ]

Ida Jean Shaw [ Footnote 2/4 ] testified that, on March 31, the petitioner and the two Armstrongs were staying at her house. When she

Byron White, Criminal Procedure, Lewis Powell, Majority, Warren Burger, William Rehnquist

Engle v. Isaac

Byron White, Criminal Procedure, Lewis Powell, Majority, Warren Burger, William Rehnquist / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court.

In Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U. S. 72 (1977), we held that a state prisoner, barred by procedural default from raising a constitutional claim on direct appeal, could not litigate that claim in a § 2254 habeas corpus [ Footnote 1 ] proceeding without showing cause for, and actual prejudice from, the default. Applying the principle of Sykes to these cases, we conclude that respondents, who failed to comply with an Ohio rule mandating contemporaneous objections to jury instructions, may not challenge the constitutionality of those instructions in a federal habeas proceeding.

I

Respondents’ claims rest in part on recent changes in Ohio criminal law. For over a century, the Ohio courts required criminal defendants to carry the burden of proving self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence. See State v. Seliskar, 35 Ohio St.2d 95, 298 N.E.2d 582 (1973); Szalkai v. State, 96 Ohio St. 36, 117 N.E. 12 (1917); Silvus v. State, 22 Ohio St. 90 (1872). A new criminal code, effective January 1, 1974, subjected all affirmative defenses to the following rule:

Every person accused of an offense is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and the burden of proof is upon the prosecution. The burden of going forward with the evidence of an affirmative defense is upon the accused.

Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 2901.05(A) (1975). For more than two years after its enactment, most Ohio courts assumed that this section worked

Civil Rights, Lewis Powell, Partial concurrence, partial dissent, Warren Burger, William Rehnquist

EEOC v. Shell Oil Co

Civil Rights, Lewis Powell, Partial concurrence, partial dissent, Warren Burger, William Rehnquist / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE POWELL, and JUSTICE REHNQUIST join, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I agree with much of what the Court has written. But the Court has deliberately declined to come to grips with the crucial threshold issue in this case: is inadequate notice a legitimate defense to a subpoena enforcement action brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission)? If it is not, the Court’s concern that a meaningful notice requirement would impede the EEOC’s investigations is wholly unfounded. The Court clearly suggests it is inclined to answer the question in the negative, see ante at 466 U. S. 65 -66, 466 U. S. 75 -77, but then proceeds on the assumption that the question has not been properly presented or briefed. I believe the question is before us and should be addressed.

While respondent Shell Oil Co. (Shell) has maintained throughout that a subpoena may not be enforced if the notice filed in connection with the investigation was unlawful, the EEOC has not conceded the point. In connection with the statement cited by the Court ante at 466 U. S. 66, n. 17, the EEOC conceded that questions concerning the adequacy of the notice may be raised at the enforcement proceeding. But I find no clear concession here or in the EEOC’s briefs that, if notice is inadequate, a district court should then quash the EEOC’s subpoena. To the contrary, the entire thrust of the EEOC’s position is that investigation should

Civil Rights, Concurrence

EEOC v. Commercial Office Products Co

Civil Rights, Concurrence / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

I join Parts I and III of the Court’s opinion. I also join Part II-A, in which the Court correctly concludes that, in light of the statute’s language, structure, and legislative history, sufficient ambiguity exists to warrant deference to the agency’s construction of the word “terminated” in § 706(c). Indeed, deference is particularly appropriate on this type of technical issue of agency procedure. But while I agree with much of what the majority says in Parts II-B and II-C in indicating that the agency’s construction is reasonable, in my view the majority goes too far by suggesting that the agency’s position is the only one permissible. For example, the majority labels the respondent’s position “absurd,” ante at 120, which of course implies that we would refuse to countenance an agency decision to adopt such an approach. See, e.g., NLRB v. Food and Commercial Workers, 484 U. S. 112, 484 U. S. 123 (1987) (agency given deference only “as long as its interpretation is rational and consistent with the statute”); Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 467 U. S. 844 (1984) (agency regulations given deference “unless they are arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute”). Any such implication is incorrect. As the dissent concisely points out, post at 486 U. S. 126, and n. 1, the agency could quite reasonably conclude that the statutory language warrants giving

Concurrence, Economic Activity

Edgar v. MITE Corp

Concurrence, Economic Activity / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR, concurring in part.

I agree with the Court that the case is not moot, and that portions of the Illinois Business Take-Over Act, Ill.Rev.Stat., ch. 121 1/2, 137.51 et seq. (1979), are invalid under the Commerce Clause. Because it is not necessary to reach the preemption issue, I join only Parts I, II, and V of the Court’s opinion, and would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals on that basis.