Supreme Court Opinions

Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Criminal Procedure, Majority, Stephen Breyer, William Rehnquist

Monge v. California

Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Criminal Procedure, Majority, Stephen Breyer, William Rehnquist / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. This case presents the question whether the Double Jeopardy Clause, which we have found applicable in the capital sentencing context, seeBullingtonv.Missouri,451 U. S. 430(1981), extends to noncapital sentencing proceedings. We hold that it does not, and accordingly affirm the judgment of the California Supreme Court.

I

Petitioner was charged under California law with one count of using a minor to sell marijuana, Cal. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 11361(a) (West 1991), one count of sale or transportation of marijuana, § 11360(a), and one count of possession of marijuana for sale, § 11359. In the information, the State also notified petitioner that it would seek to prove two sentence enhancement allegations: that petitioner had previously been convicted of assault and that he had served a prison term for that offense, see Cal. Penal Code Ann. §§ 245(a)(1), 667(e)(1), and 667.5 (West Supp. 1998).

Under California’s “three-strikes” law, a defendant convicted of a felony who has two qualifying prior convictions for “serious felonies” receives a minimum sentence of 25 years to life; when the instant conviction was preceded by one serious felony offense, the court doubles a defendant’s term of imprisonment. §§ 667(d)(1) and (e)(1)-(2). An assault conviction qualifies as a serious felony if the defendant either inflicted great bodily injury on another person or per

W A. Drew Edmondson of Oklahoma, Hardy Myers of Oregon, Mike Fisher

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

Moran v. Burbine

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

JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court.

After being informed of his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), and after executing a series of written waivers, respondent confessed to the murder of a young woman. At no point during the course of the interrogation, which occurred prior to arraignment, did he request an attorney. While he was in police custody, his sister attempted to retain a lawyer to represent him. The attorney telephoned the police station and received assurances that respondent would not be questioned further until the next day. In fact, the interrogation session that yielded the inculpatory statements began later that evening. The question presented is whether either the conduct of the police or respondent’s ignorance of the attorney’s efforts to reach him taints the validity of the waivers and therefore requires exclusion of the confessions.

I

On the morning of March 3, 1977, Mary Jo Hickey was found unconscious in a factory parking lot in Providence, Rhode Island. Suffering from injuries to her skull apparently inflicted by a metal pipe found at the scene, she was rushed to a nearby hospital. Three weeks later, she died from her wounds.

Several months after her death, the Cranston, Rhode Island, police arrested respondent and two others in connection with a local burglary. Shortly before the arrest, Detective Ferranti of the Cranston police force had learned from a confidential informant that the man responsible for Ms.

Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Civil Rights, Clarence Thomas, David Souter, Majority, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, William Rehnquist

Murphy v. United Parcel Service Inc

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

JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. Respondent United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS), dismissed petitioner Vaughn L. Murphy from his job as a UPS mechanic because of his high blood pressure. Petitioner filed suit under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA or Act), 104 Stat. 328, 42 U. S. C. § 12101et seq.,in Federal District Court. The District Court granted summary judgment to respondent, and the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed. We must decide whether the Court of Appeals correctly considered petitioner in his medicated state when it held that petitioner’s impairment does

*Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the State of Massachusetts et al. by Thomas F. Reilly, Attorney General of Massachusetts, Catherine C. Ziehl, Assistant Attorney General, Darrell V. McGraw, Attorney General of West Virginia, and Mary C. Buchmelter, Deputy Attorney General, and by the Attorneys General for their respective States as follows: Janet Napolitano of Arizona, Bill Lockyer of California, M. Jane Brady of Delaware, Alan G. Lance of Idaho, James E. Ryan of Illinois, Carla J. Stovall of Kansas, Joseph P. Mazurek of Montana, and Patricia A. Madrid of New Mexico; for the American Diabetes Association by Michael A. Greene; for the National Employment Lawyers Association by Gary Phelan and Paul A. Brantner; and for Senator Harkin et al. by Arlene B. Mayerson.

Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the American Trucking

Civil Rights, Concurrence

Murray v. Giarratano

Civil Rights, Concurrence / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR concurring.

I join in THE CHIEF JUSTICE’S opinion. As his opinion demonstrates, there is nothing in the Constitution or the precedents of this Court that requires that a State provide counsel in postconviction proceedings. A postconviction proceeding is not part of the criminal process itself, but is instead a civil action designed to overturn a presumptively valid criminal judgment. Nothing in the Constitution requires the States to provide such proceedings, see Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U. S. 551 (1987), nor does it seem to me that the Constitution requires the States to follow any particular federal model in those proceedings. I also join in JUSTICE KENNEDY’S opinion concurring in the judgment, since I do not view it as inconsistent with the principles expressed above. As JUSTICE KENNEDY observes, our decision in Bounds v. Smith, 430 U. S. 817 (1977), allows the States considerable discretion in assuring that those imprisoned in their jails obtain meaningful access to the judicial process. Beyond the requirements of Bounds, the matter is one of legislative choice based on difficult policy considerations and the allocation of scarce legal resources. Our decision today rightly leaves these issues to resolution by Congress and the state legislatures.

Byron White, Federalism, Harry Blackmun, Majority, Thurgood Marshall, Warren Burger, William Brennan, William Rehnquist

Nantahala P. & L. v. Thornburg

Byron White, Federalism, Harry Blackmun, Majority, Thurgood Marshall, Warren Burger, William Brennan, William Rehnquist / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Nantahala Power & Light Company (Nantahala) and Tapoco, Inc. (Tapoco), are both wholly owned subsidiaries of the Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa). Tapoco and Nantahala each own hydroelectric powerplants on the Little Tennessee River. Almost all of the power that they produce goes to the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). In exchange for allowing TVA to pour into its grid the variable quantity of power produced by Tapoco’s and Nantahala’s facilities, Tapoco and Nantahala jointly receive a fixed supply of low-cost “entitlement power” from TVA. In addition, Nantahala buys a variable amount of high-cost “purchased power” from the TVA grid. Tapoco sells all its power to Alcoa; Nantahala serves public customers.

For the purposes of calculating the rate to be charged Nantahala’s retail customers, all of whom are in North Carolina, the Utilities Commission of North Carolina (NCUC) chose an allocation of entitlement and purchased power between Tapoco and Nantahala that differs from the allocation of entitlement power between Tapoco and Nantahala adopted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in a wholesale ratemaking proceeding. The North Carolina Supreme Court upheld NCUC’s allocation. We noted probable jurisdiction to decide whether NCUC’s allocation may stand in light of FERC’s ruling. 474 U.S. 1018 (1985). We hold that NCUC’s allocation of entitlement and purchased power is preempted by federal law.

I

A

This

Antonin Scalia, Attorneys, Byron White, John Paul Stevens, Lewis Powell, Majority, William Rehnquist

N.C. DOT v. Crest St. Commun. Council

Antonin Scalia, Attorneys, Byron White, John Paul Stevens, Lewis Powell, Majority, William Rehnquist / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case presents the question whether a court may award attorney’s fees under the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. §1988, in a separate federal action not to enforce any of the civil rights laws listed in §1988, but solely to recover attorney’s fees.

I

In 1957, the Durham City Council advised the North Carolina State Highway Commission of the need for a major east-west expressway in the city. North Carolina Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration, Final Environmental Impact Statement No. FHWA-NC-EIS-72 13-F, Historical Resume 15 (1982). Over the years, parts of this highway were completed. In 1976, petitioner North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) resumed planning an extension of the east-west highway. The proposed extension was to run through the Crest Street community, an established, predominantly black neighborhood in Durham. The extension would have displaced the community park and church and many of the residents of the neighborhood. Respondents, Residents of Crest Street Community and the Save Our Church and Community Committee, two unincorporated associations, retained the North Central Legal Assistance Program to represent them in regard to the proposed highway extension. Despite respondents’ opposition to the extension plans, petitioners issued a revised draft Environmental Impact Statement that continued to propose that the extension run through

Dissent, Lewis Powell, Unions, Warren Burger, William Rehnquist

NLRB v. City Disposal Systems Inc

Dissent, Lewis Powell, Unions, Warren Burger, William Rehnquist / By

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

Under the Interboro doctrine, an individual employee is deemed to have engaged in “concerted activit[y],” within the meaning of § 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (Act), 29 U.S.C. § 157, if the right he reasonably and in good faith asserts is grounded in his employer’s collective bargaining agreement. [ Footnote 2/1 ] On this view, the reasonable, good faith assertion of a right contained in the collective bargaining agreement is said to be an extension of the concerted action that produced the agreement; alternatively, the reasonable, good faith assertion of the contract right is said to affect the rights of all the other employees in the workforce. See ante at 465 U. S. 829. Thus, if the employer “interfere[s] with, restrain[s], or coerce[s]” the employee in response to the latter’s assertion of the alleged contract right, the Interboro doctrine enables the employee to file a § 8(a)(1) unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board (Board). See 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1). Although the concepts of individual action for personal gain and “concerted activity” are intuitively incompatible, [ Footnote 2/2 ] the Court today defers to the Board’s judgment that the Interboro doctrine is necessary to safeguard the exercise of rights previously won in the collective bargaining process. Since I consider the Interboro doctrine to be an exercise in undelegated legislative

Byron White, Economic Activity, Harry Blackmun, Lewis Powell, Majority, Thurgood Marshall, Warren Burger, William Brennan, William Rehnquist

Park N’ Fly Inc. v. Dollar Park and Fly Inc

Byron White, Economic Activity, Harry Blackmun, Lewis Powell, Majority, Thurgood Marshall, Warren Burger, William Brennan, William Rehnquist / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this case we consider whether an action to enjoin the infringement of an incontestable trade or service mark may be defended on the grounds that the mark is merely descriptive. We conclude that neither the language of the relevant statutes nor the legislative history supports such a defense.

I

Petitioner operates long-term parking lots near airports. After starting business in St. Louis in 1967, petitioner subsequently opened facilities in Cleveland, Houston, Boston, Memphis, and San Francisco. Petitioner applied in 1969 to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Patent Office) to register a service mark consisting of the logo of an airplane and the words “Park ‘N Fly.” [ Footnote 1 ] The registration issued in August 1971. Nearly six years later, petitioner filed an affidavit with the Patent Office to establish the incontestable status of the mark. [ Footnote 2 ] As required by § 15 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act), 60 Stat. 433, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 1065, the affidavit stated that the mark had been registered and in continuous use for five consecutive years, that there had been no final adverse decision to petitioner’s claim of ownership or right to registration, and that no proceedings involving such rights were pending. Incontestable status provides, subject to the provisions of § 15 and § 33(b) of the Lanham Act, “conclusive evidence of the registrant’s exclusive right to use the registered mark….”

Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Criminal Procedure, Dissent, William Rehnquist

Old Chief v. United States

Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Criminal Procedure, Dissent, William Rehnquist / By

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

The Court today announces a rule that misapplies Federal Rule of Evidence 403 and upsets, without explanation, longstanding precedent regarding criminal prosecutions. I do not agree that the Government’s introduction of evidence that reveals the name and basic nature of a defendant’s prior felony conviction in a prosecution brought under 18 U. S. C. § 922(g)(1) “unfairly” prejudices the defendant within the meaning of Rule 403. Nor do I agree with the Court’s newly minted rule that a defendant charged with violating

course, require some jury instruction to explain it (just as it will require some discretion when the indictment is read). A redacted judgment in this case, for example, would presumably have revealed to the jury that Old Chief was previously convicted in federal court and sentenced to more than a year’s imprisonment, but it would not have shown whether his previous conviction was for one of the business offenses that do not count, under § 921(a)(20). Hence, an instruction, with the defendant’s consent, would be necessary to make clear that the redacted judgment was enough to satisfy the status element remaining in the case. The Government might, indeed, propose such a redacted judgment for the trial court to weigh against a defendant’s offer to admit, as indeed the Government might do even if the defendant’s admission had been received into evidence. § 922(g)(1)

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

Oregon v. Elstad

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

JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case requires us to decide whether an initial failure of law enforcement officers to administer the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), without more, “taints” subsequent admissions made after a suspect has been fully advised of and has waived his Miranda rights. Respondent, Michael James Elstad, was convicted of burglary by an Oregon trial court. The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed, holding that respondent’s signed confession, although voluntary, was rendered inadmissible by a prior remark made in response to questioning without benefit of Miranda warnings. We granted certiorari, 465 U.S. 1078 (1984), and we now reverse.

I

In December, 1981, the home of Mr. and Mrs. Gilbert Gross, in the town of Salem, Polk County, Ore., was burglarized. Missing were art objects and furnishings valued at $150,000. A witness to the burglary contacted the Polk County Sheriff’s Office, implicating respondent Michael Elstad, an 18-year-old neighbor and friend of the Grosses’ teenage son. Thereupon, Officers Burke and McAllister went to the home of respondent Elstad, with a warrant for his arrest. Elstad’s mother answered the door. She led the officers to her son’s room, where he lay on his bed, clad in shorts and listening to his stereo. The officers asked him to get dressed and to accompany them into the living room. Officer McAllister asked respondent’s mother to step into the kitchen, where he explained that