Antonin Scalia, Civil Rights, Concurrence

Hernandez v. New York

Antonin Scalia, Civil Rights, Concurrence / By

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

I agree with the plurality that we review for clear error the trial court’s finding as to discriminatory intent, and agree with its analysis of this issue. I agree also that the finding of no discriminatory intent was not clearly erroneous in this case. I write separately because I believe that the plurality opinion goes farther than it needs to in assessing the constitutionality of the prosecutor’s asserted justification for his peremptory strikes.

Upon resolution of the factfinding questions, this case is straightforward. Hernandez asserts an equal protection violation under the rule of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U. S. 79 (1986). In order to demonstrate such a violation, Hernandez must prove that the prosecutor intentionally discriminated against Hispanic jurors on the basis of their race. The trial court found that the prosecutor did not have such intent, and that determination is not clearly erroneous. Hernandez has failed to meet his burden.

An unwavering line of cases from this Court holds that a violation of the Equal Protection Clause requires state action motivated by discriminatory intent; the disproportionate effects of state action are not sufficient to establish such a violation. In Washington v. Davis, 426 U. S. 229, 426 U. S. 239 (1976), we explained that

our cases have not embraced the proposition that a law or other official act, without regard to whether it reflects a racially discriminato

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

County of Riverside v. McLaughlin

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

JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court.

In Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U. S. 103 (1975), this Court held that the Fourth Amendment requires a prompt judicial determination of probable cause as a prerequisite to an extended pretrial detention following a warrantless arrest. This case requires us to define what is “prompt” under Gerstein.

I

This is a class action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging the manner in which the County of Riverside, California (County), provides probable cause determinations to persons arrested without a warrant. At issue is the County’s policy of combining probable cause determinations with its arraignment procedures. Under County policy, which tracks closely the provisions of Cal.Penal Code Ann. § 825 (West 1985), arraignments must be conducted without unnecessary delay and, in any event, within two days of arrest. This two-day requirement excludes from computation weekends and holidays. Thus, an individual arrested without a warrant late in the week may, in some cases, be held for as long as five days before receiving a probable cause determination. Over the Thanksgiving holiday, a 7-day delay is possible.

The parties dispute whether the combined probable cause/arraignment procedure is available to all warrantless arrestees. Testimony by Riverside County District Attorney Grover Trask suggests that individuals arrested without warrants for felonies do not receive a probable cause determination until the preliminary hearing, which

Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Byron White, David Souter, First Amendment, John Paul Stevens, Majority, William Rehnquist

Leathers v. Medlock

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

JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court.

These consolidated cases require us to consider the constitutionality of a state sales tax that excludes or exempts certain segments of the media, but not others.

I

Arkansas’ Gross Receipts Act imposes a 4% tax on receipts from the sale of all tangible personal property and specified services. Ark.Code Ann. §§ 26-52-301, 26-52-302 (1987 and Supp.1989). The Act exempts from the tax certain sales of goods and services. § 26-52-401 (Supp.1989). Counties within Arkansas impose a 1% tax on all goods and services subject to taxation under the Gross Receipts Act, §§ 26-74-307, 26-74-222 (1987 and Supp.1989), and cities may impose a further 1/2 or 1% tax on these items, § 26-75-307 (1987).

The Gross Receipts Act expressly exempts receipts from subscription and over-the-counter newspaper sales and subscription magazine sales. See §§ 26-52-401(4), (14) (Supp.1989); Revenue Policy Statement 1988-1 (Mar. 10, 1988), reprinted in CCH Ark.Tax Rep. 1169-415. Before 1987, the Act did not list among those services subject to the sales tax either cable television [ Footnote 1 ] or scrambled satellite broadcast television services to home dish-antennae owners. [ Footnote 2 ] See § 26-52-301 (1987). In 1987, Arkansas adopted Act 188, which amended the Gross Receipts Act to impose the sales tax on cable television. 1987 Ark.Gen.Acts, No. 188, § 1.

Daniel L. Medlock, a cable television subscriber, Community Communications Co., a cable television

Dissent, Economic Activity

Pac. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip

Dissent, Economic Activity / By

Justice O’CONNOR, dissenting.

Punitive damages are a powerful weapon. Imposed wisely and with restraint, they have the potential to advance legitimate state interests. Imposed indiscriminately, however, they have a devastating potential for harm. Regrettably, common law procedures for awarding punitive damages fall into the latter category. States routinely authorize civil juries to impose punitive damages without providing them any meaningful instructions on how to do so. Rarely is a jury told anything more specific than “do what you think best.” See Browning-Ferris Industries v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., 492 U. S. 257, 492 U. S. 281 (1989) (Brennan, J., concurring).

In my view, such instructions are so fraught with uncertainty that they defy rational implementation. Instead, they encourage inconsistent and unpredictable results by inviting juries to rely on private beliefs and personal predilections. Juries are permitted to target unpopular defendants, penalize unorthodox or controversial views, and redistribute wealth. Multi-million dollar losses are inflicted on a whim. While I do not question the general legitimacy of punitive damages, I see a strong need to provide juries with standards to constrain their discretion so that they may exercise their power wisely, not capriciously or maliciously. The Constitution requires as much.

The Court today acknowledges that dangers may lurk, but holds that they did not materialize in this case. See ante at 499 U. S. 18 -24. They did

Clarence Thomas, Dissent, Federal Taxation

United States v. Burke

Clarence Thomas, Dissent, Federal Taxation / By

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

The Court holds that respondents, unlike most plaintiffs who secure compensation after suffering personal injury, must pay tax on their recoveries for alleged discrimination because suits under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 Stat. § 2000e et seq., do not involve “tort type rights.” This is so, the Court says, because “Congress declined to recompense Title VII plaintiffs for anything beyond the wages properly due them.” Ante, at 241. I cannot agree. In my view, the remedies available to Title VII plaintiffs do not fix the character of the right they seek to enforce. The purposes and operation of Title VII are closely analogous to those of tort law, and that similarity should determine excludability of recoveries for personal injury under 26 U. S. C. § 104(a)(2).

I

Section 104(a)(2) allows taxpayers to exclude from gross income “damages received… on account of personal injuries or sickness.” The Court properly defers to an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulation that reasonably interprets the words “damages received” to mean “an amount received… through prosecution of a legal suit or action based upon tort or tort type rights, or through a settlement agreement entered into in lieu of such prosecution.” 26 CFR § 1.104-1(c) (1991). See ante, at 234; United States v. Correll, 389 U. S. 299 (1967). Therefore, respondents may exclude from gross income any amount they received

Concurrence, Criminal Procedure

Sochor v. Florida

Concurrence, Criminal Procedure / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR, concurring.

I join the Court’s opinion but write separately to set forth my understanding that the Court does not hold that an appellate court can fulfill its obligations of meaningful review by simply reciting the formula for harmless error. In Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18 (1967), we held that before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the reviewing court must find “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” Id., at 24. This is a justifiably high standard, and while it can be met without uttering the magic words “harmless error,” see ante, at 540, the reverse is not true. An appellate court’s bald assertion that an error of constitutional dimensions was “harmless” cannot substitute for a principled explanation of how the court reached that conclusion. In Clemons v. Mississippi, 494 U. S. 738 (1990), for example, we did not hesitate to remand a case for “a detailed explanation based on the record” when the lower court failed to undertake an explicit analysis supporting its “cryptic,” onesentence conclusion of harmless error. Id., at 753. I agree with the Court that the Florida Supreme Court’s discussion of the proportionality of petitioner’s sentence is not an acceptable substitute for harmless error analysis, see ante, at 539-540, and I do not understand the Court to say that the mere addition of the words “harmless error” would have sufficed to satisfy the dictates of Clemons.

Concurrence, Economic Activity

Evans v. United States

Concurrence, Economic Activity / By

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

I join Parts I and II of the Court’s opinion, because in my view they correctly answer the question on which the Court granted certiorari-whether or not an act of inducement is an element of the offense of extortion under color of official right. See Pet. for Cert. i. The issue raised by the dissent and discussed in Part III of the Court’s opinion is not fairly included in this question, see this Court’s Rule 14.1(a), and sound prudential reasons suggest that the Court should not address it. Cf. Yee v. Escondido, 503 U. S. 519, 535-538 (1992). Neither party in this case has briefed or argued the question. A proper resolution of the issue requires a detailed examination of common law extortion cases, which in turn requires intensive historical research. As there appear to be substantial arguments on either side, we would be far more assured of arriving at the correct result were we to await a case in which the issue had been addressed by the parties. It is unfair to the United States to decide a case on a ground not raised by the petitioner and which the United States has had no opportunity to address. For these reasons, I join neither the dissent nor Part III of the Court’s opinion, and I express no view as to which is correct.

Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Byron White, Clarence Thomas, Due Process, John Paul Stevens, Majority, William Rehnquist

Yee v. Escondido

Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Byron White, Clarence Thomas, Due Process, John Paul Stevens, Majority, William Rehnquist / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides: “[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Most of our cases interpreting the Clause fall within two distinct classes. Where the government authorizes a physical occupation of property (or actually takes title), the Takings Clause generally requires compensation. See,e. g., Lorettov.Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.,458 U. S. 419, 426 (1982). But where the government merely regulates the use of property, compensation

J. Popeo, Paul D. Kamenar, and Jonathan K. Van Patten; and for the Western Mobilehome Association by Michael A. Willemsen and David Spangenberg.

Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the city of San Jose et al. by Joan R. Gallo, George Rios, Manuela Albuquerque, Stanley C. Hatch, Glenn R. Watson, William Camil, Lynn R. McDougal, Scott H. Howard, David J. Erwin, Robert L. Kress, Charles J. Williams, David H. Hirsch, Steven F. Nord, Marc G. Hynes, John L. Cook, Daniel S. Hentschke, Gary L. Gillig, Jean Leonard Harris, David E. Schricker, Michael F. Dean, James Penman, Peter D. Bulens, John W Witt, Louise H. Renne, James P. Botz, Mark G. Sellers, Robert B. Ewing, Angil P. Morris, James G. Rourke, and Thomas Haas; for the American Association of Retired Persons by Steven S. Zalesnick and Joan Wise; for the city of Santa Monica et al. by Robert M. Myers, Joseph Lawrence, Martin Tachiki, Barry Rosenbaum, David

Anthony Kennedy, Criminal Procedure, Dissent, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens

Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes

Anthony Kennedy, Criminal Procedure, Dissent, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens / By

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

Under the guise of overruling “a remnant of a decision,” ante, at 8, and achieving “uniformity in the law,” ante, at 10, the Court has changed the law of habeas corpus in a fundamental way by effectively overruling cases decided long before Townsend v. Sain, 372 U. S. 293 (1963). I do not think this change is supported by the line of our recent procedural default cases upon which the Court relies: In my view, the balance of state and federal interests regarding whether a federal court will consider a claim raised on habeas cannot be simply lifted and transposed to the different question whether, once the court will consider the claim, it should hold an evidentiary hearing. Moreover, I do not think the Court’s decision can be reconciled with 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d), a statute Congress enacted three years after Townsend.

I

Jose Tamayo-Reyes’ habeas petition stated that because he does not speak English he pleaded nolo contendere to manslaughter without any understanding of what “manslaughter” means. App. 58. If this assertion is true, his conviction was unconstitutionally obtained, see Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U. S. 637, 644-647 (1976), and Tamayo-Reyes would be entitled to a writ of habeas corpus. Despite the Court’s attempt to characterize his allegation as a technical quibble-“his translator had not translated accurately and completely for him the mens rea element of manslaughter,”

Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Byron White, Civil Rights, Clarence Thomas, David Souter, Majority, William Rehnquist

Denton v. Hernandez

Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Byron White, Civil Rights, Clarence Thomas, David Souter, Majority, William Rehnquist / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. The federalin forma pauperisstatute, codified at 28 U. S. C. § 1915, allows an indigent litigant to commence a civil or criminal action in federal court without paying the administrative costs of proceeding with the lawsuit. The statute protects against abuses of this privilege by allowing a district court to dismiss the case “if the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious.” § 1915(d). InNeitzkev.Williams,490 U. S. 319(1989), we considered the standard to be applied when determining whether the legal basis of anin forma pauperiscomplaint is frivolous under § 1915(d). The issues in this case are the appropriate inquiry for determining when anin forma pauperislitigant’s factual allegations justify a § 1915(d) dismissal for frivolousness, and the proper standard of appellate review of such a dismissal.

I

Petitioners are 15 officials at various institutions in the California penal system. Between 1983 and 1985, respondent Mike Hernandez, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, named petitioners as defendants in five civil rights suits filed in forma pauperis. In relevant part, the complaints in these five suits allege that Hernandez was drugged and homosexually raped a total of 28 times by inmates and prison

*Solicitor General Starr, Assistant Attorney General Mueller, and Deputy Solicitor General Roberts filed a brief for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal.

Elizabeth