Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Attorneys, Byron White, David Souter, Majority, William Rehnquist

Ardestani v. INS

Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Attorneys, Byron White, David Souter, Majority, William Rehnquist / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. Petitioner RafehRafie Ardestani prevailed in an administrative deportation proceeding brought by respondent Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). She sought attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 5 U. S. C. § 504 and 28 U. S. C. § 2412, which provides that prevailing parties in certain adversarial proceedings may recover attorney’s fees from the Government. We now consider whether the EAJA authorizes the award of attorney’s fees and costs for administrative deportation proceedings before the INS. We conclude that it does not.

I

Ardestani is an Iranian woman of the Bahai faith who entered the United States as a visitor in December 1982. She remained in this country lawfully until the end of May 1984 and then sought asylum. The United States Department of State informed the INS that Ardestani’s fear of persecution upon return to Iran was well founded. In February 1986, however, the INS denied Ardestani’s asylum application on the ground that, before entering the United States, she had reached a “safe haven” in Luxembourg and had established residence there. Ardestani advised the INS that she had been in Luxembourg only three days en route to the United States, that she had stayed in a hotel, and that she had never applied for residency in that country. Nonetheless, the following month, the INS issued an order to show cause why she should not be deported.

At the deportation hearing,

Anthony Kennedy, Byron White, Concurrence, Criminal Procedure

Payne v. Tennessee

Anthony Kennedy, Byron White, Concurrence, Criminal Procedure / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR, with whom JUSTICE WHITE and JUSTICE KENNEDY join, concurring.

In my view, a State may legitimately determine that victim impact evidence is relevant to a capital sentencing proceeding. A State may decide that the jury, before determining whether a convicted murderer should receive the death penalty, should know the full extent of the harm caused by the crime, including its impact on the victim’s family and community. A State may decide also that the jury should see “a quick glimpse of the life petitioner chose to extinguish,” Mills v. Maryland, 486 U. S. 367, 486 U. S. 397 (1988) (REHNQUIST, C.J., dissenting), to remind the jury that the person whose life was taken was a unique human being.

Given that victim impact evidence is potentially relevant, nothing in the Eighth Amendment commands that States treat it differently than other kinds of relevant evidence.

The Eighth Amendment stands as a shield against those practices and punishments which are either inherently cruel or which so offend the moral consensus of this society as to be deemed ‘cruel and unusual.’

South Carolina v. Gathers, 490 U. S. 805, 490 U. S. 821 (1989) (O’CONNOR, J., dissenting). Certainly there is no strong societal consensus that a jury may not take into account the loss suffered by a victim’s family or that a murder victim must remain a faceless stranger at the penalty phase of a capital trial. Just the opposite is true. Most States have enacted legislation enabling judges and juries

Concurrence, First Amendment

Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada

Concurrence, First Amendment / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR, concurring.

I agree with much of THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s opinion. In particular, I agree that a State may regulate speech by lawyers representing clients in pending cases more readily than it may regulate the press. Lawyers are officers of the court, and, as such, may legitimately be subject to ethical precepts that keep them from engaging in what otherwise might be constitutionally protected speech. See In re Sawyer, 360 U. S. 622, 360 U. S. 646 -647 (1959) (Stewart, J., concurring in result). This does not mean, of course, that lawyers forfeit their First Amendment rights, only that a less demanding standard applies. I agree with THE CHIEF JUSTICE that the “substantial likelihood of material prejudice” standard articulated in Rule 177 passes constitutional muster. Accordingly, I join Parts I and II of THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s opinion.

For the reasons set out in 501 U. S. however, I believe that Nevada’s Rule is void for vagueness. Section (3) of Rule 177 is a “safe harbor” provision. It states that, “notwithstanding” the prohibitory language located elsewhere in the Rule, “a lawyer involved in the investigation or litigation may state without elaboration… [t]he general nature of the claim or defense.” Gentile made a conscious effort to stay within the boundaries of this “safe harbor.” In his brief press conference, Gentile gave only a rough sketch of the defense that he intended to present at trial – i.e., that Detective Scholl, not Grady Sanders, stole the cocaine

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

Coleman v. Thompson

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

JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a case about federalism. It concerns the respect that federal courts owe the States and the States’ procedural rules when reviewing the claims of state prisoners in federal habeas corpus.

I

A Buchanan County, Virginia, jury convicted Roger Keith Coleman of rape and capital murder and fixed the sentence at death for the murder. The trial court imposed the death sentence, and the Virginia Supreme Court affirmed both the convictions and the sentence. Coleman v. Commonwealth, 226 Va. 31, 307 S.E.2d 864 (1983). This Court denied certiorari. 465 U. S. 1109 (1984).

Coleman then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Circuit Court for Buchanan County, raising numerous federal constitutional claims that he had not raised on direct appeal. After a two-day evidentiary hearing, the Circuit Court ruled against Coleman on all claims. App. 3-19. The court entered its final judgment on September 4, 1986.

Coleman filed his notice of appeal with the Circuit Court on October 7, 1986, 33 days after the entry of final judgment. Coleman subsequently filed a petition for appeal in the Virginia Supreme Court. The Commonwealth of Virginia, as appellant, filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. The sole ground for dismissal urged in the motion was that Coleman’s notice of appeal had been filed late. Virginia Supreme Court Rule 5:9(a) provides that no appeal shall be allowed unless a notice of appeal is filed with the trial court

Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Byron White, Civil Rights, David Souter, John Paul Stevens, Majority, William Rehnquist

Gregory v. Ashcroft

Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Byron White, Civil Rights, David Souter, John Paul Stevens, Majority, William Rehnquist / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court.

Article V, § 26 of the Missouri Constitution provides that “[a]ll judges other than municipal judges shall retire at the age of seventy years.” We consider whether this mandatory retirement provision violates the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 81 Stat. 602, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634, and whether it comports with the federal constitutional prescription of equal protection of the laws.

I

Petitioners are Missouri state judges. Judge Ellis Gregory, Jr., is an associate circuit judge for the Twenty-First Judicial Circuit. Judge Anthony P. Nugent, Jr., is a judge of the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District. Both are subject to the § 26 mandatory retirement provision. Petitioners were appointed to office by the Governor of Missouri, pursuant to the Missouri Non-Partisan Court Plan, Mo.Const., Art. V, §§ 25(a)-25(g). Each has, since his appointment, been retained in office by means of a retention election in which the judge ran unopposed, subject only to a “yes or no” vote. See Mo. Const., Art. V, § 25(c)(1).

Petitioners and two other state judges filed suit against John D. Ashcroft, the Governor of Missouri, in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, challenging the validity of the mandatory retirement provision. The judges alleged that the provision violated both the ADEA and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Anthony Kennedy, Dissent, Economic Activity

Lampf Pleva Lipkind. v. Gilbertson

Anthony Kennedy, Dissent, Economic Activity / By

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

I agree that predictability and judicial economy counsel the adoption of a uniform federal statute of limitations for actions brought under § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. For the reasons stated by JUSTICE KENNEDY, however, I believe we should adopt the “1 year from discovery rule,” but not the 3-year period of repose. I write separately only to express my disagreement with the Court’s decision in 501 U. S. In holding that respondent’s suit is time-barred under a limitations period that did not exist before today, the Court departs drastically from our established practice and inflicts an injustice on the respondents. The Court declines to explain its unprecedented decision, or even to acknowledge its unusual character.

Respondents, plaintiffs below, filed this action in Federal District Court in 1986. Everyone agrees that, at that time, their claims were governed by the state statute of limitations for the most analogous state cause of action. This was mandated by a solid wall of binding Ninth Circuit authority dating back more than 30 years. [ Footnote 3/1 ] See ante at 501 U. S. 353. The case proceeded in the District Court and the Court of Appeals for almost four years. During that time, the law never changed; the governing limitations period remained the analogous state statute of limitations. [ Footnote 3/2 ] Notwithstanding respondents’ entirely proper reliance on this limitations period, the Court now holds that

Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Byron White, David Souter, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, Judicial Power, Majority, Thurgood Marshall, William Rehnquist

Melkonyan v. Sullivan

Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Byron White, David Souter, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, Judicial Power, Majority, Thurgood Marshall, William Rehnquist / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court.

A party that prevails against the United States in a civil action is entitled, in certain circumstances, to an award of attorney’s fees, court costs, and other expenses. Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Among other requirements, the prevailing party must submit to the court an application for fees and expenses “within thirty days of final judgment in the action.” § 2412(d)(1)(B). This case requires us to decide whether an administrative decision rendered following a remand from the District Court is a “final judgment” within the meaning of EAJA.

I

In May, 1982, petitioner Zakhar Melkonyan filed an application for disability benefits under the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program established by Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1381 et seq. Following a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that petitioner was not disabled within the meaning of the Act. The Appeals Council denied review of the ALJ’s decision. In June, 1984, petitioner timely filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California seeking judicial review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3), which incorporates the review provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

On May 30, 1984, shortly before filing the complaint, petitioner filed a second application for SSI disability benefits accompanied by new evidence of disability. In August, 1984, petitioner’s second application was

Antonin Scalia, Civil Rights, Dissent, William Rehnquist

Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co. Inc

Antonin Scalia, Civil Rights, Dissent, William Rehnquist / By

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

The Court concludes that the action of a private attorney exercising a peremptory challenge is attributable to the government, and therefore may compose a constitutional violation. This conclusion is based on little more than that the challenge occurs in the course of a trial. Not everything that happens in a courtroom is state action. A trial, particularly a civil trial, is, by design, largely a stage on which private parties may act; it is a forum through which they can resolve their disputes in a peaceful and ordered manner. The government erects the platform; it does not thereby become responsible for all that occurs upon it. As much as we would like to eliminate completely from the courtroom the specter of racial discrimination, the Constitution does not sweep that broadly. Because I believe that a peremptory strike by a private litigant is fundamentally a matter of private choice, and not state action, I dissent.

I

In order to establish a constitutional violation, Edmonson must first demonstrate that Leesville’s use of a peremptory challenge can fairly be attributed to the government. Unfortunately, our cases deciding when private action might be deemed that of the state have not been a model of consistency. Perhaps this is because the state action determination is so closely tied to the “framework of the peculiar facts or circumstances present.” See Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority,

Concurrence, Criminal Procedure

Mu’Min v. Virginia

Concurrence, Criminal Procedure / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR, concurring.

No one doubts that Dawud Majid Mu’Min’s brutal murder of Gladys Nopwasky attracted extensive media coverage. For days on end, the case made headlines because it involved a macabre act of senseless violence and because it added fuel to an already heated political controversy about the wisdom of inmate work-release programs. But the question we decide today is not whether the jurors who ultimately convicted Mu’Min had previously read or heard anything about the case; everyone agrees that eight of them had. Nor is the question whether jurors who read that Mu’Min had confessed to the murder should have been disqualified as a matter of law. See post at 500 U. S. 441 -442, 500 U. S. 444. This claim is squarely foreclosed by Patton v. Yount, 467 U. S. 1025 (1984), where we upheld a trial court’s decision to seat jurors who had read about the case notwithstanding that the defendant’s written confessions, which were not admissible at trial, were widely reported in the press. See id. 467 U.S. at 467 U. S. 1029 ; id. at 467 U. S. 1047 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). The only question before us is whether the trial court erred by crediting the assurances of eight jurors that they could put aside what they had read or heard and render a fair verdict based on the evidence.

The dissent insists that the trial judge could not have assessed realistically the jurors’ credibility without first identifying the information to which each individual juror had been exposed.

Dissent, Privacy

Rust v. Sullivan

Dissent, Privacy / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR, dissenting.

[W]here an otherwise acceptable construction of a statute would raise serious constitutional problems, the Court will construe the statute to avoid such problems unless such construction is plainly contrary to the intent of Congress.

Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Building & Construction Trades Council, 485 U. S. 568, 485 U. S. 575 (1988). JUSTICE BLACKMUN has explained well why this longstanding canon of statutory construction applies in this case, and I join 500 U. S. 500 U. S. which constitute the Secretary’s interpretation of § 1008 of the Public Health Service Act, 84 Stat. 1508, 42 U.S.C. § 300a-6, “raise serious constitutional problems”: the regulations place content-based restrictions on the speech of Title X fund recipients, restrictions directed precisely at speech concerning one of “the most divisive and contentious issues that our Nation has faced in recent years.” Ante at 500 U. S. 215.

One may well conclude, as JUSTICE BLACKMUN does in 500 U. S. that the regulations are unconstitutional for this reason. I do not join Part II of the dissent, however, for the same reason that I do not join 500 U. S. in which JUSTICE BLACKMUN concludes that the regulations are unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment. The canon of construction that JUSTICE BLACKMUN correctly applies here is grounded in large part upon our time-honored practice of not reaching constitutional questions unnecessarily. See DeBartolo, supra, at 485 U.