Supreme Court Opinions

Attorneys, Concurrence

Farrar v. Hobby

Attorneys, Concurrence / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR, concurring.

If ever there was a plaintiff who deserved no attorney’s fees at all, that plaintiff is Joseph Farrar. He filed a lawsuit demanding 17 million dollars from six defendants. After 10 years of litigation and two trips to the Court of Appeals, he got one dollar from one defendant. As the Court holds today, that is simply not the type of victory that merits an award of attorney’s fees. Accordingly, I join the Court’s opinion and concur in its judgment. I write separately only to explain more fully why, in my view, it is appropriate to deny fees in this case.

I

Congress has authorized the federal courts to award “a reasonable attorney’s fee” in certain civil rights cases, but only to “the prevailing party.” 42 U. s. C. § 1988; Texas State Teachers Assn. v. Garland Independent School Dist., 489 U. S. 782, 789 (1989). To become a prevailing party, a plaintiff must obtain, at an absolute minimum, “actual relief on the merits of [the] claim,” ante, at 111, which “affects the behavior of the defendant towards the plaintiff,” Hewitt v. Helms, 482 U. S. 755, 761 (1987) (emphasis omitted); accord, ante, at 111-112 (relief obtained must “alte[r] the legal relationship between the parties” and “modif[y] the defendant’s behavior in a way that directly benefits the plaintiff”). Joseph Farrar met that minimum condition for prevailing party status. Through this lawsuit, he obtained an enforceable judgment for one dollar in nominal damages. One dollar is not exactly

Civil Rights, Dissent, Harry Blackmun

Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic

Civil Rights, Dissent, Harry Blackmun / By

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

Petitioners act in organized groups to overwhelm local police forces and physically blockade the entrances to respondents’ clinics with the purpose of preventing women from exercising their legal rights. Title 42 U. S. C. § 1985(3) provides a federal remedy against private conspiracies aimed at depriving any person or class of persons of the “equal protection of the laws,” or of “equal privileges and immunities under the laws.” In my view, respondents’ injuries and petitioners’ activities fall squarely within the ambit of this statute.

I

The Reconstruction Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1871, also known as the Ku Klux Act (Act), 17 Stat. 13, to combat the chaos that paralyzed the post-War South. Wil son v. Garcia, 471 U. S. 261, 276-279 (1985); Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U. S. 325, 336-339 (1983). Section 2 of the Act extended the protection of federal courts to those who effectively were prevented from exercising their civil rights by the threat of mob violence. Although the immediate purpose of § 1985(3) was to combat animosity against blacks and their supporters, Carpenters v. Scott, 463 U. S. 825, 836 (1983), the language of the Act, like that of many Reconstruction statutes, is more expansive than the historical circumstances that inspired it. The civil-remedy component of § 2, codified at 42 U. S. C. § 1985(3), speaks in general terms, and provides a federal cause of action to any person injured or

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.

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, Antonin Scalia, Byron White, Civil Rights, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, Majority

Wyatt v. Cole

Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Byron White, Civil Rights, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, Majority / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court.

In Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U. S. 922 (1982), we left open the question whether private defendants charged with 42 U. S. C. § 1983 liability for invoking state replevin, garnishment, and attachment statutes later declared unconstitutional are entitled to qualified immunity from suit. 457 U. S., at 942, n. 23. We now hold that they are not.

I

This dispute arises out of a soured cattle partnership. In July 1986, respondent Bill Cole sought to dissolve his partnership with petitioner Howard Wyatt. When no agreement could be reached, Cole, with the assistance of an OCTOBER TERM, 1991 Syllabus WYATT v. COLE ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 91-126. Argued January 14, 1992-Decided May 18, 1992 With the assistance of respondent Robbins, an attorney, respondent Cole filed a complaint under the Mississippi replevin statute against his partner, petitioner Wyatt. Mter Cole refused to comply with a state court order to return to Wyatt property seized under the statute, Wyatt brought suit in the Federal District Court under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, challenging the state statute’s constitutionality and seeking injunctive relief and damages. Among other things, the court held the statute unconstitutional and assumed that Cole was subject to liability under Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U. S. 922, in which this Court ruled that private defendants invoking state replevin, garnishment, and

Concurrence, Due Process

Foucha v. Louisiana

Concurrence, Due Process / By

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

Louisiana asserts that it may indefinitely confine Terry Foucha in a mental facility because, although not mentally ill, he might be dangerous to himself or to others if released. For the reasons given in Part II of the Court’s opinion, this contention should be rejected. I write separately, however, to emphasize that the Court’s opinion addresses only the specific statutory scheme before us, which broadly permits in definite confinement of sane insanity acquittees in psychiatric facilities. This case does not require us to pass judgment on more narrowly drawn laws that provide for detention of insanity acquittees, or on statutes that provide for punishment of persons who commit crimes while mentally ill.

I do not understand the Court to hold that Louisiana may never confine dangerous insanity acquittees after they regain mental health. Under Louisiana law, defendants who carry the burden of proving insanity by a preponderance of the evidence will “escape punishment,” but this affirmative defense becomes relevant only after the prosecution establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed criminal acts with the required level of criminal intent. State v. Marmillion, 339 So. 2d 788, 796 (La. 1976). Although insanity acquittees may not be incarcerated as criminals or penalized for asserting the insanity defense, see Jones v. United States, 463 U. S. 354, 368-369, and n. 18 (1983), this finding

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

Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Criminal Procedure, Dissent, William Rehnquist

Jacobson v. United States

Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Criminal Procedure, Dissent, William Rehnquist / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and JUSTICE KENNEDY join, and with whom JUSTICE SCALIA joins except as to Part II, dissenting.

Keith Jacobson was offered only two opportunities to buy child pornography through the mail. Both times, he ordered. Both times, he asked for opportunities to buy more. He needed no Government agent to coax, threaten, or persuade him; no one played on his sympathies, friendship, or suggested that his committing the crime would further a greater good. In fact, no Government agent even contacted him face to face. The Government contends that from the enthusiasm with which Mr. Jacobson responded to the chance to commit a crime, a reasonable jury could permissibly infer beyond a reasonable doubt that he was predisposed to commit the crime. I agree. Cf. United States v. Hunt, 749 F.2d 1078, 1085 (CA4 1984) (ready response to solicitation shows predisposition), cert. denied, 472 U. S. 1018 (1985); United States v. Kaminski, 703 F.2d 1004, 1008 (CA7 1983) (” ‘the most important factor… is whether the defendant evidenced reluctance to engage in criminal activity which was overcome by repeated Government inducement”’) (quoting United States v. Reynoso-Ulloa, 548 F.2d 1329, 1336 (CA9 1977), cert. denied, 436 U. S. 926 (1978)); United States v. Sherman, 200 F.2d 880, 882 (CA2 1952) (indication of pre disposition is a defendant’s willingness to commit the offense “‘as evinced by ready complaisance'” (citation omitted)).

The first time the Government

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.