Supreme Court Opinions

Concurrence, Criminal Procedure

Tyler v. Cain

Concurrence, Criminal Procedure / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR, concurring.

I join the Court’s opinion and write separately to explain more fully the circumstances in which a new rule is “made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court.” 28 U. S. C. § 2244(b)(2)(A) (1994 ed., Supp. V).

It is only through the holdings of this Court, as opposed to this Court’s dicta and as opposed to the decisions of any other court, that a new rule is “made retroactive… by the Supreme Court” within the meaning of § 2244(b)(2)(A). See ante, at 663; cf. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U. S. 362, 412 (2000). The clearest instance, of course, in which we can be said to have “made” a new rule retroactive is where we expressly have held the new rule to be retroactive in a case on collateral review and applied the rule to that case. But, as the Court recognizes, a single case that expressly holds a rule to be retroactive is not a sine qua non for the satisfaction of this statutory provision. Ante, at 666. This Court instead may “ma[k]e” a new rule retroactive through multiple holdings that logically dictate the retroactivity of the new rule. Ibid. To apply the syllogistic relationship described by JusTICE BREYER, post, at 672-673 (dissenting opinion), if we hold in Case One that a particular type of rule applies retroactively to cases on collateral review and hold in Case Two that a given rule is of that particular type, then it necessarily follows that the given rule applies retroactively to cases on collateral review. In such circumstan

Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Byron White, John Paul Stevens, Majority, Unions, William Rehnquist

TWA v. Flight Attendants

Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Byron White, John Paul Stevens, Majority, Unions, William Rehnquist / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court.

We decide today whether, at the end of a strike, an employer is required by the Railway Labor Act (RLA or Act), 44 Stat. 577, as amended, 45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., to displace employees who worked during the strike in order to reinstate striking employees with greater seniority.

I

In March, 1984, Trans World Airlines, Inc. (TWA), and the Independent Federation of Flight Attendants (IFFA or Union) began negotiations pursuant to § 6 of the RLA, 45 U.S.C. § 156, on a new collective bargaining agreement to replace their prior agreement due to expire on July 31, 1984. The existing collective bargaining agreement created a complex system of bidding, the general effect of which was to insure that those flight attendants with the greatest seniority would have the best opportunity to obtain their preferred job assignments, flight schedules, and bases of operation as vacancies appeared, and to insure that senior flight attendants would be least affected by the periodic furloughs endemic to the airline industry. Thus, for example, should a job vacancy appear at the highly desirable Los Angeles or San Francisco bases of operation or “domiciles,” the most senior qualified flight attendant who bid on such a vacancy would be entitled to it. Conversely, should a reduction in force eliminate a position in the Los Angeles domicile, the furloughed flight attendant could opt to displace the most junior attendant of equal rank in the entire system

Concurrence, Due Process, Lewis Powell

United States v. 50 Acres of Land

Concurrence, Due Process, Lewis Powell / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR, with whom JUSTICE POWELL joins, concurring.

I concur in the Court’s opinion and judgment that, on the facts of this case, the city of Duncanville is justly compensated by the payment of the market value for the sanitary landfill that was condemned by the Government. I write separately to note that I do not read the Court’s opinion to preclude a municipality or other local governmental entity from establishing that payment of market value in a particular case is manifestly unjust and therefore inconsistent with the Just Compensation Clause. See ante at 469 U. S. 29. When a local governmental entity can prove that the market value of its property deviates significantly from the make-whole remedy intended by the Just Compensation Clause and that a substitute facility must be acquired to continue to provide an essential service, limiting compensation to the fair market value in my view would be manifestly unjust. Because the city of Duncanville did not establish that the market value in this case deviated significantly from the indemnity principle, I agree that the decision of the Court of Appeals should be reversed.

Byron White, First Amendment, Harry Blackmun, Lewis Powell, Majority, Warren Burger, William Rehnquist

United States v. Albertini

Byron White, First Amendment, Harry Blackmun, Lewis Powell, Majority, Warren Burger, William Rehnquist / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question presented is whether respondent may be convicted for violating 18 U.S.C. § 1382, which makes it unlawful to reenter a military base after having been barred by the commanding officer. Respondent attended an open house at a military base some nine years after the commanding officer ordered him not to reenter without written permission. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that respondent could not be convicted for violating § 1382 because he had a First Amendment right to enter the military base during the open house. 710 F.2d 1410 (1983). We granted certiorari, 469 U.S. 1071 (1984), and we now reverse.

I

The events underlying this case date from 1972, when respondent and a companion entered Hickam Air Force Base (Hickam) in Hawaii ostensibly to present a letter to the commanding officer. Instead, they obtained access to secret Air Force documents and destroyed the documents by pouring animal blood on them. For these acts, respondent was convicted of conspiracy to injure Government property in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1361. Respondent also received a “bar letter” from the Commander of Hickam informing him that he was forbidden to

reenter the confines of this installation without the written permission of the Commander or an officer designated by him to issue a permit of reentry.

App. 43; cf. Greer v. Spock, 424 U. S. 828, 424 U. S. 838 (1976). The bar letter directed respondent to 18 U.S.C.

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

United States v. California

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

JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. This is another in the long line of cases, beginning withMcCullochv.Maryland,4 Wheat. 316 (1819), in which the Federal Government asks this Court for relief from what it considers illegal state taxes. Unlike the typical tax immunity case, however, we are not presented with a claim that the state tax is unconstitutional; instead, the question is whether the Federal Government may recover taxes it claims were wrongfully assessed under California law against one of the Government’s private contractors.

I

The United States has established three Naval Petroleum Reserves in California and Wyoming, one of which is Naval Petroleum Reserve No.1, located in Kern County, California. 10 U. S. C. § 7420. First through the Department of the Navy and later through the Department of Energy, the United States contracted with Williams Brothers Engineering Company (WBEC) to manage oil drilling operations at Reserve No. 1 from 1975 to 1985. Under the contract, WBEC received an annual fixed fee plus reimbursement for costs, which the contract defined to include state sales and use taxes.

California assessed approximately $14 million in sales and use taxes, pursuant to Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code Ann. § 6384 (West 1987), against WBEC for the years 1975 through 1981.

Illinois, Bonnie J. Campbell of Iowa, Richard P. Ieyoub of Louisiana, J. Joseph Curran, Jr., of Maryland, Frank J. Kelley of Michigan, Mike Moore of Mississippi, Hubert H. Humphrey III

Concurrence, Federal Taxation

United States v. Carlton

Concurrence, Federal Taxation / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR, concurring in the judgment.

The unamended 26 U. S. C. § 2057, which allowed taxpayers to reduce the taxable estate by buying securities and reselling them to employee stock ownership plans (ESOP’s), made it possible to avoid estate taxes by structuring transactions in a certain way. But the tax laws contain many such provisions. See, e. g., 26 U. S. C. § 2055 (allowing deductions from taxable estate for transfers to the government, charities, and religious organizations). And § 2057 was only the latest in a series of congressional efforts to promote ESOP’s by providing tax incentives. See, e. g., 26 U. S. C. § 133 (partial income tax exclusion for interest paid to banks on ESOP loans); 26 U. S. C. § 1042 (allowing certain taxpayers to defer capital gains taxes on sale of securities to ESOP’s).

Thus, although respondent Carlton may have made a “purely tax-motivated stock transfe[r],” ante, at 32, I do not understand the Court to express any normative disapproval of this course of action. As executor of Willametta Day’s estate, it was entirely appropriate for Carlton to seek to reduce the estate taxes. And like all taxpayers, Carlton was entitled to structure the estate’s affairs to comply with the tax laws while minimizing tax liability. As Learned Hand observed with characteristic acerbity: O’CONNOR, J., concurring in judgment

“[A] transaction, otherwise within an exception of the tax law, does not lose its immunity, because it is actuated by a desire to

Due Process, Partial concurrence, partial dissent

United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property

Due Process, Partial concurrence, partial dissent / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

Today the Court declares unconstitutional an act of the Executive Branch taken with the prior approval of a Federal Magistrate Judge in full compliance with the laws enacted by Congress. On the facts of this case, however, I am unable to conclude that the seizure of Good’s property did not afford him due process. I agree with the Court’s observation in an analogous case more than a century ago: “If the laws here in question involved any wrong or unnecessary harshness, it was for Congress, or the people who make congresses, to see that the evil was corrected. The remedy does not lie with the judicial branch of the government.” Springer v. United States, 102 U. S. 586, 594 (1881).

I

With respect to whether 19 U. S. C. §§ 1602-1604 impose a timeliness requirement over and above the statute of limitations, I agree with the dissenting judge below that the Ninth Circuit improperly “converted a set of housekeeping rules for the government into statutory protection for the property of malefactors.” 971 F.2d 1376, 1384 (1992). I therefore join Parts I and III of the Court’s opinion.

I cannot agree, however, that under the circumstances of this case-where the property owner was previously convicted of a drug offense involving the property, the Government obtained a warrant before seizing it, and the residents were not dispossessed-there was a due process violation simply because Good did not receive pre seizure notice and

Concurrence, Criminal Procedure, Harry Blackmun

United States v. Ojeda Rios

Concurrence, Criminal Procedure, Harry Blackmun / By

Justice O’CONNOR, with whom Justice BLACKMUN joins, concurring.

I join the Court’s opinion on the understanding that a “satisfactory explanation” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 2518(8)(a) cannot merely be a reasonable excuse for the delay; it must also reflect the actual reason for the delay. Thus, as the Court today holds, an appellate court’s review of the sufficiency of the Government’s explanation for a delay should be based on the findings made and evidence presented in the district court, rather than on a post hoc explanation given for the first time on appeal. See ante at 495 U. S. 267. With this understanding, I agree with the Court that this case should be remanded for a determination whether the Government’s explanation to the District Court for the delay -not the explanation offered on appeal -meets the “satisfactory explanation” standard.

Antonin Scalia, Civil Rights, Dissent, William Rehnquist

United States v. Paradise

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

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

In Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education, 476 U. S. 267, 476 U. S. 273 (1986), we concluded that the level of Fourteenth Amendment

scrutiny does not change merely because the challenged classification operates against a group that historically has not been subject to governmental discrimination.

Thus, in evaluating the constitutionality of the District Court order in this case under the Fourteenth Amendment, we must undertake a two-part inquiry. First, we must decide whether the order is “supported by a compelling [governmental] purpose.” Ibid. Second, we must scrutinize the order to ensure that “the means chosen to accomplish that purpose are narrowly tailored.” Ibid.

One cannot read the record in this case without concluding that the Alabama Department of Public Safety had undertaken a course of action that amounted to “pervasive, systematic, and obstinate discriminatory conduct.” Ante at 480 U. S. 167. Because the Federal Government has a compelling interest in remedying past and present discrimination by the Department, the District Court unquestionably had the authority to fashion a remedy designed to end the Department’s egregious history of discrimination. In doing so, however, the District Court was obligated to fashion a remedy that was narrowly tailored to accomplish this purpose. The plurality today purports to apply strict scrutiny, and concludes that the order in this case was

Byron White, Criminal Procedure, John Paul Stevens, Lewis Powell, Majority, Warren Burger, William Rehnquist

United States v. Place

Byron White, Criminal Procedure, John Paul Stevens, Lewis Powell, Majority, Warren Burger, William Rehnquist / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case presents the issue whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits law enforcement authorities from temporarily detaining personal luggage for exposure to a trained narcotics detection dog on the basis of reasonable suspicion that the luggage contains narcotics. Given the enforcement problems associated with the detection of narcotics trafficking and the minimal intrusion that a properly limited detention would entail, we conclude that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit such a detention. On the facts of this case, however, we hold that the police conduct exceeded the bounds of a permissible investigative detention of the luggage.

I

Respondent Raymond J. Place’s behavior aroused the suspicions of law enforcement officers as he waited in line at the Miami International Airport to purchase a ticket to New York’s La Guardia Airport. As Place proceeded to the gate for his flight, the agents approached him and requested his airline ticket and some identification. Place complied with the request and consented to a search of the two suitcases he had checked. Because his flight was about to depart, however, the agents decided not to search the luggage.

Prompted by Place’s parting remark that he had recognized that they were police, the agents inspected the address tags on the checked luggage and noted discrepancies in the two street addresses. Further investigation revealed that neither address existed, and that the telephone