Concurrence, First Amendment, Timeline

Lynch v. Donnelly

Concurrence, First Amendment, Timeline / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR, concurring.

I concur in the opinion of the Court. I write separately to suggest a clarification of our Establishment Clause doctrine. The suggested approach leads to the same result in this case as that taken by the Court, and the Court’s opinion, as I read it, is consistent with my analysis.

I

The Establishment Clause prohibits government from making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person’s standing in the political community. Government can run afoul of that prohibition in two principal ways. One is excessive entanglement with religious institutions, which may interfere with the independence of the institutions, give the institutions access to government or governmental powers not fully shared by nonadherents of the religion, and foster the creation of political constituencies defined along religious lines. E.g., Larkin v. Grendel’s Den, Inc., 459 U. S. 116 (1982). The second and more direct infringement is government endorsement or disapproval of religion. Endorsement sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community. Disapproval sends the opposite message. See generally Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U. S. 203 (1963).

Our prior cases have used the three-part test articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602, 403 U. S. 612 -613 (1971), as a guide to detecting these

Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, David Souter, Economic Activity, John Paul Stevens, Majority, Stephen Breyer

Lunding v. New York Tax Appeals Tribunal

Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, David Souter, Economic Activity, John Paul Stevens, Majority, Stephen Breyer / By

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,

Antonin Scalia, Civil Rights, David Souter, John Paul Stevens, Majority, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer

Lopez v. Monterey County

Antonin Scalia, Civil Rights, David Souter, John Paul Stevens, Majority, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. Under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (Act or Voting Rights Act), 79 Stat. 437, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1973et seq.,des

* Deborah J. La Fetra filed a brief for the Pacific Legal Foundation as amicus curiae urging affirmance. ignated States and political subdivisions are required to obtain federal preclearance before giving effect to changes in their voting laws. See § 1973c. Here, the State of California (California or State), which is not subject to the Act’s preclearance requirements, has passed legislation altering the scheme for electing judges in Monterey County, California (Monterey County or County), a “covered” jurisdiction required to preclear its voting changes. In this appeal, we review the conclusion of a three-judge District Court that Monterey County need not seek approval of these changes before giving them effect. The District Court reasoned, specifically, that California is not subject to the preclearance requirement and that Monterey County merely implemented a California law without exercising any independent discretion. We hold that the Act’s preclearance requirements apply to measures mandated by a noncovered State to the extent that these measures will effect a voting change in a covered county. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the District Court.

I

The instant appeal marks the second occasion on which this Court has addressed issues arising in the course of litigation over the method for electing

Dissent, Due Process

Liljeberg v. Health Svcs. Acq. Corp

Dissent, Due Process / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR, dissenting.

For the reasons given by CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST, ante at 486 U. S. 871 -873, I agree that “constructive knowledge” cannot be the basis for a violation of 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). The question then remains whether respondent is entitled to a new trial because there are other “extraordinary circumstances,” apart from the § 455(a) violation found by the Fifth Circuit, that justify “relief from the operation of the judgment.” See Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 60(b)(6); Ackermann v. United States, 340 U. S. 193, 340 U. S. 199 (1950); Klapprott v. United States, 335 U. S. 601, 335 U. S. 613 (1949). Although the Court collects an impressive array of arguments that might support the granting of such relief, I believe the issue should be addressed in the first instance by the courts below. I would therefore remand this case with appropriate instructions.

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

Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine Inc

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. 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

Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Byron White, Criminal Procedure, Majority, William Rehnquist

Lewis v. Jeffers

Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Byron White, Criminal Procedure, Majority, William Rehnquist / By

Justice O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case presents issues pertaining to federal court review of a state court’s determination that an offense was committed “in an especially heinous, cruel or depraved manner,” Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 13-703(F)(6) (1989).

I

The relevant facts are undisputed. The evidence at trial showed that, in May, 1976, police arrested respondent Jimmie Wayne Jeffers and his girlfriend, Penelope Cheney, on state-law charges of possession of narcotics and receipt of stolen property. Respondent posted bond for Cheney, but was unable to post bond for himself, and remained in custody at the Pima County Jail. While in jail, respondent received reports that Cheney had been cooperating with police by providing the police with information about respondent and certain heroin transactions. Respondent wrote a note to another jail inmate offering him money if he would kill Cheney. The detention officer who was supposed to deliver the note read it and seized it.

In October, 1976, respondent was released from jail on bond pending appeal of his convictions. About a week later, he met Doris Van Der Veer and began living with her at a motel in Tucson. Respondent subsequently invited Cheney to the motel in order to provide her with some heroin.

On the day of the murder, respondent told Van Der Veer that Cheney was coming over and that they wished to be alone. When Cheney arrived, respondent introduced her to Van Der Veer, who then excused herself. After about

First Amendment, Per curiam

Lee v. International Soc. for Krishna Consciousness Inc

First Amendment, Per curiam / By

For the reasons expressed in the Opinions of JUSTICE O’CONNOR, JUSTICE KENNEDY, and JUSTICE SOUTER, see ante,p. 685 (O’CONNOR, J., concurring in No. 91-155 and concurring in judgment in No. 91-339),ante,p. 693 (KENNEDY, J., concurring in judgments), and ante,p. 709 (SOUTER, J., concurring in judgment in No. 91-339 and dissenting in No. 91-155), the judgment of the Court of Appeals holding that the ban on distribution of literature in the Port Authority airport terminals is invalid under the First Amendment is

Affirmed.

Dissent, First Amendment

Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation

Dissent, First Amendment / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR, dissenting.

The Court holds that Amtrak is a Government entity and therefore all of its actions are subject to constitutional challenge. Lebron, however, expressly disavowed this argument below, and consideration of this broad and unexpected question is precluded because it was not presented in the petition for certiorari. The question on which we granted certiorari is narrower: Whether the alleged suppression of Lebron’s speech by Amtrak, as a concededly private entity, should be imputed to the Government. Because Amtrak’s decision to reject Lebron’s billboard proposal was a matter of private business judgment and not of Government coercion, I would affirm the judgment below.

I

This Court’s Rule 14.1(a) provides: “Only the questions set forth in the petition, or fairly included therein, will be considered by the Court.” While “[t]he statement of any question

to common stock. This subsection was originally enacted in 1970, and has not since been amended. It is irreconcilable with the revised provision for a nine-member board, § 543(a)(1). presented will be deemed to comprise every subsidiary question,” ibid., questions that are merely “related” or “complementary” to the question presented are not “fairly included therein.” Yee v. Escondido, 503 U. S. 519, 537-538 (1992) (emphasis deleted). In Yee, we held that a regulatory taking argument, while subsidiary to the umbrella question whether a taking had occurred, was only complementary to the physical taking

Concurrence, Criminal Procedure, William Rehnquist

Lanier v. South Carolina

Concurrence, Criminal Procedure, William Rehnquist / By

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

I concur in the judgment of the Court vacating the judgment and remanding this case to the South Carolina Court of Appeals. For the reasons stated in my opinion in Taylor v. Alabama, 457 U. S. 687, 457 U. S. 694 (1982) (O’CONNOR, J., dissenting), I believe the court on remand can consider the timing, frequency, and likely effect of whatever Miranda warnings were given to petitioner as factors relevant to the question whether, if petitioner was illegally arrested, his subsequent confession was tainted by the illegal arrest.

JUSTICE MARSHALL dissents from this summary disposition, which has been ordered without affording the parties prior notice or an opportunity to file briefs on the merits. See Maggio v. Fulford, 462 U. S. 111, 462 U. S. 120 -121 (1983) (MARSHALL, J., dissenting); Wyrick v. Fields, 459 U. S. 42, 459 U. S. 51 -52 (1982) (MARSHALL, J., dissenting).Disclaimer:Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.Receive free daily summaries of US Supreme Court opinions. Email *First Party Lanier Second Party

Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, David Souter, Economic Activity, Majority, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, William Rehnquist

Lane v. Peña

Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, David Souter, Economic Activity, Majority, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, William Rehnquist / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. Section 504(a) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 87 Stat. 355, 29 U. S. C. § 791et seq.(Act or Rehabilitation Act), prohibits, among other things, discrimination on the basis of disability “under any program or activity conducted by any Executive agency.” 29 U. S. C. § 794(a) (1988 ed., Supp. V). The question presented in this case is whether Congress has waived the Federal Government’s sovereign immunity against awards of monetary damages for violations of this provision.

I

The United States Merchant Marine Academy is a federal service academy that trains students to serve as commercial merchant marine officers and as commissioned officers in the United States Armed Forces. The Academy is administered by the Maritime Administration, an organization within the Department of Transportation. Petitioner James Griffin Lane entered the Academy as a first-year student in July 1991 after meeting the Academy’s requirements for appointment, including passing a physical examination conducted by the Department of Defense. During his first year at the Academy, however, Lane was diagnosed by a private physician as having diabetes mellitus. Lane reported the diagnosis to the Academy’s Chief Medical Officer. The Academy’s Physical Examination Review Board conducted a hearing in September 1992 to determine Lane’s “medical suitability” to continue at the Academy, following which the Board reported to the Superintendent of the Academy that