Concurrence, Criminal Procedure, Harry Blackmun

Franklin v. Lynaugh

Concurrence, Criminal Procedure, Harry Blackmun / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR, with whom JUSTICE BLACKMUN joins, concurring in the judgment.

Petitioner was sentenced to death by a jury that was permitted to express its views on punishment only by answering two questions: (1) Did petitioner murder the victim deliberately? and (2) Is there a probability that he will pose a continuing threat to society? We must decide whether this capital sentencing scheme unconstitutionally limited the jury’s ability to give mitigating effect to evidence of petitioner’s prison record or to “residual doubts” about his guilt.

The plurality concludes that the jury’s consideration of petitioner’s prison record and of its “residual doubts” about his guilt was not limited in this case, but nevertheless goes on to suggest that a State may constitutionally limit the ability of the sentencing authority to give effect to mitigating evidence relevant to a defendant’s character or background or to the circumstances of the offense that mitigates against the death penalty. Ante at 487 U. S. 179, 487 U. S. 180, n. 10. Unlike the plurality, I have doubts about a scheme that is limited in such a fashion. I write separately to express those doubts, and to explain my reasons for concurring in the judgment.

In Jurek v. Texas, 428 U. S. 262 (1976), this Court held that the Texas capital sentencing procedures satisfied the Eighth Amendment requirement that the sentencer be allowed to consider circumstances mitigating against capital punishment. The Court observed that, even

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

Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Hyatt

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

JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. We granted certiorari to resolve whether the Nevada Supreme Court’s refusal to extend full faith and credit to California’s statute immunizing its tax collection agency from suit violates Article IV; § 1, of the Constitution. We conclude it does not, and we therefore affirm the judgment of the Nevada Supreme Court.

I

Respondent Gilbert P. Hyatt (hereinafter respondent) filed a “part-year” resident income tax return in California for 1991. App. to Pet. for Cert. 54. In the return, respondent represented that as of October 1, 1991, he had ceased to be a California resident and had become a resident of Nevada. In 1993, petitioner California Franchise Tax Board (CFTB) commenced an audit to determine whether respondent had underpaid state income taxes. Ibid. The audit focused on

*Eriefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the State of Florida et al. by Richard E. Dornan, Attorney General of Florida, Jonathan A. Glogau, Barbara J. Ritchie, Acting Attorney General of Alaska, and Thomas R. Keller, Acting Attorney General of Hawaii, and by the Attorneys General for their respective jurisdictions as follows: Ken Salazar of Colorado, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, M. Jane Brady of Delaware, James E. Ryan of Illinois, Steve Carter of Indiana, G. Steven Rowe of Maine, J. Joseph Curran, Jr., of Maryland, Jennifer M. Granholm of Michigan, Mike Moore of Mississippi, Mike McGrath of Montana, Wayne Stenehjem of North Dakota,

Antonin Scalia, Criminal Procedure, John Paul Stevens, Majority, Thurgood Marshall, William Brennan

Idaho v. Wright

Antonin Scalia, Criminal Procedure, John Paul Stevens, Majority, Thurgood Marshall, William Brennan / By

Justice O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case requires us to decide whether the admission at trial of certain hearsay statements made by a child declarant to an examining pediatrician violates a defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.

I

Respondent Laura Lee Wright was jointly charged with Robert L. Giles of two counts of lewd conduct with a minor under 16, in violation of Idaho Code § 18-1508 (1987). The alleged victims were respondent’s two daughters, one of whom was 5 1/2 and the other 2 1/2 years old at the time the crimes were charged.

Respondent and her ex-husband, Louis Wright, the father of the older daughter, had reached an informal agreement whereby each parent would have custody of the older daughter for six consecutive months. The allegations surfaced in November, 1986, when the older daughter told Cynthia Goodman, Louis Wright’s female companion, that Giles had had sexual intercourse with her while respondent held her down and covered her mouth, App. 47-55; 3 Tr. 456-460, and that she had seen respondent and Giles do the same thing to respondent’s younger daughter, App. 48-49, 61; 3 Tr. 460. The younger daughter was living with her parents -respondent and Giles -at the time of the alleged offenses.

Goodman reported the older daughter’s disclosures to the police the next day, and took the older daughter to the hospital. A medical examination of the older daughter revealed evidence of sexual abuse. One of the examining

Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Concurrence, Federalism

Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho

Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Concurrence, Federalism / By

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,

Dissent, Economic Activity, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, Lewis Powell

ICC v. American Trucking Assns. Inc

Dissent, Economic Activity, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, Lewis Powell / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR, with whom JUSTICE BLACKMUN, JUSTICE POWELL, and JUSTICE STEVENS join, dissenting.

This case presents the question whether the Interstate Commerce Commission (Commission) may nullify a motor carrier tariff at any time after it has become effective. Such nullification renders the carrier liable to shippers for the amount by which the rejected rate exceeds the last rate the carrier has lawfully filed. The Court quite correctly reasons that 49 U.S.C. § 10762(e) does not authorize the Commission to reject effective tariffs. See ante at 467 U. S. 361 -364. Reading § 10762(e) to authorize such action would indeed give the Commission an “unbridled discretion” that Congress did not intend it to have. See ante at 467 U. S. 363. However, after having correctly rejected § 10762(e) as a basis for the proposed rejection power, the Court then mysteriously concludes that the power is within the Commission’s “discretionary power” to ensure that shippers adhere strictly to their approved rate bureau agreements. Ante at 467 U. S. 367. I frankly do not understand how this alternative “discretionary power” rationale better reins in the Commission’s discretion. Accordingly, I dissent.

I

The Court starts with the proposition that the enumeration of certain Commission powers in the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended, 49 U.S.C. § 10101 et seq., does not necessarily exclude others not expressly listed. See ante at 467 U. S. 364 -365. I have no quarrel with that proposition. Like

Attorneys, Partial concurrence, partial dissent, William Rehnquist

Ibanez v. Florida Dept. of Business and Professional Regulation Bd. of Accountancy

Attorneys, Partial concurrence, partial dissent, William Rehnquist / By

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

Once again, we are confronted with a First Amendment challenge to a state restriction on professional advertising. Petitioner, who has been licensed as an attorney and as a certified public accountant (CPA) by the State of Florida, and who also has been recognized as a “Certified Financial Planner” (CFP) by a private organization, identified herself in telephone listings under the “attorneys” heading as “IBANEZ SILVIA S CPA CFP.” App.4. Respondent, the Florida Board of Accountancy, determined that petitioner’s use of both the CPA and the CFP designations was inherently misleading, and sanctioned her for false advertising. Fla. Stat. § 473.323(1)(f) (1991) (accountants subject to disciplinary action if they “[a]dvertis[e] goods or services in a manner which is fraudulent, false, deceptive, or misleading in form or content”).

I

Because petitioner’s use of the CFP designation is both inherently and potentially misleading, I would uphold the Board’s sanction of petitioner. I therefore respectfully dissent from Parts II-A and II-C of the opinion of the Court. A

States may prohibit inherently misleading speech entirely.

In re R. M. J., 455 U. S. 191, 203 (1982). In Peel v. Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Comm’n of Ill., 496 U. S. 91 (1990), we considered an attorney advertisement that proclaimed the lawyer to be a “‘Certified Civil Trial Specialist By the National Board of Trial

Concurrence, Criminal Procedure

Hudson v. Palmer

Concurrence, Criminal Procedure / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR, concurring.

The courts of this country quite properly share the responsibility for protecting the constitutional rights of those imprisoned for the commission of crimes against society. Thus, when a prisoner’s property is wrongfully destroyed, the courts must ensure that the prisoner, no less than any other person, receives just compensation. The Constitution, as well as human decency, requires no less. The issue in these cases, however, does not concern whether a prisoner may recover damages for a malicious deprivation of property. Rather, these cases decide only what is the appropriate source of the constitutional right and the remedy that corresponds with it. I agree with the Court’s treatment of these issues, and therefore join its opinion and judgment today. I write separately to elaborate my understanding of why the complaint in this litigation does not state a ripe constitutional claim.

The complaint alleges three types of harm under the Fourth Amendment: invasion of privacy from the search, temporary deprivation of the right to possession from the seizure, and permanent deprivation of the right to possession as a result of the destruction of the property. The search and seizure allegations can be handled together. They would state a ripe Fourth Amendment claim if, on the basis of the facts alleged, they showed that government officials had acted unreasonably. The Fourth Amendment “reasonableness” determination is generally conducted on a case-by-case

Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Partial concurrence, partial dissent, Unions, William Rehnquist

Holly Farms Corp. v. NLRB

Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Partial concurrence, partial dissent, Unions, William Rehnquist / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE SCALIA, and JUSTICE THOMAS join, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.

Today the Court concludes that three categories of workers fall outside the definition of “agricultural laborer” supplied by § 3(f) the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) and § 2(3) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA): (1) Holly Farms’ chicken catchers, who labor on a farm manually rounding up, catching, and caging live chickens, (2) forklift operators, who then load the caged chickens onto the bed of a flatbed truck, and (3) live-haul drivers, who drive the loaded trucks to Holly Farms’ processing plants, where the chickens are slaughtered and prepared for market. I concur in the Court’s judgment with respect to the live-haul drivers, since their work is neither performed “by a farmer” nor “on a farm.” But the Court’s conclusion that Holly Farms’ chicken catchers and forklift operators do not perform agricultural work runs contrary to common sense and finds no support in the text of the relevant statute. Because the definition supplied by Congress makes clear that the chicken catchers and forklift operators are agricultural workers exempt from the reach of the NLRA, I respectfully dissent.

The Court devotes the bulk of its opinion to an analysis of the reasonableness of the National Labor Relations Board’s (Board) interpretation of the statute, but gives remarkably short shrift to the statute itself. The Court dismisses

Civil Rights, Concurrence

Holder v. Hall

Civil Rights, Concurrence / By

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

I agree with JUSTICES KENNEDY and THOMAS that a plaintiff cannot maintain a § 2 vote dilution challenge to the size of a governing authority, though I reach that conclusion by a somewhat different rationale. JUSTICE THOMAS rejects the notion that § 2 covers any dilution challenges, and would hold that § 2 is limited to “state enactments that regulate citizens’ access to the ballot or the processes for counting a ballot.” Post, at 945. As JUSTICE STEVENS points out, however, stare decisis concerns weigh heavily here. Post, at 963-966 (opinion of STEVENS, J.); see also Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U. S. 30, 84 (1986) (O’CONNOR, J., concurring in judgment) (“We know that Congress intended to allow vote dilution claims to be brought under § 2”); id., at 87 (“I agree with the Court that proof of vote dilution can establish a violation of § 2”). These concerns require me to reject JUSTICE THOMAS’ suggestion that we overhaul our established reading of §2.

I also agree with JUSTICE BLACKMUN, see post, at 946950, that our precedents compel the conclusion that the size of the Bleckley County Commission is both a “standard, practice, or procedure” under § 2 and a “standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting” under § 5. See, e. g., Presley v. Etowah County Comm’n, 502 U. S. 491, 503 (1992) (change in size is a change in a “standard, practice, or procedure” because the change “increase[s] or diminish[es] the number

Concurrence, Economic Activity

Hoffman v. Conn. Dept. of Inc. Maint

Concurrence, Economic Activity / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR, concurring.

Although I agree with JUSTICE SCALIA that Congress may not abrogate the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity by enacting a statute under the Bankruptcy Clause, a majority of the Court addresses instead the question whether Congress expressed a clear intention to abrogate the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity. On the latter question, I agree with JUSTICE WHITE, and join the plurality’s opinion.