Supreme Court Opinions

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, 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,”

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, 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

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.

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.

Clarence Thomas, Dissent, Federal Taxation

United States v. Burke

Clarence Thomas, Dissent, Federal Taxation / By

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

The Court holds that respondents, unlike most plaintiffs who secure compensation after suffering personal injury, must pay tax on their recoveries for alleged discrimination because suits under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 Stat. § 2000e et seq., do not involve “tort type rights.” This is so, the Court says, because “Congress declined to recompense Title VII plaintiffs for anything beyond the wages properly due them.” Ante, at 241. I cannot agree. In my view, the remedies available to Title VII plaintiffs do not fix the character of the right they seek to enforce. The purposes and operation of Title VII are closely analogous to those of tort law, and that similarity should determine excludability of recoveries for personal injury under 26 U. S. C. § 104(a)(2).

I

Section 104(a)(2) allows taxpayers to exclude from gross income “damages received… on account of personal injuries or sickness.” The Court properly defers to an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulation that reasonably interprets the words “damages received” to mean “an amount received… through prosecution of a legal suit or action based upon tort or tort type rights, or through a settlement agreement entered into in lieu of such prosecution.” 26 CFR § 1.104-1(c) (1991). See ante, at 234; United States v. Correll, 389 U. S. 299 (1967). Therefore, respondents may exclude from gross income any amount they received

Byron White, David Souter, Dissent, Economic Activity

TXO Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp

Byron White, David Souter, Dissent, Economic Activity / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR, with whom JUSTICE WHITE joins, and with whom JUSTICE SOUTER joins as to Parts II-B-2, II-C, III, and IV, dissenting.

In Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Has lip, 499 U. S. 1 (1991), this Court held out the promise that punitive damages awards would receive sufficient constitutional scrutiny to restore fairness in what is rapidly becoming an arbitrary and oppressive system. Today the Court’s judgment renders Haslip’s promise a false one. The procedures that converted this commercial dispute into a $10 million punitive verdict were wholly inadequate. Rather than producing a judgment founded on verifiable criteria, they produced a monstrous award-526 times actual damages and over 20 times greater than any punitive award in West Virginia history. Worse, the State Supreme Court of Appeals rejected petitioner’s challenge with only cursory analysis, observing that petitioner, rather than being “really stupid,” had been “really mean.” 187 W. Va. 457, 474-475, 419 S. E. 2d 870, 887-889 (1992). The court similarly refused to consider the possibility of remittitur because petitioner “and its agents and servants failed to conduct themselves as gentlemen.” Id., at 462, 419 S. E. 2d, at 875. In my view, due process does not tolerate such cavalier standards when so much is at stake. Because I believe that neither this award’s size nor the procedures that produced it are consistent with the principles this Court articulated in Haslip, I respectfully dissent.

I

Our system of

Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, First Amendment, Partial concurrence, partial dissent, Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Turner Broadcasting System Inc. v. FCC

Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, First Amendment, Partial concurrence, partial dissent, Ruth Bader Ginsburg / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA and JUSTICE GINSBURG join, and with whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins as to Parts I and III, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

There are only so many channels that any cable system can carry. If there are fewer channels than programmers who want to use the system, some programmers will have to be dropped. In the must-carry provisions of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Pub. L. 102-385, 106 Stat. 1460, Congress made a choice: By reserving a little over one-third of the channels on a cable system for broadcasters, it ensured that in most cases it will be a cable programmer who is dropped and a broadcaster who is retained. The question presented in this case is whether this choice comports with the commands of the First Amendment.

I A

The 1992 Cable Act implicates the First Amendment rights of two classes of speakers. First, it tells cable operators which programmers they must carry, and keeps cable operators from carrying others that they might prefer. Though cable operators do not actually originate most of the programming they show, the Court correctly holds that they are, for First Amendment purposes, speakers. Ante, at 636. Selecting which speech to retransmit is, as we know from the example of publishing houses, movie theaters, bookstores, and Reader’s Digest, no less communication than is creating the speech in the first place.

Second, the Act deprives a certain class of video programmers-those

Clarence Thomas, David Souter, Dissent, Federal Taxation

Commissioner v. Schleier

Clarence Thomas, David Souter, Dissent, Federal Taxation / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins, and with whom JUSTICE SOUTER joins with respect to Part II, dissenting.

Age discrimination inflicts a personal injury. Even under the principles set forth in United States v. Burke, 504 U. S. 229 (1992), the damages received from a claim of such discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) are received “on account of” that personal injury and therefore excludable from taxable income under 26 U. S. C. § 104(a)(2). Unless the Court reads § 104(a)(2) to permit exclusion only of damages received for tangible injuries (i. e., physical and mental injuries)-a reading rejected by eight Members of the Court in Burke and contradicted by an agency’s reasonable interpretation of the statute it administers-the inescapable conclusion is that ADEA damages awards, are excludable.

I

It is not disputed that the damages received by respondents constitute gross income under 26 U. S. C. § 61(a) unless excluded elsewhere; the question is whether such damages fall within § 104(a)(2), which excludes from taxable income “the amount of any damages received (whether by suit or agreement and whether as lump sums or periodic payments) on account of personal injuries or sickness…. ” What constitutes “damages received on account of personal injuries” is not obvious from the text or history of the statute, and since 1960 Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulations have defined the phrase with reference to traditional tort