Supreme Court Opinions

Civil Rights, Dissent

Bowen v. American Hosp. Ass’n

Civil Rights, Dissent / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR, dissenting.

I fully agree with JUSTICE WHITE’s conclusion that the only question properly before us is whether the Court of Appeals correctly concluded that the Secretary has no power under 29 U.S.C. § 794 to regulate medical treatment decisions concerning handicapped newborn infants. I also agree that application of established principles of statutory construction and of the appropriate standard for judicial review of agency action leads inescapably to the conclusion that the Secretary has the authority to regulate in this area. Because, however, I see no need at this juncture to address the details of the regulations or to assess whether they are sufficiently rational to survive review under 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2)(A), I join only parts 476 U. S. 476 U. S. 476 U. S. and 476 U. S.

Civil Rights, Concurrence, John Paul Stevens

Bowen v. Yuckert

Civil Rights, Concurrence, John Paul Stevens / By

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

The Court is, I believe, entirely correct to find that the “step two” regulation is not facially inconsistent with the Social Security Act’s definition of disability. Title 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A) (1982 ed. and Supp. III) provides:

[A]n individual… shall be determined to be under a disability only if his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy.

Step two, on its face, requires only that the claimant show that he or she suffers from

an impairment or combination of impairments… [that] significantly limit[s]… physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.

20 CFR § 404.1521(a) (1986). “Basic work activities,” the regulation says, include

walking, standing, sitting, lifting, pulling, reaching, carrying, or handling[,]… seeing, hearing, and speaking,… [u]nderstanding, carrying out, and remembering simple instructions[,]… [u]se of judgment[,]… [r]esponding appropriately to supervision, coworkers and usual work situations[,]… [d]ealing with changes in a routine work setting.

§404.1521(b)(1)-(6). I do not see how a claimant unable to show a significant limitation in any of these areas can possibly meet the statutory definition of disability. For the reasons

Concurrence, First Amendment

Bowen v. Kendrick

Concurrence, First Amendment / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR, concurring.

This case raises somewhat unusual questions involving a facially valid statute that appears to have been administered in a way that led to violations of the Establishment Clause. I agree with the Court’s resolution of those questions, and I join its opinion. I write separately, however, to explain why I do not believe that the Court’s approach reflects any tolerance for the kind of improper administration that seems to have occurred in the Government program at issue here.

The dissent says, and I fully agree, that “[p]ublic funds may not be used to advance the religious message.” Post at 487 U. S. 642. As the Court notes, “there is no dispute that the record contains evidence of specific incidents of impermissible behavior by AFLA grantees.” Ante at 487 U. S. 620. Because the District Court employed an analytical framework that did not require a detailed discussion of the voluminous record, the extent of this impermissible behavior and the degree to which it is attributable to poor administration by the Executive Branch is somewhat less clear. In this circumstance, two points deserve to be emphasized. First, any use of public funds to promote religious doctrines violates the Establishment Clause. Second, extensive violations -if they can be proved in this case -will be highly relevant in shaping an appropriate remedy that ends such abuses. For that reason, appellees may yet prevail on remand, and I do not believe that the Court’s approach entails

Economic Activity, Harry Blackmun, Majority, Thurgood Marshall, William Brennan, William Rehnquist

Cal. Coastal Comm’n v. Granite Rock Co

Economic Activity, Harry Blackmun, Majority, Thurgood Marshall, William Brennan, William Rehnquist / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case presents the question whether Forest Service regulations, federal land use statutes and regulations, or the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. §1451 et seq. (1982 ed. and Supp. III), preempt the California Coastal Commission’s imposition of a permit requirement on operation of an unpatented mining claim in a national forest.

I

Granite Rock Company is a privately owned firm that mines chemical and pharmaceutical grade white limestone. Under the Mining Act of 1872, 17 Stat. 91, as amended, 30 U.S.C. § 22 et seq., a private citizen may enter federal lands to explore for mineral deposits. If a person locates a valuable mineral deposit on federal land, and perfects the claim by properly staking it and complying with other statutory requirements, the claimant “shall have the exclusive right of possession and enjoyment of all the surface included within the lines of their locations,” 30 U.S.C. § 26, although the United States retains title to the land. The holder of a perfected mining claim may secure a patent to the land by complying with the requirements of the Mining Act and regulations promulgated thereunder, see 43 CFR § 3861.1 et seq. (1986), and, upon issuance of the patent, legal title to the land passes to the patent holder. Granite Rock holds unpatented mining claims on federally owned lands on and around Mount Pico Blanco in the Big Sur region of Los Padres National Forest.

From 1959 to

Civil Rights, Concurrence, John Paul Stevens

Brown v. Thomson

Civil Rights, Concurrence, John Paul Stevens / By

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

By its decisions today in this case and in Karcher v. Daggett, ante p. 462 U. S. 725, the Court upholds, in the former, the allocation of one representative to a county in a state legislative plan with an 89% maximum deviation from population equality and strikes down, in the latter, a congressional reapportionment plan for the State of New Jersey where the maximum deviation is 0.6984%. As a Member of the majority in both cases, I feel compelled to explain the reasons for my joinder in these apparently divergent decisions.

In my view, the “one-person, one-vote” principle is the guiding ideal in evaluating both congressional and legislative redistricting schemes. In both situations, however, ensuring equal representation is not simply a matter of numbers. There must be flexibility in assessing the size of the deviation against the importance, consistency, and neutrality of the state policies alleged to require the population disparities.

Both opinions recognize this need for flexibility in examining the asserted state policies. [ Footnote 2/1 ] In Karcher, New Jersey has not demonstrated that the population variances in congressional districts were necessary to preserve minority voting strength -the only justification offered by the State. Ante at 462 U. S. 742 -744. Here, by contrast, there can be no doubt that the population deviation resulting from the provision of one representative to Niobrara County is the

Concurrence, Criminal Procedure

Caldwell v. Mississippi

Concurrence, Criminal Procedure / By

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

I join the judgment and the opinion of the Court, with the exception of Part IV-A. I write separately to express my views about the Court’s discussion of California v. Ramos, 463 U. S. 992 (1983), in Part 472 U. S. I do not read Ramos to imply that the giving of nonmisleading and accurate information regarding the jury’s role in the sentencing scheme is irrelevant to the sentencing decision.

The Court distinguishes the prosecutor’s remarks regarding appellate review in this case from the Briggs instruction in Ramos, which informed the jury that the Governor could commute a life sentence without parole. The Court observes that the Briggs instruction in Ramos was

both accurate and relevant to a legitimate state penological interest -that interest being a concern for the future dangerousness of the defendant should he ever return to society.

Ante at 472 U. S. 335. The statement here, the Court concludes, was neither accurate nor relevant. In my view, the prosecutor’s remarks were impermissible because they were inaccurate and misleading in a manner that diminished the jury’s sense of responsibility. I agree there can be no “valid state penological interest” in imparting inaccurate or misleading information that minimizes the importance of the jury’s deliberations in a capital sentencing case. Ante at 472 U. S. 336.

The Court, however, seems generally to characterize information regarding appellate review

Attorneys, Dissent

Burlington v. Dague

Attorneys, Dissent / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR, dissenting.

I continue to be of the view that in certain circumstances a “reasonable” attorney’s fee should not be computed by the purely retrospective lodestar figure, but also must incorporate a reasonable incentive to an attorney contemplating whether or not to take a case in the first place. See Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens’ Council for Clean Air, 483 U. S. 711, 731-734 (1987) (Delaware Valley II) (O’CONNOR, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). As JUSTICE BLACKMUN cogently explains, when an attorney must choose between two cases-one with a client who will pay the attorney’s fees win or lose and the other who can only promise the statutory compensation if the case is successful-the attorney will choose the fee-paying client, unless the contingency client can promise an enhancement of sufficient magnitude to justify the extra risk of nonpayment. Ante, at 568-569. Thus, a reasonable fee should be one that would “attract competent counsel,” Delaware Valley II, supra, at 733 (O’CONNOR, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment), and in some markets this must include the assurance of a contingency enhancement if the plaintiff should prevail. I therefore dissent from the Court’s holding that a “reasonable” attorney’s fee can never include an enhancement for cases taken on contingency. In my view the promised enhancement should be “based on the difference in market treatment of contingent fee cases as a class, rather than on an

Byron White, Judicial Power, Lewis Powell, Majority, Thurgood Marshall, Warren Burger, William Brennan, William Rehnquist

California v. Grace Brethren Church

Byron White, Judicial Power, Lewis Powell, Majority, Thurgood Marshall, Warren Burger, William Brennan, William Rehnquist / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court.

The principal question presented by the parties to these appeals is whether certain state and federal statutes violate the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment [ Footnote 1 ] by requiring religious schools unaffiliated with any church to pay unemployment insurance taxes. We do not reach this substantive question, however, holding instead that the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1341, [ Footnote 2 ] deprived the District Court of jurisdiction to hear these challenges. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment below.

I

Last Term, in St. Martin Evangelical Lutheran Church v. South Dakota, 451 U. S. 772 (1981), this Court considered statutory and constitutional challenges to provisions of the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA), 26 U.S.C. §§ 3301-3311 (1976 ed. and Supp. IV). Because the present claims involve the same provisions that we interpreted in St. Martin, we recount only briefly the substance and legislative history of the relevant statutes before turning to the facts in the present cases.

A

In FUTA, [ Footnote 3 ] Congress has authorized a cooperative federal-state scheme to provide benefits to unemployed workers. The Act requires employers to pay an excise tax on wages paid to employees in “covered” employment, [ Footnote 4 ] but entitles them to a credit of up to 90% of the federal tax for contributions they have paid into federally approved state unemployment compensation programs. [ Footnote

Concurrence, Due Process

California v. Trombetta

Concurrence, Due Process / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR, concurring.

Rules concerning preservation of evidence are generally matters of state, not federal constitutional, law. See United States v. Augenblick, 393 U. S. 348, 393 U. S. 352 -353 (1969). The failure to preserve breath samples does not render a prosecution fundamentally unfair, and thus cannot render breath analysis tests inadmissible as evidence against the accused. Id. at 393 U. S. 356. Similarly, the failure to employ alternative methods of testing blood alcohol concentrations is of no due process concern, both because persons are presumed to know their rights under the law and because the existence of tests not used in no way affects the fundamental fairness of the convictions actually obtained. I understand the Court to state no more than these well-settled propositions. Accordingly, I join both its opinion and judgment.

Concurrence, David Souter, First Amendment, Stephen Breyer

Capitol Square Review and Advisory Bd. v. Pinette

Concurrence, David Souter, First Amendment, Stephen Breyer / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR, with whom JUSTICE SOUTER and JUSTICE BREYER join, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

I join Parts I, II, and III of the Court’s opinion and concur in the judgment. Despite the messages of bigotry and racism that may be conveyed along with religious connotations by the display of a Ku Klux Klan cross, see ante, at 771 (THOMAS, J., concurring), at bottom this case must be understood as it has been presented to us-as a case about private religious expression and whether the State’s relationship to it violates the Establishment Clause. In my view, “the endorsement test asks the right question about governmental practices challenged on Establishment Clause grounds, including challenged practices involving the display of religious symbols,” County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U. S. 573, 628 (1989) (O’CONNOR, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment), even where a neutral state policy toward private religious speech in a public forum is at issue. Accordingly, I see no necessity to carve out, as the plurality opinion would today, an exception to the endorsement test for the public forum context.

For the reasons given by JUSTICE SOUTER, whose opinion I also join, I conclude on the facts of this case that there is “no realistic danger that the community would think that the [State] was endorsing religion or any particular creed,” Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist., 508