Supreme Court Opinions

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

Schweiker v. Chilicky

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

JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case requires us to decide whether the improper denial of Social Security disability benefits, allegedly resulting from violations of due process by government officials who administered the Federal Social Security program, may give rise to a cause of action for money damages against those officials. We conclude that such a remedy, not having been included in the elaborate remedial scheme devised by Congress, is unavailable.

I

A

Under Title II of the Social Security Act (Act), the Federal Government provides disability benefits to individuals who have contributed to the Social Security program and who, because of a medically determinable physical or mental impairment, are unable to engage in substantial gainful work. 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(a), (d) (1982 ed. and Supp. IV). A very similar program for disabled indigents is operated under Title XVI of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1381 et seq. (1982 ed. and Supp. IV), but those provisions are technically not at issue in this case. Title II, which is administered in conjunction with state welfare agencies, provides benefits only while an individual’s statutory disability persists. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 421(a), 423(a)(1) (1982 ed. and Supp. IV). In 1980, Congress noted that existing administrative procedures provided for reexamination of eligibility “only under a limited number of circumstances.” H.R.Conf.Rep. No. 96-944, p. 60 (1980); see also S.Rep. No. 96-408, pp. 60-61 (1979). Congress

Antonin Scalia, Byron White, Civil Rights, Harry Blackmun, Majority, Thurgood Marshall, William Brennan, William Rehnquist

Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust

Antonin Scalia, Byron White, Civil Rights, Harry Blackmun, Majority, Thurgood Marshall, William Brennan, William Rehnquist / By

Justice O’CONNOR, delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II-A, II-B, and III, concluding that disparate impact analysis may be applied to a subjective or discretionary promotion system. Pp.487 U. S. 985-991,487 U. S. 999-1000.

(a) Each of this Court’s decisions applying disparate impact analysis -under which facially neutral employment practices, adopted without a deliberately discriminatory motive, may in operation be functionally equivalent to illegal intentional discrimination -involved standardized tests or criteria, such as written aptitude tests or high school diploma requirements, see, e.g., Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U. S. 424, and the Court has consistently used disparate treatment theory, in which proof of intent to discriminate is required, to review hiring or promotion decisions that were based on the exercise of personal judgment or the application of subjective criteria, see, e.g., McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792. Until today, the Court has never addressed the question whether disparate impact analysis may be applied to subjective employment criteria. Pp. 487 U. S. 985 -989.

(b) The reasons supporting the use of disparate impact analysis apply to subjective employment practices. That analysis might effectively be abolished if it were confined to objective, standardized selection practices, since an employer could insulate itself from liability under Griggs and its progeny simply by combining such practices with a subjective

Anthony Kennedy, Byron White, Civil Rights, John Paul Stevens, Majority, Timeline, William Rehnquist

City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co

Anthony Kennedy, Byron White, Civil Rights, John Paul Stevens, Majority, Timeline, William Rehnquist / By

Justice O’CONNOR announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, III-B, and IV, an opinion with respect to Part II, in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE and Justice WHITE join, and an opinion with respect to Parts III-A and V, in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE, Justice WHITE, and Justice KENNEDY join.

In this case, we confront once again the tension between the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal treatment to all citizens, and the use of race-based measures to ameliorate the effects of past discrimination on the opportunities enjoyed by members of minority groups in our society. In Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448, 100 S.Ct. 2758, 65 L.Ed.2d 902 (1980), we held that a congressional program requiring that 10% of certain federal construction grants be awarded to minority contractors did not violate the equal protection principles embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Relying largely on our decision in Fullilove, some lower federal courts have applied a similar standard of review in assessing the constitutionality of state and local minority set-aside provisions under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g. South Florida Chapter, Associated General Contractors of America, Inc. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 723 F.2d 846 (CA11), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 871, 105 S.Ct. 220, 83 L.Ed.2d 150 (1984); Ohio Contractors Assn. v. Keip, 713 F.2d 167 (CA6 1983). Since our decision two Terms ago in Wygant

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

Mesa v. California

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

JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court.

We decide today whether United States Postal Service employees may, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), remove to Federal District Court state criminal prosecutions brought against them for traffic violations committed while on duty.

I

In the summer of 1985, petitioners Kathryn Mesa and Shabbir Ebrahim were employed as mail truck drivers by the United States Postal Service in Santa Clara County, California. In unrelated incidents, the State of California issued criminal complaints against petitioners, charging Mesa with misdemeanor-manslaughter and driving outside a laned roadway after her mail truck collided with and killed a bicyclist, and charging Ebrahim with speeding and failure to yield after his mail truck collided with a police car. Mesa and Ebrahim were arraigned in the San Jose Municipal Court of Santa Clara County on September 16 and October 2, 1985, respectively. The Municipal Court set a pretrial conference in Mesa’s case for November 4, 1985, and set trial for Ebrahim on November 7, 1985.

On September 24 and October 4, 1985, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of California filed petitions in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California for removal to that court of the criminal complaints brought against Ebrahim and Mesa. The petitions alleged that the complaints should properly be removed to the Federal District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) because

Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Byron White, Criminal Procedure, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, Majority, William Rehnquist

Teague v. Lane

Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Byron White, Criminal Procedure, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, Majority, William Rehnquist / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and III, and an opinion with respect to Parts IV and V, in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE SCALIA, and JUSTICE KENNEDY join.

In Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U. S. 522 (1975), this Court held that the Sixth Amendment required that the jury venire be drawn from a fair cross-section of the community. The Court stated, however, that,

in holding that petit juries must be drawn from a source fairly representative of the community, we impose no requirement that petit juries actually chosen must mirror the community and reflect the various distinctive groups in the population. Defendants are not entitled to a jury of any particular composition.

Id. at 419 U. S. 538. The principal question presented in this case is whether the Sixth Amendment’s fair cross-section requirement should now be extended to the petit jury. Because we adopt Justice Harlan’s approach to retroactivity for cases on collateral review, we leave the resolution of that question for another day.

I

Petitioner, a black man, was convicted by an all-white Illinois jury of three counts of attempted murder, two counts of armed robbery, and one count of aggravated battery. During jury selection for petitioner’s trial, the prosecutor used all 10 of his peremptory challenges to exclude blacks. Petitioner’s counsel used one of his 10 peremptory challenges to exclude a black woman who was married to a police

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

Coit Indep. Jt. Venture v. FSLIC

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

JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case presents the question whether Congress granted the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC), as receiver, the exclusive authority to adjudicate the state law claims asserted against a failed savings and loan association. We hold that Congress did not grant FSLIC such power, and that the creditors of a failed savings and loan association are entitled to de novo consideration of their claims in court. We also hold that creditors are not required to exhaust FSLIC’s current administrative claims procedure before filing suit, because the lack of a clear time limit on FSLIC’s consideration of claims renders the administrative procedure inadequate.

I

From 1983 to 1986, Coit Independence Joint Venture (Coit), a real estate concern, borrowed money from FirstSouth, F.A. a federal savings and loan association. Subsequent disagreements led Coit to file suit against FirstSouth in October, 1986, in the 95th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas. In its state court complaint, Coit alleged that it had received two loans of $20 million and $30 million to purchase two parcels of undeveloped land. Coit alleged that FirstSouth had required it to pay a “profit participation” interest in any profits derived from sale of the property as a condition of receiving the loans. Coit asserted that this “profit participation” fee was interest that, when added to the regular accrued interest rate, made the loans usurious

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

FW/PBS v. City of Dallas

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

Justice O’CONNOR announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, III, and IV, and an opinion with respect to Part II, in which Justice STEVENS and Justice KENNEDY join.

These cases call upon us to decide whether a licensing scheme in a comprehensive city ordinance regulating sexually oriented businesses is a prior restraint that fails to provide adequate procedural safeguards as required by Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U. S. 51 (1965). We must also decide whether any petitioner has standing to address the ordinance’s civil disability provisions, whether the city has sufficiently justified its requirement that motels renting rooms for less than 10 hours be covered by the ordinance, and whether the ordinance impermissibly infringes on the right to freedom of association. As this litigation comes to us, no issue is presented with respect to whether the books, videos, materials, or entertainment available through sexually oriented businesses are obscene pornographic materials.

I

On June 18, 1986, the city council of the city of Dallas unanimously adopted an ordinance regulating sexually oriented businesses, which was aimed at eradicating the secondary effects of crime and urban blight. The ordinance defines a “sexually oriented business,” as

an adult arcade, adult bookstore or adult video store, adult cabaret, adult motel, adult motion picture theater, adult theater, escort agency, nude model studio, or sexual encounter center.

Dalla

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

Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins

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

JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this case we clarify the standards for liability and liquidated damages under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 81 Stat. 602, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 621 et seq.

I

Petitioner Hazen Paper Company manufactures coated, laminated, and printed paper and paperboard. The company is owned and operated by two cousins, petitioners Robert Hazen and Thomas N. Hazen. The Hazens hired respondent Walter F. Biggins as their technical director in 1977. They fired him in 1986, when he was 62 years old.

Respondent brought suit against petitioners in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging a violation of the ADEA. He claimed that age had been a determinative factor in petitioners’ decision to fire him. Petitioners contested this claim, asserting instead that respondent had been fired for doing business with competitors of Hazen Paper. The case was tried before a jury, which rendered a verdict for respondent on his ADEA claim and also found violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 88 Stat. 895, § 510, 29 U. S. C. § 1140, and state law. On the ADEA count, the jury specifically found that petitioners “willfully” violated the statute. Under § 7(b) of the ADEA, 29 U. S. C. § 626(b), a “willful” violation gives rise to liquidated damages.

*Robert E. Williams, Douglas S. McDowell, and Mona C. Zeiberg filed a brief for the Equal Employment Advisory

Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Criminal Procedure, David Souter, Majority, William Rehnquist

United States v. Olano

Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Criminal Procedure, David Souter, Majority, William Rehnquist / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. The question in this case is whether the presence of alternate jurors during jury deliberations was a “plain error” that the Court of Appeals was authorized to correct under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b).

I

Each of the respondents, Guy W. Olano, Jr., and Raymond M. Gray, served on the board of directors of a savings and loan association. In 1986, the two were indicted in the Western District of Washington on multiple federal charges for their participation in an elaborate loan “kickback” scheme. Their joint jury trial with five other codefendants commenced in March 1987. All of the parties agreed that 14 jurors would be selected to hear the case, and that the 2 alternates would be identified before deliberations began.

On May 26, shortly before the end of the 3-month trial, the District Court suggested to the defendants that the two alternate jurors, soon to be identified, might be allowed to attend deliberations along with the regular jurors:”… I’d just like you to think about it, you have a day, let me know, it’s just a suggestion and you can-if there is even one person who doesn’t like it we won’t do it, but it is a suggestion that other courts have followed in long cases where jurors have sat through a lot of testimony, and that is to let the alternates go in but not participate, but just to sit in on deliberations.”I t’s strictly a matter of courtesy and I know many judges have done it with no objections

Anthony Kennedy, Byron White, Clarence Thomas, Criminal Procedure, Harry Blackmun, Majority, William Rehnquist

Smith v. United States

Anthony Kennedy, Byron White, Clarence Thomas, Criminal Procedure, Harry Blackmun, Majority, William Rehnquist / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. We decide today whether the exchange of a gun for narcotics constitutes “use” of a firearm “during and in relation to… [a] drug trafficking crime” within the meaning of 18 U. S. C. § 924(c)(1). We hold that it does.

I

Petitioner John Angus Smith and his companion went from Tennessee to Florida to buy cocaine; they hoped to resell it at a profit. While in Florida, they met petitioner’s acquaintance, Deborah Hoag. Hoag agreed to, and in fact did, purchase cocaine for petitioner. She then accompanied petitioner and his friend to her motel room, where they were joined by a drug dealer. While Hoag listened, petitioner and the dealer discussed petitioner’s MAC-l0 firearm, which had been modified to operate as an automatic. The MAC-l0 apparently is a favorite among criminals. It is small and compact, lightweight, and can be equipped with a silencer. Most important of all, it can be devastating: A fully automatic MAC-l0 can fire more than 1,000 rounds per minute. The dealer expressed his interest in becoming the owner of a MAC-l0, and petitioner promised that he would discuss selling the gun if his arrangement with another potential buyer fell through.

Unfortunately for petitioner, Hoag had contacts not only with narcotics traffickers but also with law enforcement officials. In fact, she was a confidential informant. Consistent with her post, she informed the Broward County Sheriff’s Office of petitioner’s activities. The Sheriff’s