Supreme Court Opinions

Concurrence, Privacy

Cruzan v. Director Missouri Dept. of Health

Concurrence, Privacy / By

Justice O’CONNOR, concurring.

I agree that a protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment may be inferred from our prior decisions, see ante at 497 U. S. 278 -279, and that the refusal of artificially delivered food and water is encompassed within that liberty interest. See ante at 497 U. S. 279. I write separately to clarify why I believe this to be so.

As the Court notes, the liberty interest in refusing medical treatment flows from decisions involving the State’s invasions into the body. See ante at 497 U. S. 278 -279. Because our notions of liberty are inextricably entwined with our idea of physical freedom and self-determination, the Court has often deemed state incursions into the body repugnant to the interests protected by the Due Process Clause. See, e.g., Rochin v. California, 342 U. S. 165, 342 U. S. 172 (1952) (“Illegally breaking into the privacy of the petitioner, the struggle to open his mouth and remove what was there, the forcible extraction of his stomach’s contents… is bound to offend even hardened sensibilities”); Union Pacific R. C.o. v. Botsford, 141 U. S. 250, 141 U. S. 251 (1891). Our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence has echoed this same concern. See Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757, 384 U. S. 772 (1966) (“The integrity of an individual’s person is a cherished value of our society”); Winston v. Lee, 470 U. S. 753, 470 U. S. 759 (1985) (“A compelled surgical intrusion into an individual’s body for evidence… implicates expectations

Civil Rights, Concurrence

Desert Palace Inc. v. Costa

Civil Rights, Concurrence / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR, concurring.

I join the Court’s opinion. In my view, prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the evidentiary rule we developed to shift the burden of persuasion in mixed-motive cases was appropriately applied only where a disparate treatment plaintiff “demonstrated by direct evidence that an illegitimate factor played a substantial role” in an adverse employment decision. Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U. S. 228, 275 (1989) (O’CONNOR, J., concurring in judgment). This showing triggered “the deterrent purpose of the statute” and permitted a reasonable factfinder to conclude that “absent further explanation, the employer’s discriminatory motivation ’caused’ the employment decision.” Id., at 265.

As the Court’s opinion explains, in the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Congress codified a new evidentiary rule for mixedmotive cases arising under Title VII. Ante, at 98-10l. I therefore agree with the Court that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in giving a mixed-motive instruction to the jury.

Concurrence, First Amendment

Corp. of Presiding Bishop v. Amos

Concurrence, First Amendment / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR, concurring in the judgment.

Although I agree with the judgment of the Court, I write separately to note that this action once again illustrates certain difficulties inherent in the Court’s use of the test articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602, 403 U. S. 612 -613 (1971). See Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U. S. 38, 472 U. S. 67 (1985) (O’CONNOR, J., concurring in judgment); Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U. S. 668, 465 U. S. 687 (1984) (O’CONNOR, J., concurring). As a result of this problematic analysis, while the holding of the opinion for the Court extends only to nonprofit organizations, its reasoning fails to acknowledge that the amended § 702, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-1, raises different questions as it is applied to profit and nonprofit organizations.

In Wallace v. Jaffree, supra, I noted a tension in the Court’s use of the Lemon test to evaluate an Establishment Clause challenge to government efforts to accommodate the free exercise of religion:

On the one hand, a rigid application of the Lemon test would invalidate legislation exempting religious observers from generally applicable government obligations. By definition, such legislation has a religious purpose and effect in promoting the free exercise of religion. On the other hand, judicial deference to all legislation that purports to facilitate the free exercise of religion would completely vitiate the Establishment Clause. Any statute pertaining to religion can be viewed as an ‘accommodation’ of free exercise

Concurrence, Economic Activity

Concrete Pipe & Products of Cal. Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern Cal

Concurrence, Economic Activity / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR, concurring.

I join all of the Court’s opinion, except for the statement that petitioner cannot “rel[y] on ERISA’s original limitation of contingent liability to 30% of net worth.” Ante, at 646. The Court’s reasoning is generally consistent with my own views about retroactive withdrawal liability, which I explained in Connolly v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 475 U. S. 211, 228-236 (1986) (concurring opinion), and which I need not restate at length here. In essence, my position is that the “imposition of this type of retroactive liability on employers, to be constitutional, must rest on some basis in the employer’s conduct that would make it rational to treat the employees’ expectations of benefits under the plan as the employer’s responsibility.” Id., at 229.

The Court does not hold otherwise. Rather, it reasons that, although “the withdrawal liability assessed against Concrete Pipe may amount to more… than the share of the Plan’s liability strictly attributable to employment of covered workers at Concrete Pipe,” this possibility “was exactly what Concrete Pipe accepted when it joined the Plan.” Ante, at 638. I agree that a withdrawing employer can be held responsible for its statutory “share” of unfunded vested benefits if the employer should have anticipated the prospect of withdrawal liability when it joined the plan. In such a case, the “basis in the employer’s conduct that would make it rational to treat the employees’ expectations of benefits

Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, David Souter, Economic Activity, John Paul Stevens, Majority, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, William Rehnquist

Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Schoonejongen

Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, David Souter, Economic Activity, John Paul Stevens, Majority, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, William Rehnquist / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. Section 402(b)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 88 Stat. 875, 29 U. S. C. § l102(b)(3), requires that every employee benefit plan provide “a procedure for amending such plan, and for identifying the persons who have authority to amend the plan.” This case presents the question whether the standard provision in many employer-provided benefit plans stating that “The Company reserves the right at any time to amend the plan” sets forth an amendment procedure that satisfies § 402(b)(3). We hold that it does.

I

For many years, petitioner Curtiss-Wright voluntarily maintained a postretirement health plan for employees who had worked at certain Curtiss-Wright facilities; respondents are retirees who had worked at one such facility in WoodRidge, New Jersey. The specific terms of the plan, the District Court determined, could be principally found in two plan documents: the plan constitution and the Summary Plan Description (SPD), both of which primarily covered active employee health benefits.

In early 1983, presumably due to the rising cost of health care, a revised SPD was issued with the following new provision: “TERMINATION OF HEALTH CARE BENEFITS…. Coverage under this Plan will cease for retirees and their dependents upon the termination of business operations of the facility from which they retired.” App. 49. The two main authors of the new SPD provision, CurtissWright’s director of benefits

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

Davis v. United States

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

JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court.

We are called upon in this case to determine whether the funds petitioners transferred to their two sons while they served as full-time, unpaid missionaries for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Church) are deductible as charitable contributions “to or for the use of” the Church, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 170.

Petitioners, Harold and Enid Davis, and their sons, Benjamin and Cecil, are members of the Church. According to the stipulated facts, the Church operates a worldwide missionary program involving 25,000 persons each year. Most of these missionaries are young men between ages 19 and 22. If the Church determines that a candidate is qualified to become a missionary, the president of the Church sends a letter calling the candidate to missionary service in a specified geographical location. A follow-up letter from the missionary department lists the items of clothing the missionary will need, provides specific information relating to the mission, and sets forth the estimated amount of money needed to support the missionary service. This amount varies according to the location of the mission and reflects an estimate of the amount the missionary will actually need.

The missionary’s parents generally provide the necessary funds to support their son or daughter during the period of missionary service. If they are unable to do so, the Church will locate another donor from the local congregation or use money donated

Civil Rights, Concurrence, Warren Burger, William Rehnquist

Davis v. Bandemer

Civil Rights, Concurrence, Warren Burger, William Rehnquist / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and JUSTICE REHNQUIST join, concurring in the judgment.

Today the Court holds that claims of political gerrymandering lodged by members of one of the political parties that make up our two-party system are justiciable under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nothing in our precedents compels us to take this step, and there is every reason not to do so. I would hold that the partisan gerrymandering claims of major political parties raise a nonjusticiable political question that the judiciary should leave to the legislative branch, as the Framers of the Constitution unquestionably intended. Accordingly, I would reverse the District Court’s judgment on the grounds that appellees’ claim is nonjusticiable.

There can be little doubt that the emergence of a strong and stable two-party system in this country has contributed enormously to sound and effective government. The preservation and health of our political institutions, state and federal, depends to no small extent on the continued vitality of our two-party system, which permits both stability and measured change. The opportunity to control the drawing of electoral boundaries through the legislative process of apportionment is a critical and traditional part of politics in the United States, and one that plays no small role in fostering active participation in the political parties at every level. Thus, the legislative business of apportionment is fundamentally

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

Department of Justice v. Landano

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

JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. Exemption 7(D) of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U. S. C. § 552 (FOIA), exempts from disclosure agency records “compiled for law enforcement purposes… by criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation” if release of those records “could reasonably be expected to disclose” the identity of, or information provided by, a “confidential source.” § 552(b)(7)(D). This case concerns the evidentiary showing that the Government must make to establish that a source is “confidential” within the meaning of Exemption 7(D). We are asked to decide whether the Government is entitled to a presumption that all sources supplying information to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI or Bureau) in the course of a criminal investigation are confidential sources.

I

Respondent Vincent Landano was convicted in New Jersey state court for murdering Newark, New Jersey, police officer John Snow in the course of a robbery. The crime received considerable media attention. Evidence at trial showed that the robbery had been orchestrated by Victor Forni and a motorcycle gang known as “the Breed.” There was testimony that Landano, though not a Breed member, had been recruited for the job. Landano always has maintained that he did not participate in the robbery and that Forni, not he, killed Officer Snow. He contends that the prosecution withheld material exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83

Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, David Souter, Federal Taxation, Majority, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, William Rehnquist

Commissioner v. Lundy

Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, David Souter, Federal Taxation, Majority, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, William Rehnquist / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this case, we consider the “look-back” period for obtaining a refund of overpaid taxes in the United States Tax Court under 26 U. S. C. § 6512(b)(3)(B), and decide whether the Tax Court can award a refund of taxes paid more than two years prior to the date on which the Commissioner of Internal Revenue mailed the taxpayer a notice of deficiency, when, on the date the notice of deficiency was mailed, the taxpayer had not yet filed a return. We hold that in these circumstances the 2-year look-back period set forth in § 6512(b)(3)(B) applies, and the Tax Court lacks jurisdiction to award a refund.

I

During 1987, respondent Robert F. Lundy and his wife had $10,131 in federal income taxes withheld from their wages. This amount was substantially more than the $6,594 the Lundys actually owed in taxes for that year, but the Lundys did not file their 1987 tax return when it was due, nor did they file a return or claim a refund of the overpaid taxes in the succeeding 21/2 years. On September 26, 1990, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue mailed Lundy a notice of deficiency, informing him that he owed $7,672 in additional taxes and interest for 1987 and that he was liable for substantial penalties for delinquent filing and negligent underpayment of taxes. See 26 U. S. C. §§ 6651(a)(1) and 6653(1).

Lundy and his wife mailed their joint tax return for 1987 to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on December 22, 1990. This return indicated

Dissent, Unions

DelCostello v. Teamsters

Dissent, Unions / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR, dissenting.

As the Court recognizes, “resort to state law [is] the norm for borrowing of limitations periods.” Ante at 462 U. S. 171. When federal law is silent on the question of limitations, we borrow state law in the belief that, given our longstanding practice and congressional awareness of it, we can safely assume, in the absence of strong indications to the contrary, that Congress intends by its silence that we follow the usual rule. [ Footnote 3/1 ] In Auto Workers v. Hoosier Cardinal Corp., 383 U. S. 696 (1966), we applied the “norm” to a suit under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185. I see no reason in these cases to depart from our usual practice of borrowing state law, for we have no contrary indications strong enough to outweigh our ordinary presumption that Congress’ silence indicates a desire that we follow the ordinary rule. As a result, I would look to state law for a limitations period. For the reasons given by JUSTICE STEVENS in his separate opinion in United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Mitchell, 451 U. S. 56, 451 U. S. 72 -74 (1981), I think that a malpractice action against an attorney provides the closest analogy to an employee’s suit against his union for breach of the duty of fair representation, and I would apply the State’s statute of limitations for such an action here. In DelCostello’s action against his employer, I, like JUSTICE STEVENS, would follow Mitchell. [ Footnote 3/2 ]

Notes

[ Footnote 3/1 ]

I believe,