514BV$spin 07-09-98 11:19:31 UNITED STATES REPORTS 514 OCT. TERM 1994 514bv$titl 04-23-98 19:32:45 UNITED STATES REPORTS VOLUME 514 CASES ADJUDGED IN THE SUPREME COURT AT OCTOBER TERM, 1994 March 1 Through May 25, 1995 FRANK D. WAGNER reporter of decisions WASHINGTON : 1998 Printed on Uncoated Permanent Printing Paper For sale by the U. S. Government Printing Office Superintendent of Documents, Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-9328 514bv$$iii 04-23-98 19:41:16 PGT * frtbx n J USTICES of the SU PREM E COU RT during the time of these reports WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST, Chief Justice. JOHN PAUL STEVENS, Associate Justice. SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR, Associate Justice. ANTONIN SCALIA, Associate Justice. ANTHONY M. KENNEDY, Associate Justice. DAVID H. SOUTER, Associate Justice. CLARENCE THOMAS, Associate Justice. RUTH BADER GINSBURG, Associate Justice. STEPHEN BREYER, Associate Justice. retired WARREN E. BURGER, Chief Justice. LEWIS F. POWELL, Jr., Associate Justice. WILLIAM J. BRENNAN, Jr., Associate Justice. BYRON R. WHITE, Associate Justice. HARRY A. BLACKMUN, Associate Justice. officers of the court JANET RENO, Attorney General. DREW S. DAYS III, Solicitor General. WILLIAM K. SUTER, Clerk. FRANK D. WAGNER, Reporter of Decisions. DALE E. BOSLEY, Marshal. SHELLEY L. DOWLING, Librarian. iii 514bv$$$iv 04-23-98 19:41:01 PGT * frtbx n SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Allotment of Justices It is ordered that the following allotment be made of the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of this Court among the circuits, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 42, and that such allotment be entered of record, effective September 30, 1994, viz.: For the District of Columbia Circuit, William H. Rehnquist, Chief Justice. For the First Circuit, David H. Souter, Associate Justice. For the Second Circuit, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice. For the Third Circuit, David H. Souter, Associate Justice. For the Fourth Circuit, William H. Rehnquist, Chief Justice. For the Fifth Circuit, Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice. For the Sixth Circuit, John Paul Stevens, Associate Justice. For the Seventh Circuit, John Paul Stevens, Associate Justice. For the Eighth Circuit, Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice. For the Ninth Circuit, Sandra Day O'Connor, Associate Justice. For the Tenth Circuit, Stephen Breyer, Associate Justice. For the Eleventh Circuit, Anthony M. Kennedy, Associate Justice. For the Federal Circuit, William H. Rehnquist, Chief Justice. September 30, 1994. (For next previous allotment, and modifications, see 502 U. S., p. vi, 509 U. S., p. v, and 512 U. S., p. v.) iv Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 19:23:23] PGT: TCR TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Note: All undesignated references herein to the United States Code are to the 1988 edition. Cases reported before page 1001 are those decided with opinions of the Court or decisions per curiam. Cases reported on page 1001 et seq. are those in which orders were entered. Page Abbott v. Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1086 Abbott Laboratories v. Seinfeld . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1126 Abedi v. Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1069 Abrahamson; Chapman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077 Abramajtys; Samel v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1026 Abrams v. Johnson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1002,1013,1061 Acosta v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1087 Acosta-Lao v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1010 Acosta-Lopez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1134 Adams, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1103 Adams v. Groose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1084 Adams v. Rice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1022 Adams v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066 Adult Video Assn. v. Reno . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1112 Aerolineas Argentinas S. A. v. Maro Leather Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1108 Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Ellison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1096 Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.; Moore v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1001,1072 Afemata v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1087 Agrio, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1003 Agripac, Inc.; Delaye v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1037 Aguilar-Higuerra v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1019 Ajaegbu v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1122 AJ & AJ Servicing, Inc. v. Tudor Associates, Ltd., II . . . . . . . . . 1107 Akins v. Richardson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1044 Akinyemi v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1090 Alabama v. Bonner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1010 Alabama; Burton v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1115 Alabama; Clisby v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079,1093 Alabama; Daniels v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1024 Alabama; Harris v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078 v Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:26] PGT: TCR vi TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page Alabama; McGahee v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078 Alabama; McNair v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078 Alabama; Moore v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1017 Alabama; Neelley v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1005 Alabama v. Nutter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1080 Alabama Dept. of Revenue; Fleming Foods of Ala., Inc. v. . . . . . . 1063 Alabama State Bar; Garmon v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1018 Alaniz-Alaniz v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1041 Alaska; Underwood v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1064 Alaska Dept. of Revenue; Douglas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1112 Alba-Esqueda v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1020 Albarelli v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1044 Alberto Cuartas v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1041 Alberty v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1043 Alexander v. Herbert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067 Alexander v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1127 Alexander; Thompson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1130 Alexander v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1111 Alexander Shokai, Inc. v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1062 Alexander's Power Shipping Co.; Wilson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066 Alexiou v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1097 Alexius v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1132 Ali-Daggao v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031 Allard v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1111 Allen v. McEntee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1083 Allridge v. Scott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1108 Allstate Ins. Co. v. Lufthansa German Airlines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1036 Almendarez v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1006 Alonso v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033 Alonso v. Municipal Court of Cal., Ventura County . . . . . . . . . . . 1033 Alonzo v. Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1134 Alvarado-Maldonado v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1019 Alvord-Polk, Inc.; F. Schumacher & Co. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1063 Alvord-Polk, Inc.; National Decorating Products Assn., Inc. v. . . . 1063 Amaral v. Rhode Island Hospital Trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1055 American Republic Ins. Co. v. Superintendent of Ins. of Me. . . . . 1035 American Tel. & Tel.; Raitport v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032,1103 American Tel. & Tel. Co.; Winback & Conserve Program, Inc. v. 1103 Amerson v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1056 Amherst County Dept. of Social Services; Sloan v. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1130 Amiri v. Radio WTOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1116 Anderson v. Edwards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Anderson v. Green . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1034 Anderson v. Nidorf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:26] PGT: TCR TABLE OF CASES REPORTED vii Page Anderson v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1020,1120 Anesthesiologists of Southwestern Ohio, Inc.; Grigsby v. . . . . . . . 1039 Anheuser-Busch Cos. v. Summit Coffee Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1001 Anjo Construction Co.; Council v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1109 Apex Marine Corp.; Colon v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1018 Appellate Div., Sup. Ct. of N. Y., Second Jud. Dept.; Carter v. . . . 1079 Appleton; Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 490 Severance and Re- tirement Fund v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1018 Arango v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1008 Arbeiter v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1102 Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077 Area Belle Chasse Radio v. Belle Chasse Broadcasting Corp. . . . 1050 Arensberg v. Brown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1006 Arizona v. Averyt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1037 Arizona; Bracy v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1130 Arizona v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1081 Arizona; Eastlack v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118 Arizona v. Evans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Arizona; Finocchi v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1027 Arizona; Luzanilla v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1039 Arizona; Maturana v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1080,1134 Arkansas; Bennett v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1018 Arkansas; Wilson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 927 Arkansas Ed. Television Comm'n Network Foundation; Forbes v. 1110 Armontrout; Conley v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1114 Armstead v. Scott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1071 Armstrong v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1085 Armstrong v. Young . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1021 Arnold & Arnold Law Firm; Williams v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1034,1113 Arreguine v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1008 Arrington v. Wilks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065 Arthur; Branson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1054 Ashburn v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1113 Ashworth v. Myers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1131 Association. For labor union, see name of trade. Athey; Center for Auto Safety Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1036 Atkins v. Schriro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1040 Atkins v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1133 Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Babbitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1092 Attar v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1107 Attorney General; Adult Video Assn. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1112 Attorney General; Echavarria-Olarte v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1090 Attorney General; McCarthy v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100 Attorney General of Ark. v. Hill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 779 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:26] PGT: TCR viii TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page Attorney General of Mich.; Hobbins v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1083 Attorney General of Mo.; Nash v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1055 Au v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067 Ault; Ingram v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1058 Aurora Animal Care Division; Barwick v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1117 Austin v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1084,1101 Automobile Workers; Hall v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1010 Avco Lycoming Textron; Klopp v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1057 Avery v. Brodeur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1070 Averyt; Arizona v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1037 Ayala v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1019 Ayeni; Mottola v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1062 Ayers v. Murray . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1069 Aysisayh v. Oden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1116 Azubuko v. Chief Adult Probation Officer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1070 B. v. California Dept. of Children's Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1040 Babbitt; Atlantic Richfield Co. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1092 Babbitt v. Phillips Petroleum Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1092 Baby Dolls; Columbus v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1083 Babylon; Burrows v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1071 Baby Richard v. Kirchner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1094 Badger Construction Equipment Co.; Hernandez v. . . . . . . . . . . . 1065 Baez v. Douglas County Comm'n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011 Bailey v. Coyle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100 Bailey v. Sokolowski . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1071 Bailey v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1062 Bain, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1002 Baker v. Baker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1128 Baker; Dean v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118 Baker v. Illinois Dept. of Revenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1004 Baker; Jones v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1092 Baker v. Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1040 Baker v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065 Baker v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1028 Ball v. Circuit Court of W. Va. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1071 Ballesteros v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1029 Ballew v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1091 Balsamo; Watson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1130 Bankhead v. Columbus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1072 Bank of Floyd; Martin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1096 Bank One Chicago, N. A. v. Midwest Bank & Trust Co. . . . . . . . . 1034 Banks v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1070 Banks; Michigan v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1102 Barclays Bank PLC; Nanny Cay Enterprises, Ltd. v. . . . . . . . . . . 1111 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:26] PGT: TCR TABLE OF CASES REPORTED ix Page Barger; Washington v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1102 Barlow v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030 Barnes, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035 Barnes v. Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1027 Barnes v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1009 Barnett-Inclan v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1075 Barraza v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1097 Barreras; Chappell v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1112 Barry; Immanuel v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065 Barwick v. Aurora Animal Care Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1117 Bashara v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033 Baskin-Bey v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1089 Baskin-Robbins Ice Cream Co.; Frusher v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1114 Bassler-Harsch; Eisenberg v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1051 Bazemore v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1086 BDO Seidman v. Simmons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079 Beadle v. Hillsborough County Sheriff's Dept. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1128 Beadles v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1091 Beard v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1043 Bearden, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1126 Beattie v. Boeing Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1127 Beauchamp v. Murphy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1019 Beazer East, Inc.; Mead Corp. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065 Becker v. Kennewick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078 Behrens v. Pelletier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035,1106 Beitler, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1080 Belcher; Harris v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1054 Bell, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1081 Bell v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067 Bell v. Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119 Belle Chasse Broadcasting Corp.; Area Belle Chasse Radio v. . . . 1050 Bellizzi v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1101 Belton v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1028 Benjamin v. Committee on Professional Standards, N. Y. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Dept. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1110 Bennett v. Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1018 Benson, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1059 Bergodere v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1055 Bernard v. Coyne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065 Berry v. Parrish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1064 Bethlehem Minerals Co. v. Church & Mullins Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . 1110 Bevacqua v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1063 Bevevino; Schaffer v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1010 Bianchi; Lovall v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1024 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:26] PGT: TCR x TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page Billops v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030 Bilzerian v. Securities and Exchange Comm'n . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011,1094 Bina v. Providence College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1038 Bischof v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1085 Bishop; Sigmon v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1023 Bishop v. State Bar of Ga. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079 Bitzer; Propst v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1036 Bivolcic v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1075 Black v. Cleveland Police Dept. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1115 Black v. Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1021 Blackburn v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1043 Blackmon v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1028 Blair; California v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066 Blair v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1052 Blakely Borough; Caterina v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078 Blalack; Hennessey v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1050,1135 Blalock; Johnson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1022 Blandford v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1095 Blaze Construction Co. v. New Mexico Taxation & Revenue Dept. 1016 Blodgett v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1042 Bloomfield v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1113 Bloomingdale Public Schools v. Washegesic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1095 Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ala.; Nightingale Nursing Serv. v. . . 1128 Boal v. Department of Army . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1116 Board of Green Township Trustees; Kleve v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1048 Board of Regents, Univ. of Houston System; Smith v. . . . . . . . . . 1111 Board of Trustees of Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern Cal.; Thibodo v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1017 Boeing Co.; Beattie v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1127 Boggs; Thompson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1063 Bolinske v. North Dakota State Fair Assn. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1004 Bolivar v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1005 Bollinger v. Maass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1040 Bolt v. Singleton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1105 Bonadonna v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1037 Bond; Risbeck v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1110 Bondholder Committee; Williamson County v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1096 Bone v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1086 Bonham v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1008 Bonner; Alabama v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1010 Boone Fiscal Court; Enterprise VI v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1096 Boone Fiscal Court; Erpenbeck Commercial Enterprises, Inc. v. 1096 Booth v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1053 Borch v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1134 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:26] PGT: TCR TABLE OF CASES REPORTED xi Page Borg; Chambers v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119 Borg; Chivars v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079 Borg; Jackson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118 Borg; McCright v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1020 Borg; Nilsen v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1083 Borges v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1029 Borg & Warner Automotive Electronics & Mechanical System Corp.; Williams v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033 Borjas de Lozano v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1076 Borough. See name of borough. Borromeo v. Johnson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079 Borst v. Chevron Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066 Bossett v. Coughlin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1038 Bossett v. Walker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1054 Bost v. Lewis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1114 Bostic v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1129 Boston; Nyenekor v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1038 Boulder; Malpass v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1127 Bouscher v. Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1023 Bouscher v. Pierce County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1023 Bouser v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1039 Bowden v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031 Bowen, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1081 Bowen; Hardin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1122 Bowens v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1075 Bowling Green; Hiser v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1120 Bowman v. Maryland Mass Transit Administration . . . . . . . . . . . 1055 Bowman v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1102 Boyce v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031 Boyd v. Scott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1111 Boyd v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1009 BP Chemicals (HITCO), Inc. v. Gaylord . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1004 Bracy v. Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1130 Bradvica v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1010 Brady v. U. S. Parole Comm'n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1056 Bramon; Wagshal v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1096 Branch, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079 Branch; Goeke v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Bransford v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1130 Branson v. Arthur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1054 Braxton v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1007 Bray v. Dowling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1052 Brayton v. New Brighton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1036 Brent v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1102 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:26] PGT: TCR xii TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page Brewer, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1081 Brewer v. Clarke County School Dist. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1111 Brewer v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1020 Briggs & Stratton Corp.; Paperworkers v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1126 Brim v. Wright . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1070 Briscoe v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1051 Bristol; Martin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1084 British Seagull Ltd.; Brunswick Corp. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1050 Broadus v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1009 Brock v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1092 Brodeur; Avery v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1070 Brokaw; Jensen v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078 Bronfman v. Kansas City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078 Brookman v. Rubin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1063 Brooks; Sneed v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1129 Brown; Arensberg v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1006 Brown v. Brown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1054 Brown v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1070 Brown; Curry v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119 Brown v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1006,1117 Brown v. Houston Independent School Dist. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1128 Brown; Kamal v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1072 Brown; King v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078 Brown v. Murray . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1131 Brown; Neal v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1127 Brown v. Siegel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079 Brown v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1007,1038,1056,1122 Brown v. Warren . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119 Brown v. Whitley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118 Broyles v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1056 Brunswick Corp. v. British Seagull Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1050 Brutzman v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077 Bryan; Chapman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1048 Bryan v. Holmes Regional Medical Center, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1019 Bryan v. James E. Holmes Regional Medical Center . . . . . . . . . . 1019 Bryant v. Hill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 779 Bryant v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1088 Buckeye Union Life Ins. Co. v. Leber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1111 Buhr v. Flathead County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1110 Bulette v. Trout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065 Bulla-Henao v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1090 Bullard v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1089 Bunge v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030 Bunnell; Garcia v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1024 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:26] PGT: TCR TABLE OF CASES REPORTED xiii Page Burdick Painting, Inc.; DeVoll v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1027 Burdine v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1057 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; Judd v. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1022 Burke v. Szabo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1024 Burket v. Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1053 Burkett; Harrison v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1040 Burley v. Gulbranson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1098 Burlington Northern R. Co. v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn. 1032 Burney v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030 Burnim v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1044 Burns v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077 Burrows v. Babylon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1071 Burt; Hines v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1098 Burt; Wardlaw v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033 Burt; Woodard v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1021 Burton v. Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1115 Burton; Campbell v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1114 Burton; Langley v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1087 Bussell v. Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079 Butler v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1130 Butler v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1009 B&W Investment Properties v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1126 BW Parkway Associates Partnership v. United States . . . . . . . . . 1015 Byrd v. Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1112 Byrd v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1052 Cacoperdo v. Demosthenes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1026 Cadillac Products, Inc. v. TriEnda Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1110 Cadle Co. v. Weaver's Estate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1128 Cahill v. Department of Labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1104 Cain; Ward v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1123 Caine v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1043 Calallen Independent School Dist.; Fritch v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1084 Calamia v. Singletary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1124 Calderon; Grant v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118 Caldwell v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1008 Calhoun; North Georgia Electric Membership Corp. v. . . . . . . . . 1109 Calhoun; Yamaha Motor Corp., U. S. A. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1126 California, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1081 California; Alonso v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033 California; Arizona v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1081 California v. Blair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066 California; Bouser v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1039 California; Bransford v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1130 California; Brown v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1070 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:26] PGT: TCR xiv TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page California; Butler v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1130 California; Califorrniaa v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1053,1124 California v. Federal Communications Comm'n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1050 California; Fields v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1022 California; Fisher v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118 California; Fudge v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1021,1124 California v. Gutierrez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1049 California; Kirkpatrick v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1015 California; Lavold v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1039 California; Mason v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1131 California; Masterson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1068 California; Miller v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1099 California; Sharp v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1130 California; Sutton v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1069 California; Sword v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1117 California v. Tahoe Sierra Preservation Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1036 California; Thomas M. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065 California; Turner v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1068 California; Tyrell J. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1068 California; Walker v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1099 California; Wilkins v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1024,1124 California Dept. of Children's Services; Marlene B. v. . . . . . . . . . 1040 California Dept. of Corrections v. Morales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 499 California Dept. of Health Services; Del Crane Medical Corp. v. . 1015 California Dept. of Water Resources Control Bd.; Etemad v. . . . . 1006 California Pozzolan, Inc. v. Zodiac Investment, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . 1128 Califorrniaa v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1053,1124 Camacho v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1090 Camoscio v. Pokaski . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1019 Camp v. Harper Trucks, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1004 Camp v. Ruffin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1004 Campbell v. Burton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1114 Campbell v. Florida Parole Comm'n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1094 Campbell v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1091 Campbell Farming Corp.; Crow Tribe of Indians v. . . . . . . . . . . . 1018 Campos v. Peters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1024 Cannon v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031 Cannone v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1043 Captain Gus & Brothers, Inc.; Trupiano v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1096 Card v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1102 Cardenas-Triana v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031 Cardwell v. Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1097 Carillo v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077 Carlisle v. Munna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1017 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:26] PGT: TCR TABLE OF CASES REPORTED xv Page Carlsbad; Mass v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033 Carmichael; James v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1115 Carr; Litzenberg v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1085 Carr; Odom v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118 Carr v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1091,1131,1132 Carrio v. Hemstree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1057 Carroll v. North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1006 Carson, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1013,1125 Carter v. Appellate Div., Sup. Ct. of N. Y., Second Jud. Dept. . . . 1079 Carter v. DeTella . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1083 Carter v. Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1010 Carter v. Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1005 Carter v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1121 Casey; Lewis v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1126 Casey v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1020 Caspari v. McIntyre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077 Caspari; Poe v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1024 Caspari; Worthon v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1130 Castrejon-Ortiz v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1019 Castro v. Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1024 Castro-Sanchez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1019 Cataldo v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1092 Caterina v. Blakely Borough . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078 Caulfield v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1016 Cazeau v. Pennsylvania State Police . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033 CCH Computax Inc.; Stonum v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1064 C. E. v. Illinois Dept. of Mental Health and Dev. Disabilities . . . . 1107 Ceballos v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1028 Celotex Corp. v. Edwards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300 Center for Auto Safety Inc. v. Athey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1036 Cerny v. Wood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1037,1123 Cervantes v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1121 Cervantes-Parra v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1020 Chambers v. Borg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119 Chambers County Comm'n; Swint v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Chambron v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1086 Champion v. Department of Labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1127 Champion; Padillow v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1070 Champlin Refining & Chemicals, Inc.; Wamsley v. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1037 Chan v. Society Expeditions, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1004 Chandler v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1082 Chapa v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1086 Chapel v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1135 Chaplin; Salkind v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1083 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:26] PGT: TCR xvi TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page Chapman v. Abrahamson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077 Chapman v. Bryan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1048 Chappell v. Barreras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1112 Chapple v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1101 Charczenko v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1122 Chassin v. NYSA­ILA Medical and Clinical Services Fund . . . . . 1094 Chavez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1129 Cherubin v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077 Chesebrough-Pond's USA Co. v. May Department Stores Co. . . . 1078 Chevron Corp.; Borst v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066 Chiavola v. Oakwood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078 Chicago; Garca v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1003 Chicago Bd. of Ed.; Kallas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1059 Chicago Police Dept.; Steele v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1023 Chickasaw Nation; Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1013 Chief Adult Probation Officer; Azubuko v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1070 Childers v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1095 Chivars v. Borg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079 Christian v. Singletary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1021 Christopher v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1089 Chrysler Corp. v. Kearns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032 Chrysler Corp.; Kearns v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032 Church & Mullins Corp.; Bethlehem Minerals Co. v. . . . . . . . . . . 1110 Ciaffoni v. Cowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078 CIGNA Corp.; Johnston v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1082 Cincinnati; Clarke v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1109 Circle K Corp.; Solis v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1098 Circuit Court of Mich., Monroe County; Northington v. . . . . . . . . 1099 Circuit Court of W. Va.; Ball v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1071 Circuit Court of W. Va., Fayette County; Crawford v. . . . . . . . . . 1098 Citizens Bank of Md. v. Strumpf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035,1125 Citizens Utilities Co.; Sun City Taxpayers' Assn. v. . . . . . . . . . . . 1064 City. See name of city. Clark v. Groose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1018 Clarke v. Cincinnati . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1109 Clarke; Williams v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033 Clarke County School Dist.; Brewer v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1111 Clark Equipment Co. v. Habecker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1003 Class v. Williams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032 Claus; Duquesne Light Co. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067 Clay v. Murray . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1053 Cleghorn v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1101 Clements v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1107 Clemons v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1086 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:26] PGT: TCR TABLE OF CASES REPORTED xvii Page Cleveland; Houston v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1085 Cleveland Police Dept.; Black v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1115 Clinton; Cossett v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1097 Clisby v. Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079,1093 Cluke v. Higgins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1027 Coahoma County; Lee v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066 Coats v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1135 Cobia v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1121 Cochran v. Johnson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1026 Cole v. Department of Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1107 Cole v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1027 Coleman v. Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1068 Coleman; McNatt v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1131 Coleman v. Scott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1072 Coleman v. Singletary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1086 Coleman v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1075 Collier v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1092 Collins, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1001 Collins v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1121 Colon v. Apex Marine Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1018 Colon v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1120 Colorado; Kansas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 673 Colt Industries Operating Corp. Informal Plan for Plant Shutdown Benefits for Salaried Employees v. Henglein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1036 Columbia; Ricketts v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1103 Columbus v. Baby Dolls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1083 Columbus; Bankhead v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1072 Columbus v. Quetgles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1083 Columbus Police Dept.; Williams v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1054 Comer v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1110 Commerce Bank of Kansas City, N. A.; Maniace v. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1111 Commissioner; Akins v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1044 Commissioner; Alexander Shokai, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1062 Commissioner; Au v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067 Commissioner; Caulfield v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1016 Commissioner; Conti v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1082 Commissioner; Dufresne v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1036 Commissioner; Georgescu v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030 Commissioner; Harris v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1057 Commissioner; Ravetti's Estate v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1019 Commissioner, Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities; McReynolds v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1091 Commissioner of Internal Revenue. See Commissioner. Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:26] PGT: TCR xviii TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page Committee on Professional Standards, N. Y. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Dept.; Benjamin v. . . . . . . . . 1110 Commonwealth. See name of Commonwealth. Comstock & Co.; Griffin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118 Concerned Area Residents for Environment; Southview Farm v. 1082 Concrete Works of Colo., Inc.; Denver v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1004 Condino v. Northern Mariana Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1021 Conley v. Armontrout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1114 Connecticut; Gant v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1038 Connecticut; Mann v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1048 Connelly v. Grossman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033 Connelly; Sharp v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1017 Conner v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1029 Conopco, Inc. v. May Department Stores Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078 Conrad v. Todd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1022 Conti v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1082 Continental Bank, N. A.; Everett v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1018 Continental Ins. Co. v. Simmons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079 Contreras v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1089 Cooke; King v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1023 Cooper, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1106 Cooper v. National RX Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1103 Cooper v. Scott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1070 Cooper v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1094 Cooperativa de Ahorro y Credito Aguada; Kidder, Peabody & Co. v. 1082 Coors Brewing Co.; Rubin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 476 Cordero v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1044 Coronel v. Olson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1071 Corrections Commissioner. See name of commissioner. Cortes-Cebrera v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1019 Cossett v. Clinton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1097 Coughlin; Bossett v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1038 Coughlin; Del Valle Villegas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119 Council v. Anjo Construction Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1109 County. See name of county. Court of Appeals of Mich.; Northington v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1006 Court of Claims of Ill.; Hyde Park Medical Laboratory, Inc. v. . . . 1037 Courts v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1089 Cowden; Ciaffoni v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078 Cowie v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1042 Cox; M. R. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1019 Coyle; Bailey v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100 Coyne; Bernard v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065 Cramer v. Spada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1055 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:26] PGT: TCR TABLE OF CASES REPORTED xix Page Crawford, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1060 Crawford v. Circuit Court of W. Va., Fayette County . . . . . . . . . . 1098 Crawford v. Hatcher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1098 Crawford v. LaMantia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032,1124 Crawford v. Zant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1082 Crawley v. Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1127 Creel v. Kyle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1070 Crist v. Lac du Flambeau Band, Lake Super. Chippewa Indians . 1096 Critton v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1121 Crocker v. United States Aviation Underwriters, Inc. . . . . . . . . . 1129 Cross v. Dodd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1120 Cross v. Jabe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1127 Crow v. Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1098,1117 Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. Steelworkers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1014 Crow Tribe of Indians v. Campbell Farming Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1018 Crystal Cruises, Inc.; Howard v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1084 Csoka v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119 Cuervo v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1122 Cuevas; Tous Rodriguez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1051 Cuevas Cuevas; Tous Rodriguez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1051 Culp v. Wismer & Becker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1108 Cunningham v. Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1005 Curry v. Brown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119 Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Schoonejongen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Cutinello v. Whitley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035 Czarny v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1008 Dall; Kaylor v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1108 Dallas Independent School Dist.; Johnson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1017 Dalton; Voge v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1016 Daniel v. Peters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1024 Daniel P. King Associates; Maxberry v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1115 Daniels v. Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1024 Daniels v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1099 Darby v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1097 Datcher v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1121 Dauw v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1112 Davenport v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1112 Davidson Bros., Inc. v. D. Katz & Sons, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1064 Davis v. First Worthing Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1054 Davis v. Leonardo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1072 Davis v. Page . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1105 Davis v. Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1117 Davis v. Scott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079 Davis v. Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1127 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:26] PGT: TCR xx TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page Davis v. Union National Bank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065 Davis v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1017,1028,1087,1088,1090 Dawkins v. Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1027 Dawson v. U. S. District Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1070 Day; Lockett v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1098 Day; McKenzie v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1104 Day v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1028 Dean v. Baker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118 Dean v. Redner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066 Dean v. Whitley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1040 DeBardeleben v. U. S. District Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1037 DeGrijze v. Schwartz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033 Dehainaut v. Pena . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1050 Dehler v. Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1028 De la Rosa v. Government of Virgin Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1074 Delaware; Coleman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1068 Delaye v. Agripac, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1037 Del Crane Medical Corp. v. California Dept. of Health Services . . 1015 Delo; Foster v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1075,1104 Delo; Griffin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119 Delo; McCall v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1052 De Luca v. United Nations Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1051,1135 Del Valle Villegas v. Coughlin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119 Del Vecchio v. Illinois Dept. of Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1037,1123 Demosthenes; Cacoperdo v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1026 Denver v. Concrete Works of Colo., Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1004 Department of Agriculture; Cole v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1107 Department of Air Force; Sherwin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1096 Department of Army; Boal v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1116 Department of Health and Human Services; Gibbs v. . . . . . . . . . . 1025 Department of Labor; Cahill v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1104 Department of Labor; Champion v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1127 Department of Navy; Green v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119 Department of State; Grybos v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1050 Department of Treasury; Etheridge v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1098 Department of Veterans Affairs; Kell v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1064 Department of Veterans Affairs; Rattler v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1006 DePluzer v. Winnetka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1127 DeTella; Carter v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1083 Deutsche Bank AG; Juels v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1010 Devier v. Thomas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078,1105,1124 DeVoll v. Burdick Painting, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1027 Devoll v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067 Devon v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1135 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:26] PGT: TCR TABLE OF CASES REPORTED xxi Page Dewese v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1043 DeYoung v. Galati . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1116 DeYoung v. O'Neil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1116 DeYoung v. Pinal County Sheriff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1040 Diaz-Arenas v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1133 Dickinson, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1106 Dickinson; Mears Transportation Group, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1109 Dillbeck v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1022 Dime Savings Bank; Mack v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1116 Director, OWCP v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. 122 Director of penal or correctional institution. See name or title of director. Discipio, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1002,1105 Distefano v. Donovan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1128 District Court. See U. S. District Court. District Court of Colo., 11th Judicial Dist.; Gray v. . . . . . . . . . . . 1084 District Court of N. M., Second Judicial Dist.; McKenna v. . . . . . 1018 District Judge. See U. S. District Judge. Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Dept. of Business Regulation of Fla.; Tampa Crown Distributors, Inc. v. . . . . . . . 1083 Dix v. Love . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1006 Dixon v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1102 D. Katz & Sons, Inc.; Davidson Bros., Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1064 Dodd; Cross v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1120 Dodd v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1132 Doe v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1044 Dolan; Glendora v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1098 Dolores-Rodriguez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1073 Domovich; Ferguson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1024 Donovan; Distefano v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1128 Dota v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1052 Dothan Police Dept.; King v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1114 Douglas v. Alaska Dept. of Revenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1112 Douglas v. First Security Federal Savings Bank . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1128 Douglas v. Weyerhaeuser Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1039 Douglas County Comm'n; Baez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011 Doward v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1074 Dowling; Bray v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1052 Doyle, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1061 Dragovich; Mays v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1132 Drexel Burnham Lambert; Greene v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012 Drug Emporium, Inc. v. Parfums Givenchy, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1004 Duberstein; Glendora v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1041 Duenas v. Shalala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1051 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:26] PGT: TCR xxii TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page Dufresne v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1036 Dukes v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1005 Dunbar v. Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1131 Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.; Farron v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011 Duncan v. Henry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032 Dunn v. Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1099 Dunn v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1042 Duong v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079 Duplantis; Mississippi v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1123 Duplessis v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1055 Dupree; Lamar County Bd. of Ed. and Trustees v. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1059 Dupree; Moore v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1059 Duquesne Light Co. v. Claus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067 Duran v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1135 Durden v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1075 Dutton; Kirk v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1129 Dyal; Shows v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1053 E. v. Illinois Dept. of Mental Health and Dev. Disabilities . . . . . . 1107 Eagle Thunder v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1076 Earls v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1085 Early v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1075 East v. West One Bank, Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078 Eastlack v. Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118 Echavarria-Olarte v. Reno . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1090 Eckert v. Eckert's Estate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1099 Eckert's Estate; Eckert v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1099 Edgar; Smith v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1115 Edgerton v. General Casualty Co. of Wis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1017 Edmond v. Newman Whitney . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1037 Edmonds v. Oxford House, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 725 Edwards; Anderson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Edwards; Celotex Corp. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300 Edwards v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1093 Eichelberger v. Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1050 Eisenberg v. Bassler-Harsch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1051 Eisenstein v. Eisenstein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1125 Elem; Purkett v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 765 Eller & Co.; Hiram Walker & Sons, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1018,1081 Elliott v. Lynn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1117 Ellison; Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1096 El Paso County Sheriff's Dept.; Johnson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1097 Elrod v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030 Elzy v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1112 Englefield, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1014,1092 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:26] PGT: TCR TABLE OF CASES REPORTED xxiii Page Englefield v. George . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1039,1124 Englert, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1062 Enterprise VI v. Boone Fiscal Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1096 Erickson v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1107 Erpenbeck Commercial Enterprises, Inc. v. Boone Fiscal Court . 1096 Escobar v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1073 Esposito v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1133 Estate. See name of estate. Estrada; United States v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1102 Esty v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1027 Etemad v. California Dept. of Water Resources Control Bd. . . . . 1006 Etheridge v. Department of Treasury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1098 Evans, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1060 Evans; Arizona v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Evans v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1028,1087 Evans, Inc. v. Spierer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1083 Everett v. Continental Bank, N. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1018 Ezzone v. Hansen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1108 Fairchild v. Norris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078 Fairchild v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1122 Fair Political Practices Comm'n; Griset v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1083 Falcon v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1088 Fanny v. Levy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033 Farm Credit Bank of Tex.; Moity v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1025,1124 Farmland Industries, Inc.; Paul v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1017 Farron v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011 Faulkner; Fulton Corp. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1062 Faulkner v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1076 FBT Bancshares, Inc. v. Mutual Fire, Marine & Inland Ins. Co. . . 1111 Federal Bureau of Investigation, F. O. I. A. Section; Latshaw v. . 1099 FCC; California v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1050 FCC; Florida Cellular Mobil Communications Corp. v. . . . . . . . . . 1016 FCC; Matias v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1004 FCC; New York v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1050 Federal Deposit Ins. Corp.; OPS Shopping Center, Inc. v. . . . . . . 1080 Federal Trade Comm'n; Pantron I Corp. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1083 Federico v. Yukins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1038 Fei, Ltd. v. Olympia & York Battery Park Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1051 Fei, Ltd. v. WFC Tower A Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1051 Felix-Montas v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1121 Fellman v. Poole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1006 Fenelon v. U. S. Postal Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1114 Ferguson v. Domovich . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1024 Ferguson v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1009,1100 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:26] PGT: TCR xxiv TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page Fernandez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1019 Fidelity & Casualty Co. of N. Y. v. Sampsell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1063 Fiedler; Garrity v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1044 Field v. Mans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1095 Field v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1088 Fields v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1022 Fields v. Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079 Fields; Petrick v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118 Fierro v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1051 Finocchi v. Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1027 First American National Bank of St. Cloud, N. A.; Radloff v. . . . . 1017 First American Title Ins. Co.; Naegele v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1050 First Fidelity Bank, N. A.; Hudson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1108 First Interstate Services Co.; Shong-Ching Tong v. . . . . . . . . . . . 1036 First Options Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 938 First Security Federal Savings Bank; Douglas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1128 First Worthing Management; Davis v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1054 Fisher v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118 Fisher v. Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1084 Flakes, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079 Flamingo Realty, Inc.; Midwest Development, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . 1127 Flathead County; Buhr v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1110 Fleming Foods of Ala., Inc. v. Alabama Dept. of Revenue . . . . . . 1063 Florence Nightingale Nursing Service, Inc. v. Blue Cross of Ala. 1128 Flores-Lomeli v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1076 Florez-Borrero v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1102 Florida; Armstrong v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1085 Florida; Banks v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1070 Florida; Brown v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1006,1117 Florida; Dillbeck v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1022 Florida; Esty v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1027 Florida; Freeman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1117 Florida; Garcia v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1085 Florida; Gilbreath v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1112 Florida; Griffin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1005 Florida; Lightbourne v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1038 Florida; Pittman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119 Florida; Porter v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1092 Florida; Reilly v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1071 Florida; Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1125 Florida; Suggs v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1083 Florida; Villareal v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1021 Florida; Wuornos v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1069,1070 Florida; Wyatt v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1023,1119 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:26] PGT: TCR TABLE OF CASES REPORTED xxv Page Florida Bar; Friedman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1070 Florida Bar; Glant v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1086 Florida Cellular Mobil Communications Corp. v. FCC . . . . . . . . . 1016 Florida Parole Comm'n; Campbell v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1094 Flowers v. Traughber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1115 Flye v. Rocketts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1116 Flynn v. Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030 Footman v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1016 Forbes v. Arkansas Ed. Television Comm'n Network Foundation 1110 Ford; Hardiman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1026 Ford v. Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1114 Ford v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031,1133 Forrest City Police Dept.; Tilson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1004 Forsberg; Tonn v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1095 Foster v. Delo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1075,1104 Foster v. Freeman United Coal Mining Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035 Foster v. Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1019,1123 Foster v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1090,1121 Foster; Wagshal v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1004 Fowler v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1051 Fox v. Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1005 Frank v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1010 Frankum, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1061 Free v. Peters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1034 Freeman v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1117 Freeman v. Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100 Freeman v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1043 Freeman United Coal Mining Co.; Foster v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035 Freightliner Corp. v. Myrick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280 Frias v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1052 Friedman v. Florida Bar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1070 Fritch v. Calallen Independent School Dist. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1084 Fritz v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1059 Frusher v. Baskin-Robbins Ice Cream Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1114 F. Schumacher & Co. v. Alvord-Polk, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1063 Fudge v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1021,1124 Fuentes v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1133 Fulford v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1074 Fuller; Richmond v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1017 Fuller v. Schaefer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1048 Fuller v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1028 Fulton Corp. v. Faulkner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1062 Fun 'N Sun RV, Inc. v. Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1127 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:26] PGT: TCR xxvi TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page Gable v. Sweetheart Cup Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1057 Galati; DeYoung v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1116 Gallegos-Corrales v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1074 Galligan v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1135 Galloway v. Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1039 Galo Yanez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1121 Gamble v. Terry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119 Gannett Co.; Glendora v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1054 Gant v. Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1038 Garcia v. Bunnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1024 Garcia v. Chicago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1003 Garcia v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1085 Garcia v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1005,1021 Garcia v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1027,1067,1073,1120,1133 Gardner; Jackson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1085 Gardner v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1044,1131,1136 Garey v. Oh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1068 Garmon v. Alabama State Bar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1018 Garner v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1020 Garrett v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1132,1134 Garrity v. Fiedler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1044 Gary v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1132 Garza v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1097 Gaston v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1122 Gatov v. River Bank America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1055 Gavilanes v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1043 Gaydos, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1062 Gaylord; BP Chemicals (HITCO), Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1004 Geiger v. Scott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1115 Gellert v. U. S. District Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1048 General Casualty Co. of Wis.; Edgerton v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1017 General Motors Corp.; Hartnagel v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1096 General Motors Corp.; Kaliardos v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1110 General Telephone Co. of Cal.; McKenzie v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066 Genstar Stone Products Co. v. Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1111 George; Engelfield v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1039 George; Englefield v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1124 Georgescu v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030 Georgia; Black v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1021 Georgia; Hatcher v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1038 Georgia; Hittson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1129 Georgia Bd. of Pardons and Paroles; Mosier v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1040 Getty; Harris v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100 Gibbs v. Department of Health and Human Services . . . . . . . . . . 1025 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:26] PGT: TCR TABLE OF CASES REPORTED xxvii Page Gibbs v. Oklahoma Dept. of Rehabilitation Services . . . . . . . . 1025,1040 Gibson v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1071 Giddings v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1008 Gil v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100,1101,1133 Gilbert; Smith v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1112 Gilbreath v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1112 Gilbreath v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1073 Gilchrist v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1028 Giles; Turner v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1108 Gille v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1063 Gillis; Simione v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1006 Gilmore v. Gregg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1010 Gilmore v. New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1039 Givens v. Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1055 Glant v. Florida Bar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1086 Glass, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1126 Gleason v. Welborn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1109 Glendora v. Dolan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1098 Glendora v. Duberstein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1041 Glendora v. Gannett Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1054 Godaire v. Ulrich . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1057 Goeke v. Branch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Goepel; Mail Handlers v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1063 Goepel; Mail Handlers Benefits Plan v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1063 Goering v. Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1110 Golden v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1076 Goldman v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1007 Goldston v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1042 Gomez; Hines v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1115 Gomez; Huston v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1099 Gomez v. Oregon State Bd. of Parole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1021 Gomez; Thomas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1054 Gomez; Wheeler v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1114 Gomez; Wilkes v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1052 Gonzales v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1074 Gonzalez v. Singletary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1070 Gonzalez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1044,1091,1132 Gonzalez-Diaz v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1073 Gonzalez-Rincon v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1008 Goodman; Spiegel v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1109 Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.; Snead v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1096 Gordon v. President Container, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1051 Goss; Michigan v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077 Goudy v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1121 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:26] PGT: TCR xxviii TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page Gouiran, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1125 Government of Israel; Morritz v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1057 Government of Virgin Islands; De la Rosa v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1074 Government of Virgin Islands; James v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1074 Governor of Colo.; Sharrock v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1026,1124 Governor of Ill.; Smith v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1115 Governor of Md.; Fuller v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1048 Governor of N. Y. v. Travelers Ins. Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 645 Gracey v. Reigle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1094 Grajales v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030 Grajeda v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1088 Gramley; Williams v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011 Grande Grajeda v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1088 Granite Shoals; Williams v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1003 Grant v. Calderon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118 Grant; Sluys v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1005 Granviel v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1022 Gray v. District Court of Colo., 11th Judicial Dist. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1084 Gray v. Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1042 Grayer v. Hargett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118 Grayson; Revello v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1098 Greco, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1062 Green; Anderson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1034 Green v. Department of Navy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119 Green; Kanoivicki v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1135 Green v. Peters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1068 Green v. Simpson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1038 Green v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1009,1089,1092,1122 Greene v. Drexel Burnham Lambert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012 Greene v. McFadden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1022 Greene v. Podberesky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1128 Greenspan v. Shalala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1120 Gregg; Gilmore v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1010 Gregory v. Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1025 Greider v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1029 Gresham v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1028 Griffin v. Delo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119 Griffin v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1005 Griffin v. L. K. Comstock & Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118 Griffith; Summers v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065 Griffiths v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1056 Griggs v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1042 Grigsby v. Anesthesiologists of Southwestern Ohio, Inc. . . . . . . . 1039 Griset v. Fair Political Practices Comm'n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1083 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:27] PGT: TCR TABLE OF CASES REPORTED xxix Page Grissom v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1076 Groce v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1133 Groessel v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1009 Groose; Adams v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1084 Groose; Clark v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1018 Grossman; Connelly v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033 Groth v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1121 Grube v. Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1098 Grybos v. Department of State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1050 GTEL; McKenzie v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066 Guernsey Memorial Hospital; Shalala v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Guest v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1043 Guidry; Sheet Metal Workers v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1063 Guidry v. Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund . . . . . . . 1063 Guillory v. Whitley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1099 Guinn v. Hoecker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118 Guion v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1041 Gulbranson; Burley v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1098 Gutierrez; California v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1049 Haas v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1129 Habecker; Clark Equipment Co. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1003 Habie v. Krischer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1129 Haburn v. Sharp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1113 Haddad; Peterson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1054,1136 Hager v. Largent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1128 Hairston v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1028 Half-Day v. Perot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1072 Hall v. Automobile Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1010 Hall v. Missouri Dept. of Corrections and Human Resources . . . . 1131 Hall v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030,1076,1103 Halls v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1076 Hamilton; Maxie v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1133 Hammond v. Scott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1097 Hammonds v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1091 Hamons v. McKune . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118 Hamrol v. San Francisco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1110 Hands v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1089 Handy, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1013,1125 Hanley v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1133 Hanoum v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1068 Hansen; Ezzone v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1108 Hansen; Judd v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1057 Hanson, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1059 Hardiman v. Ford . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1026 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:27] PGT: TCR xxx TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page Hardin v. Bowlen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1122 Hardin v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1027 Hardison; Kelch v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1036 Hargett; Grayer v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118 Harjo v. Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1131 Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. Minstar, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1036 Harleysville Life Ins. Co. v. Mardell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1034 Harmon; Jose v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1123 Harper v. Hatcher Trailer Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1022,1124 Harper v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1020 Harper Trucks, Inc.; Camp v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1004 Harps v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1074 Harris v. Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078 Harris v. Belcher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1054 Harris v. Getty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100 Harris v. Lawler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1024 Harris v. North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100 Harris v. Richardson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1057 Harris v. Rocha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1024 Harris v. 7232 Pleasant View Drive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033 Harris v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1088,1101,1112 Harris v. White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078 Harrison v. Burkett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1040 Hartnagel v. General Motors Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1096 Harvard Univ.; Linehan v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1092 Hatcher; Crawford v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1098 Hatcher v. Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1038 Hatcher Trailer Park; Harper v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1022,1124 Hatfield v. Rees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1039 Hauert v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1095 Hawkins v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1132 Hays; Louisiana v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1002 Hays; United States v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1002 Hazel v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1015,1087 Hearn v. Wellington Leasing Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1001,1055 Heartland Hospital East; Willman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1018 Hedges v. Resolution Trust Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1082 Hedrick; McCarthy v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100 Heffley v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1076 Heimer; Wright v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1096 Heintz v. Jenkins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291 Hemstree; Carrio v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1057 Henderson v. Murray . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1130 Henderson v. Nevada Entertainment Industries, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . 1057 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:27] PGT: TCR TABLE OF CASES REPORTED xxxi Page Henderson v. Oregon Dept. of Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1018 Henglein; Colt Industries Operating Corp. Informal Plan for Plant Shutdown Benefits for Salaried Employees v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1036 Hennessey v. Blalack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1050,1135 Henry; Duncan v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032 Hensley v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1086 Henson v. Myers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1130 Herald; Hood v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1018 Herbert; Alexander v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067 Hercules Inc. v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1049 Herkenhoff, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1060 Hernandez v. Badger Construction Equipment Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065 Hernandez v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1085 Hernandez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1088 Hernandez-Gomez; Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1094 Hernandez-Renteria v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1019 Hernando Narvaez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1087 Herndon Marine Products, Inc.; Liberty Seafood, Inc. v. . . . . . . . 1109 Herring v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1134 Herron, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1014 Hess v. Lander College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012 Hess v. Lander Univ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012 Hetherington, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1106 Hicks v. Scott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1088 Hicks v. Thomas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1020 Higgins; Cluke v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1027 Higgins v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031 High, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1002,1080 High Street Associates; Zisk v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078 Hili v. Hili . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1114 Hill; Bryant v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 779 Hill v. Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1026,1071 Hill v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1029,1079 Hillard v. Whitley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1084 Hills v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1041 Hillsborough County Sheriff's Dept.; Beadle v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1128 Hills & Dales General Hospital; Johnson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066 Hillstrom v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1028 Hines v. Burt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1098 Hines v. Gomez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1115 Hines v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030 Hiram Walker & Sons, Inc. v. Eller & Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1018,1081 Hiser v. Bowling Green . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1120 Hittson v. Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1129 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:27] PGT: TCR xxxii TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page Hobart; Morris v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1109 Hobbins v. Kelley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1083 Hoecker; Guinn v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118 Hoenig v. Scott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1007 Hogan v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1008 Hogg v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1091 Holland v. Willie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1038 Hollerauer; Warren v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1098 Hollingsworth, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1062 Holman; Strauss v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1026 Holmes v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1056 Holmes Regional Medical Center, Inc.; Bryan v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1019 Holmquist v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1084 Holston v. U. S. District Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1024 Hood v. Herald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1018 Hood; Kidd v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1099 Hooks v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100 Hoover v. National Transportation Safety Bd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1018 Hopkins v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1135 Horan; Stow v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1069 Horn v. Seacatcher Fisheries, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1048 Horn; Zettlemoyer v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1104 Horn's Poultry, Inc. v. Norwest Transportation, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . 1004 Hospital Assn. of N. Y. v. Travelers Ins. Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 645 Hotze, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012 Houston v. Cleveland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1085 Houston Independent School Dist.; Brown v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1128 Howard v. Crystal Cruises, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1084 Howard v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1028,1029 Howe; Varity Corp. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1082 Howell v. Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1113 Howell v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1090 Huang Shao Ming v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1056 Hubbard v. Lowe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100 Hubbard v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 695 Hudson v. First Fidelity Bank, N. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1108 Hufnagel v. Medical Bd. of Cal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1063 Huggins v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1008 Hughes v. Southworth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1086 Hughes v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1112 Hukarevic v. Menominee County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1039 Hummer v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033 Humphreys, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012 Hunter v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1073 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:27] PGT: TCR TABLE OF CASES REPORTED xxxiii Page Hunziker v. Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1003 Hurley, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1036 Hurley v. Irish-Am. Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group of Boston 1003,1061 Hurt; Pace v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1098 Hurtado v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1085 Huston v. Gomez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1099 Hwan Mun v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077 Hyde; Reynoldsville Casket Co. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 749 Hyde Park Medical Laboratory, Inc. v. Court of Claims of Ill. . . . 1037 Hyman; Nesbitt v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1116 Ibarra-Martinez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1085 IBJ Schroder Bank & Trust Co. v. Resolution Trust Corp. . . . . . 1014 Idaho; Grube v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1098 Idaho; Loomis v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1022 Igartua v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1049 Ilic v. Liquid Air Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1064 Illinois; Almendarez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1006 Illinois; Booth v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1053 Illinois; Daniels v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1099 Illinois; Erickson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1107 Illinois; Gibson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1071 Illinois; Johnson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1130 Illinois; Kokoraleis v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1005 Illinois; Palmer v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1086 Illinois; Ryan v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1064 Illinois; Thompkins v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1038 Illinois; T. S. Books, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1096 Illinois Dept. of Corrections; Del Vecchio v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1037,1123 Illinois Dept. of Mental Health and Dev. Disabilities; C. E. v. . . . . 1107 Illinois Dept. of Revenue; Baker v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1004 Immanuel v. Barry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065 Immigration and Naturalization Service; Iwuala v. . . . . . . . . . . . 1103 Immigration and Naturalization Service; Omuso v. . . . . . . . . . . . 1023 Immigration and Naturalization Service; Stone v. . . . . . . . . . . . . 386 Immigration and Naturalization Service; Summerfield v. . . . . . . . 1050 Independence v. Rinehart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1096 Indiana; Powers v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1039 Indiana; Ritchey v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1022 Indiana; Wallace v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1115 Indiana County Transit Authority; Mikkilineni v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1069 Industrial Comm'n of Ill.; Zavala v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1039,1124 Ingle v. North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1020 Ingram v. Ault . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1058 Ingram v. Thomas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1058,1059 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:27] PGT: TCR xxxiv TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page In re. See name of party. Interactive Network, Inc.; NTN Communications, Inc. v. . . . . . . . 1127 Inter-City Mfg. Co.; Serben v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1037 IRS; West Virginia State Dept. of Tax and Revenue v. . . . . . . . . 1082 International. For labor union, see name of trade. Iowa; Hunziker v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1003 Iowa; Rojas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119 Iparraguirre v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1050 Irish-Am. Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group of Boston; Hurley v. 1003,1061 Irwin; Pudder v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1054 Isenburg v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1044 Israel, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1002 Israel; Morritz v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1057 Iwuala v. Immigration and Naturalization Service . . . . . . . . . . . . 1103 J. v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1068 Jabe; Cross v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1127 Jabe; Turner v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1017,1136 Jackson v. Borg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118 Jackson v. Gardner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1085 Jackson v. Norris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1057 Jackson v. Rochester Housing Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079 Jackson v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1005,1031,1067,1076,1121,1123 Jackson v. U. S. District Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1021 Jackson Public School Dist.; McCullum v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1070 Jacob v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1019 Jacobs v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1101 Jacobson Products Co.; Qualitex Co. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 James v. Carmichael . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1115 James v. Government of Virgin Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1074 James v. McBride . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1026 James v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1028,1056,1077 James v. Whitley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1024,1069 James E. Holmes Regional Medical Center; Bryan v. . . . . . . . . . . 1019 Janigan; Sidor v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1084 Jaramillo v. New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1117 Jaramillo v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1134 Jarvis v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1113 Jeffers v. Lewis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1071 Jefferson Lines, Inc.; Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. . . . . . . . . . . . . 175,1135 Jenkins; Heintz v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291 Jenkins v. Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118 Jensen v. Brokaw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078 Jensen; Sipco, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1050 Jensen v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1101 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:27] PGT: TCR TABLE OF CASES REPORTED xxxv Page Jensen v. Wrolstad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118 Jermyn v. Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1080 Jobe v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1131 Johnson; Abrams v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1002,1013,1061 Johnson v. Blalock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1022 Johnson; Borromeo v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079 Johnson; Cochran v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1026 Johnson v. Dallas Independent School Dist. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1017 Johnson v. El Paso County Sheriff's Dept. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1097 Johnson v. Hills & Dales General Hospital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066 Johnson v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1130 Johnson v. Johnson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1007 Johnson v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1013 Johnson v. Kamminga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1023 Johnson; Miller v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1002,1013,1061 Johnson; Phillips Petroleum Co. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1092 Johnson v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012,1031,1041,1055,1073,1121 Johnson; United States v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1002,1013,1061 Johnson v. U. S. District Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1053 Johnson v. Wilkinson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1071 Johnson Controls, Inc., Systems & Services Division v. Plumbers 1107 Johnston v. CIGNA Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1082 Joiner v. Wisdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1117 Jones v. Baker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1092 Jones; Bradvica v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1010 Jones; Johnson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1013 Jones v. Lanham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1054 Jones; McCaleb v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1006 Jones v. Sandahl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1025 Jones v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067 Jones v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1010,1028,1031,1067 Jones; Weeks v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078,1104 Jones v. White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1053 Jones; Young v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1054 Jordan; Workman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1015 Jose v. Harmon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1123 Jose v. United Engineers & Constructors, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1123 Judd, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1071 Judd v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms . . . . . . . . . . . . 1022 Judd v. Hansen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1057 Judd v. Nurnberg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1054 Judd v. Peck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1116 Judge, Circuit Court of Ill., Cook County; Jackson v. . . . . . . . . . . 1085 Judge, Circuit Court of Md., Harford County; Litzenberg v. . . . . . 1085 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:27] PGT: TCR xxxvi TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page Judge, Circuit Court of W. Va., Fayette County; Crawford v. . . . . 1098 Judge, District Court of Tex., Harris County; Lovall v. . . . . . . . . 1024 Judge, Superior Court of Ariz., Maricopa County; DeYoung v. . . . 1116 Judge, Superior Court of Ariz., Pinal County; DeYoung v. . . . . . . 1116 Juels v. Deutsche Bank AG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1010 Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.; Comer v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1110 Kaliardos v. General Motors Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1110 Kallas v. Chicago Bd. of Ed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1059 Kamal v. Brown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1072 Kamin v. T. L. C. Services, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1004 Kamminga; Johnson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1023 Kanoivicki v. Green . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1135 Kansas; Fields v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079 Kansas; Jenkins v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118 Kansas v. Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 673 Kansas City; Bronfman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078 Kaplan; First Options Chicago, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 938 Katz & Sons, Inc.; Davidson Bros., Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1064 Kay & Associates, Inc.; Weeks v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1120 Kay Automotive Distributors, Inc.; Kidd v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1053 Kaylor v. Dall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1108 Keane; Lloyd v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1023 Keane; Soto v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1097 Kearns v. Chrysler Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032 Kearns; Chrysler Corp. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032 Keeler v. Mauney . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1068 Keeley v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1090 Keith v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030 Kelch v. Hardison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1036 Kell v. Department of Veterans Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1064 Kelley; Hobbins v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1083 Kelley; Longnecker v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067 Kelly; Quinones v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1022 Kelly v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030 Kendall v. Kendall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079 Kennewick; Becker v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078 Kent, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1060 Kentucky; Bussell v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079 Kentucky; Warren v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1109 Kernan; Scott v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1115 Kevorkian v. Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1083 Keystone Chapter Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Secretary of Labor and Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032 Khan v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1089 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:27] PGT: TCR TABLE OF CASES REPORTED xxxvii Page Kiczenski v. LeCureux . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1025 Kidd v. Hood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1099 Kidd v. Kay Automotive Distributors, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1053 Kidder, Peabody & Co. v. Cooperativa de Ahorro y Credito Aguada 1082 Kikumura v. Turner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1005,1078 Kim v. Villalobos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1098 Kimberlin v. Quinlan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1049 Kimelman; Miranda Ortiz v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1040 Kinchen v. Shalala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1131 King v. Brown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078 King v. Cooke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1023 King v. Dothan Police Dept. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1114 King v. Young . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032 King Associates; Maxberry v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1115 Kings County Hospital; Roberts v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1083 Kirchner; Baby Richard v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1094 Kirk v. Dutton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1129 Kirkpatrick v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1015 Kirwan v. Podberesky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1128 Kitsos, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1081 Kleve v. Board of Green Township Trustees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1048 Klopp v. Avco Lycoming Textron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1057 Klvana, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035 Koff v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1008 Kokoraleis v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1005 Kopp v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1076 Korean Air Lines Co. v. Zicherman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1062 Korean Air Lines Co.; Zicherman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1062 Kosinski v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1090 Kramer v. University of Pittsburgh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079 Krese v. Overton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1069 Krischer; Habie v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1129 Kukes v. U. S. District Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118 Kukla, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012 Kurinsky v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1082 Kviatkovsky v. Temple Univ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1049,1113 Kwok v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1113 Kyle; Creel v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1070 Kyles v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1044 Kyles v. Whitley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419 Kyung Hwan Mun v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077 Labor Union. See name of trade. Lac du Flambeau Band, Lake Super. Chippewa Indians; Crist v. 1096 Lackey v. Scott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1093 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:27] PGT: TCR xxxviii TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page Lackey v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1001,1045 LaFleur v. Pennsylvania State Police . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033 Lake v. New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1117 LaMantia; Crawford v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032,1124 Lamar County Bd. of Ed. and Trustees v. Dupree . . . . . . . . . . . . 1059 Lambert v. Maass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1040 Lambert v. Pasquotank County Dept. of Social Services . . . . . . . 1025 Lambros v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1069 Lampkins v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1055 Lancaster v. Presley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1026 Landau v. Love . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1136 Lande v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1122 Lander College; Hess v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012 Lander Univ.; Hess v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012 Lane v. Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1058 Lane v. Universal City Studios, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1007,1092 Langford v. Nagle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1069 Langley v. Burton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1087 Lanham; Jones v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1054 Lanham v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030 Lara v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1087 Lardell v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1007 Largent; Hager v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1128 LaRose; Schorn v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1099 Lasover; Weinstein v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1022,1124 Latham v. Lawhon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1068 Latine v. Mann . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1006 Latshaw v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, F. O. I. A. Section . . 1099 Lavold v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1039 Law, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1062 Lawhon; Latham v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1068 Lawler; Harris v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1024 Layne v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077 Layton v. Whitley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1112 Lebaron v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1087 Leber; Buckeye Union Life Ins. Co. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1111 LeCureux; Kiczenski v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1025 Ledesma-Castillo v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1019 Lee v. Coahoma County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066 Lee v. Murphy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1007 Lee v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1073,1086 Lee County; Reahard v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1064 LeFevre; Sims v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1023 Legal Economic Evaluations, Inc. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. . . 1044 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:27] PGT: TCR TABLE OF CASES REPORTED xxxix Page Leggett v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1044 Lemon v. Martin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1134 Lenox Hill Hospital v. Manocherian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1109 Lentz v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1132 Leonardo; Davis v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1072 Lepiscopo v. Thomas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1025 Leslie v. Leslie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1112 Leslie v. Raney . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1036 Levine v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1015 Levy; Fanny v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033 Lewis; Bost v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1114 Lewis v. Casey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1126 Lewis; Jeffers v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1071 Lewis v. Scott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1069 Lewis v. Webb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1128 Leyh; McFarland v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1128 Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.; Transcraft Corp. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1123 Liberty Seafood, Inc. v. Herndon Marine Products, Inc. . . . . . . . . 1109 Libretti v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035,1095 Lightbourne v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1038 Lightfoot v. Nagle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1026 Linares v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1020 Linehan v. Harvard Univ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1092 Linton v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1019 Liquid Air Corp.; Ilic v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1064 Liskiewicz v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030 Litmon v. Ylst . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1130 Litzenberg, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1106 Litzenberg v. Carr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1085 Litzenberger v. Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1037 Livingston v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1121,1129 Living Will Center v. NBC Subsidiary (KCNC­TV), Inc. . . . . . . . 1015 L. K. Comstock & Co.; Griffin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118 Lloyd v. Keane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1023 Lloyd v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1009 Loaiza v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1122 Local. For labor union, see name of trade. Lockett v. Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1098 Loeb v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1135 Lohm v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1075 Lombardi; Young v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1115 Lombardo v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1029 Long v. Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1068 Long v. Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1087 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:27] PGT: TCR xl TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page Longnecker v. Kelley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067 Longo v. Zilich . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1036 Longo; Zilich v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1036 Longshoremen; Minetti v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1085 Loomis v. Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1022 Lopez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1092 Lopez; United States v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 549 Lopez-DeLaRosa v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1020 Louisiana; Barnes v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1027 Louisiana v. Hays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1002 Louisiana; McLemore v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1116 Louisiana v. Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1002 Louisiana; Thomas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1054 Louisiana Dept. of Transp. and Dev.; McMillion Dozer Service v. 1108 Lovall v. Bianchi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1024 Lovall v. Park Plaza Hospital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1025 Love; Dix v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1006 Love; Landau v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1136 Love; Paige v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1021 Lovett v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1091 Lowe; Hubbard v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100 Loza v. Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1120 Lozano v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1076 Lozano-Ceron v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1044 Lucien v. Page . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1130 Lufthansa German Airlines; Allstate Ins. Co. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1036 Luis Colon v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1120 Lujan Garcia v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1120 Luna v. Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1116 Lundy v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1091 Lutz v. Navistar International Transportation Corp. . . . . . . . . . . 1108 Luzanilla v. Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1039 Lynn; Elliott v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1117 Lyon, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1034 M. v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065 M. v. Mental Hygiene Legal Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1130 M. v. San Diego County Dept. of Social Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1120 Maass; Bollinger v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1040 Maass; Lambert v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1040 MacDonald; Newbern v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1057 Mack v. Dime Savings Bank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1116 Madden v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1094 Maddox, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1060 Maddox v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1042 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:27] PGT: TCR TABLE OF CASES REPORTED xli Page Madrigal v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1089 Maes v. Thomas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1115 Maguire v. Maguire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1059 Mail Handlers v. Goepel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1063 Mail Handlers Benefits Plan v. Goepel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1063 Maiolo, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1061 Malcolm v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1135 Mallett, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1106 Malone Freight Lines, Inc.; St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. . . . 1110 Maloy v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1043 Malpass v. Boulder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1127 Mandanici v. Monroe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1003 Mangano; Sassower v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1109 Maniace v. Commerce Bank of Kansas City, N. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1111 Mann v. Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1048 Mann; Latine v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1006 Mann v. Scott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1117 Manno v. New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1037 Manocherian; Lenox Hill Hospital v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1109 Manocherian; New York v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1109 Mans; Field v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1095 Manuel Romero v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1088 Mardell; Harleysville Life Ins. Co. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1034 Marder v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1056 Markling v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1010 Marks v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067 Marlene B. v. California Dept. of Children's Services . . . . . . . . . . 1040 Maro Leather Co.; Aerolineas Argentinas S. A. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1108 Marsh v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1073 Marshall v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077 Martin v. Bank of Floyd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1096 Martin v. Bristol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1084 Martin; Lemon v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1134 Martin v. McKune . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1053 Martin v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1043,1067 Martin v. Wilks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065 Martinez-Cigarroa v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1029 Martinez-Herrera v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1009 Maryland; Baker v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1040 Maryland; Genstar Stone Products Co. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1111 Maryland; Givens v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1055 Maryland Mass Transit Administration; Bowman v. . . . . . . . . . . . 1055 Marzullo v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1008,1044 Mason, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1059 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:27] PGT: TCR xlii TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page Mason v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1131 Mason v. Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1089 Mason v. Superior Court of Cal., Los Angeles County . . . . . . . . . 1053 Mason v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1042,1087,1100,1134 Mass v. Carlsbad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033 Masterson v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1068 Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Mata; McQueen v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1022 Mathis v. Velsicol Chemical Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1051 Matias v. Federal Communications Comm'n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1004 Mattioli v. Tunkhannock Township . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1064 Maturana v. Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1080,1134 Mauney; Keeler v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1068 Maxberry v. Daniel P. King Associates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1115 Maxie v. Hamilton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1133 May Department Stores Co.; Chesebrough-Pond's USA Co. v. . . . 1078 May Department Stores Co.; Conopco, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078 Mayor of District of Columbia; Immanuel v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065 Mayor of Garfield Heights v. Zilich . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1036 Mayor of Garfield Heights; Zilich v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1036 Mays v. Dragovich . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1132 Mays v. Scott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1057 Mays v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1058 Mazer, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1080 McBride; James v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1026 McBride v. Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1084 McCabe v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1101 McCaleb v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1006 McCall v. Delo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1052 McCalla v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1112 McCann v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1007,1103 McCarthy v. Hedrick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100 McCarthy v. Reno . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100 McCauley v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1101 McCollum v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1087 McCormack v. Runyon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1053 McCoy v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1041,1092 McCrae v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1088 McCright v. Borg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1020 McCullum v. Jackson Public School Dist. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1070 McCune v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1135 McDade v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1003 McDile v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1091 McDonald v. Polk County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1025,1103 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:27] PGT: TCR TABLE OF CASES REPORTED xliii Page McDonald v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1007,1049 McDonnell; Toski v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1014 McEldowney v. National Conference of Bar Examiners . . . . . . . . 1051 McEntee; Allen v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1083 McFadden; Greene v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1022 McFarland v. Leyh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1128 McGahee v. Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078 McGee, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1048 McGee v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1009,1043 McGeorge Camping Center; Woodson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1126 McGrath v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1133 McIntyre; Caspari v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077 McIntyre; Murray v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1051,1135 McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334 McKenna v. District Court of N. M., Second Judicial Dist. . . . . . . 1018 McKenzie v. Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1104 McKenzie v. General Telephone Co. of Cal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066 McKenzie v. GTEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066 McKenzie v. Weer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033 McKune; Hamons v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118 McKune; Martin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1053 McLemore v. Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1116 McLymont v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077 McMillion Dozer Service v. Louisiana Dept. of Transp. and Dev. . 1108 McNack v. Runyon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1023 McNair v. Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078 McNatt v. Coleman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1131 McNeil v. Vaughn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1116 McQuade v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1121 McQueen v. Mata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1022 McQueen v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1120 McRaven v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1056 McReynolds v. Commissioner, Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1091 Mead Corp. v. Beazer East, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065 Mears Transportation Group, Inc. v. Dickinson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1109 Medical Bd. of Cal.; Hufnagel v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1063 Medina Puerta v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1084 Meese; Williams v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1103 Melton; Nickens v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1025 Mendoza v. Scott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033 Menominee County; Hukarevic v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1039 Mental Hygiene Legal Service; Wilbur M. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1130 Merino v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1086 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:27] PGT: TCR xliv TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page Merkel; Seagle v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1023 Merrill Reese, Inc.; Whitaker v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 Mervis v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067 Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.; Legal Economic Evaluations, Inc. v. . . 1044 Metropolitan Stevedore Co. v. Rambo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1014 Metropolitan Transit Authority; Williams v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1006 Metzger v. West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1017 Michael v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1091 Michigan v. Banks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1102 Michigan; Fun 'N Sun RV, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1127 Michigan v. Goss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077 Michigan; Kevorkian v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1083 Midland Central Appraisal Dist. v. Midland Industrial Serv. Corp. 1016 Midland Industrial Serv. Corp.; Midland Central Appraisal Dist. v. 1016 Midwest Bank & Trust Co.; Bank One Chicago, N. A. v. . . . . . . . 1034 Midwest Development, Inc. v. Flamingo Realty, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . 1127 Mihaly v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1129 Mikkilineni v. Indiana County Transit Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1069 Miley v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1056 Miller v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1099 Miller v. Johnson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1002,1013,1061 Mills v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1112 Milone; Sinicropi v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1059 Mines v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012,1117 Minetti v. Longshoremen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1085 Ming v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1056 Minnesota; Petrick v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1131 Minstar, Inc.; Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1036 Miranda Ortiz v. Kimelman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1040 Miron Construction Co. v. Operating Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1096 Mississippi v. Duplantis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1123 Mississippi; Foster v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1019,1123 Mississippi; Louisiana v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1002 Missouri; Gray v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1042 Missouri; Hill v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1026,1071 Missouri; Parker v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1098 Missouri; Reuscher v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119 Missouri; Smith v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119 Missouri Bd. of Probation and Parole; Thompson v. . . . . . . . . . . . 1113 Missouri Dept. of Corrections and Human Resources; Hall v. . . . . 1131 Mrs. Baird's Bakeries, Inc.; Spencer v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1108 Mitchell, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012,1125 Mitchell v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1027,1029 Mizkun v. Widnall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:27] PGT: TCR TABLE OF CASES REPORTED xlv Page Mobley v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1129 Moity v. Farm Credit Bank of Tex. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1025,1124 Mondie v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1133 Monroe; Mandanici v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1003 Montana Sulphur & Chemical Co. v. Reich . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1015 Montenegro-Pedrozo v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1044 Montgomery v. Taylor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1116 Montgomery v. Thurman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1117 Montoya v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1042 Moore v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1001,1072 Moore v. Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1017 Moore v. Dupree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1059 Moore v. Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1010 Moore v. Perrill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1076 Moore v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1042,1102,1121 Morales; California Dept. of Corrections v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 499 Morales v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1019 Morales-Garcia v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1088 Morales-Mendoza v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1052 Morejon v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100 Moreno v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1132 Moreno-Argueta v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1019 Moretti v. New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066 Morgan v. Swint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1003 Morris v. Hobart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1109 Morris v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1114 Morritz v. Government of Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1057 Morrow v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1045 Morse v. Republican Party of Va. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1049 Mortenson v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1008 Morton; Rose v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1008 Moseley v. North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1091 Mosier v. Georgia Bd. of Pardons and Paroles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1040 Mosley v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1133 Mother Frances Hospital of Tyler; Shalala v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011 Motion Picture Pension Plan; Roberts v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1120 Mottola v. Ayeni . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1062 Mounts v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1020 M. R. v. Cox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1019 Multnomah County; Stanwood v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1071 Mun v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077 Municipal Court of Cal., Ventura County; Alonso v. . . . . . . . . . . . 1033 Munna; Carlisle v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1017 Munoz v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1076 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:27] PGT: TCR xlvi TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page Murphy; Beauchamp v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1019 Murphy; Lee v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1007 Murray; Ayers v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1069 Murray; Brown v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1131 Murray; Clay v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1053 Murray; Henderson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1130 Murray v. McIntyre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1051,1135 Muse v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1101 Musgrave v. Welborn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1103 Mutual Fire, Marine & Inland Ins. Co.; FBT Bancshares, Inc. v. . 1111 Myers; Ashworth v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1131 Myers; Henson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1130 Myrick; Freightliner Corp. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280 Naegele v. First American Title Ins. Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1050 Nagel; Williams v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1064 Nagle; Langford v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1069 Nagle; Lightfoot v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1026 Nakamura v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1107 Nanny Cay Enterprises, Ltd. v. Barclays Bank PLC . . . . . . . . . . 1111 Narvaez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1087 Nash v. Nixon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1055 NBC Subsidiary (KCNC­TV), Inc.; Living Will Center v. . . . . . . 1015 National Conference of Bar Examiners; McEldowney v. . . . . . . . . 1051 National Decorating Products Assn., Inc. v. Alvord-Polk, Inc. . . . 1063 NLRB; Northeast Utilities Service Corp. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1015 NLRB; Salaried Employees Assn. of Baltimore Division, Federa- tion of Independent Salaried Unions v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1037 National Railway Labor Conf. v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn. 1032 National RX Services; Cooper v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1103 National Transportation Safety Bd.; Hoover v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1018 Navistar International Transportation Corp.; Lutz v. . . . . . . . . . . 1108 Naylor v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1135 Neal v. Brown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1127 Nebraska; Goering v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1110 Neelley v. Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1005 Nelson v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031 Nesbitt v. Hyman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1116 Nevada; Lane v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1058 Nevada; O'Connor v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1021 Nevada; Paine v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1038 Nevada; Riley v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1052 Nevada Entertainment Industries, Inc.; Henderson v. . . . . . . . . . 1057 Nevcherlian v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1010 Newbern v. MacDonald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1057 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:27] PGT: TCR TABLE OF CASES REPORTED xlvii Page New Brighton; Brayton v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1036 New Jersey; Moretti v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066 New Jersey v. New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1013,1125 New Jersey; Rinier v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1016 Newman; Slater v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1055 Newman Whitney; Edmond v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1037 New Mexico; Jaramillo v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1117 New Mexico; Texas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1095 New Mexico Taxation & Revenue Dept.; Blaze Construction Co. v. 1016 Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co.; Director, OWCP v. 122 New York v. Federal Communications Comm'n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1050 New York; Gilmore v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1039 New York; Lake v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1117 New York; Manno v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1037 New York v. Manocherian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1109 New York; New Jersey v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1013,1125 New York; Rodrick v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1040 New York; Taveras v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1073 New York City Dept. of Consumer Affairs; Skeet v. . . . . . . . . . . . 1098 New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 645 Ngo v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1113 Nichols & Associates Tryon Properties; United Capitol Ins. Co. v. 1016 Nickens v. Melton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1025 Nidorf; Anderson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035 Niece v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1129 Nilsen v. Borg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1083 Nipper v. Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1083 Nixon; Nash v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1055 Nnanyererugo v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1113 Nodd v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1090 Noel v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1073 Noland; Patterson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1026 Noonan; Strauss v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1071 NorAm Energy Corp. v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035 Norma M. v. San Diego County Dept. of Social Services . . . . . . . 1120 Norris; Fairchild v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078 Norris; Jackson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1057 Norris; Peeples v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1115 Norris; Prater v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119 Norris; Snell v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079 Norris; Teas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1087 Norris; Willett v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1052 North Carolina; Carroll v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1006 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:27] PGT: TCR xlviii TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page North Carolina; Harris v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100 North Carolina; Ingle v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1020 North Carolina; Moseley v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1091 North Carolina; Payne v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1038 North Carolina; Price v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1021,1124 North Carolina; Reeves v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1114 North Carolina; Ward v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1134 North Carolina; Watson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1071 North Carolina Dept. of Agriculture v. Parker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067 North Dakota State Fair Assn.; Bolinske v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1004 Northeast Utilities Service Corp. v. NLRB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1015 Northern Mariana Islands; Condino v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1021 North Georgia Electric Membership Corp. v. Calhoun . . . . . . . . . 1109 Northington v. Circuit Court of Mich., Monroe County . . . . . . . . 1099 Northington v. Court of Appeals of Mich. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1006 North Plainfield; Wakefield v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1022 North Star Steel Co. v. Thomas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1014 Northwest Airlines, Inc.; Lambros v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1069 Norwest Transportation, Inc.; Horn's Poultry, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . 1004 Nottingham v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1091 Nova Biomedical Corp. v. Rice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1111 NTN Communications, Inc. v. Interactive Network, Inc. . . . . . . . 1127 Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n; Young v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1068 Nurnberg; Judd v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1054 Nutter; Alabama v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1080 Nyenekor v. Boston . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1038 NYSA­ILA Medical and Clinical Services Fund; Chassin v. . . . . 1094 Oakwood; Chiavola v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078 O'Bryan v. Volkswagen of America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032 Ochoa v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1029 Ochoa-Arango v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1042 O'Connor v. Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1021 O'Connor v. Rehabilitation Support Services, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1111 Oden; Aysisayh v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1116 Odom v. Carr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118 Odom v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1041 Office of Hearings and App., Social Security Admin.; Whittlesey v. 1063 Ogden v. San Juan County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1048 Oh; Garey v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1068 O'Hara v. San Diego County Dept. of Social Services . . . . . . . 1014,1097 Ohio; Carter v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1010 Ohio; Crawley v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1127 Ohio; Dehler v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1028 Ohio; Dunn v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1099 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:27] PGT: TCR TABLE OF CASES REPORTED xlix Page Ohio; Luna v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1116 Ohio; Mason v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1089 Ohio; Sandford v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1099 Ohio; Trinidad Loza v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1120 Ohio; Van Hook v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1099 Ohio; Webb v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1023 Ohio Dept. of Mental Health; Scarnati v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1109 Ohio Elections Comm'n; McIntyre v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334 Oji, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1001 Okiyama v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1008 Oklahoma; Castro v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1024 Oklahoma; Crow v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1098,1117 Oklahoma; Dawkins v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1027 Oklahoma; Fox v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1005 Oklahoma; Harjo v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1131 Oklahoma; Howell v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1113 Oklahoma; Long v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1068 Oklahoma; Phillips v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1020 Oklahoma Dept. of Rehabilitation Services; Gibbs v. . . . . . . . 1025,1040 Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Chickasaw Nation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1013 Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Jefferson Lines, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175,1135 Okoro v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1027 Olinde v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Ins. Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1116 Oliver v. Shalala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1038 Olson; Coronel v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1071 Olson; Rawlins v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033 Olympia & York Battery Park Co.; Fei, Ltd. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1051 Omuso v. Immigration and Naturalization Service . . . . . . . . . . . . 1023 O'Neil; DeYoung v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1116 O'Neill v. Philadelphia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1015 Operating Engineers; Miron Construction Co. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1096 OPS Shopping Center, Inc. v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. . . . . . . . 1080 Oregon; Abbott v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1086 Oregon; Bouscher v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1023 Oregon; Cunningham v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1005 Oregon; Long v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1087 Oregon Dept. of Agriculture; Henderson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1018 Oregon State Bd. of Parole; Gomez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1021 O'Rourke v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1090 Ortega v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1089 Ortiz v. Kimelman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1040 Ortiz v. Singletary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1026 Ortiz v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1076 Ortiz-Espinosa v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1075 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:27] PGT: TCR l TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page Ortloff v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1090 Osteen v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1097 Otchere, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1049 Ovalle-Marquez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1007 Overstreet v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1113 Overton; Krese v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1069 Oxford House, Inc.; Edmonds v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 725 Pace v. Hurt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1098 Pacific Rivers Council; Thomas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1082 Padillow v. Champion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1070 Page; Davis v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1105 Page; Lucien v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1130 Paige v. Love . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1021 Paine v. Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1038 Pajaro-Racero v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1120 Palmer v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1086 Palmer v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1087 Panis v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1087 Pantron I Corp. v. Federal Trade Comm'n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1083 Paperworkers v. Briggs & Stratton Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1126 Pardue v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1113 Parfums Givenchy, Inc.; Drug Emporium, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1004 Paris v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1090 Parker v. Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1098 Parker; North Carolina Dept. of Agriculture v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067 Parker v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1041 Park Plaza Hospital; Lovall v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1025 Parks; Freeman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100 Parlin v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1043 Parris v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1120 Parrish; Berry v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1064 Pasquotank County Dept. of Social Services; Lambert v. . . . . . . . 1025 Pataki v. Travelers Ins. Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 645 Patterson v. Noland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1026 Patterson v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1101,1113 Paul v. Farmland Industries, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1017 Payne v. North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1038 Peacock v. Thomas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1126 Pearson v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1008 Peck; Judd v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1116 Peeples v. Norris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1115 Peet v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1055 Peevy v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1005 Pelletier; Behrens v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035,1106 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:27] PGT: TCR TABLE OF CASES REPORTED li Page Pels, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1105 Pena; Dehainaut v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1050 Pena; Reshard v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078 Pena v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1009 Pena-Carrillo v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1122 Pennsylvania; Alonzo v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1134 Pennsylvania; Carter v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1005 Pennsylvania; Davis v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1117 Pennsylvania; Fisher v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1084 Pennsylvania; Ford v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1114 Pennsylvania; Galloway v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1039 Pennsylvania; Jermyn v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1080 Pennsylvania; Litzenberger v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1037 Pennsylvania; Moore v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1010 Pennsylvania; Smith v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1085 Pennsylvania; Swank v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1133 Pennsylvania; Thomas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1134 Pennsylvania; Wiles v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1075 Pennsylvania Dept. of Revenue; Verrichia v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1016 Pennsylvania Secretary of Labor and Industry; Keystone Chapter Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032 Pennsylvania State Police; Cazeau v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033 Pennsylvania State Police; LaFleur v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033 Perez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1028,1043 Perez-Ramos v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1120 Perkins v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1102 Perot; Half-Day v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1072 Perrill; Moore v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1076 Perry v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1135 Pesek v. Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1069 Peters; Campos v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1024 Peters; Daniel v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1024 Peters; Free v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1034 Peters; Green v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1068 Peterson v. Haddad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1054,1136 Petrarca; Things Remembered, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1095 Petrick v. Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118 Petrick v. Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1131 Petrus v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1097 Petrykievicz v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1072 Philadelphia; O'Neill v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1015 Phillips v. Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1020 Phillips; Rocky Mountain Hospital & Medical Service v. . . . . . . . 1048 Phillips v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1003,1088 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:27] PGT: TCR lii TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page Phillips Petroleum Co.; Babbitt v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1092 Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Johnson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1092 Pierce v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division . 1107 Pierce County; Bouscher v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1023 Pierceton Trucking Co.; Shea v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1007,1124 Pifer; Smith v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1110 Pina v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1052 Pinal County Sheriff; DeYoung v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1040 Pita v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1042 Pittman v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119 Pizzo v. Whitley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011,1057 Plant v. Vought Aircraft Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066 Plantation Landing Resort, Inc. v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1095 Plant Guard Workers; White v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1025 Platero v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1041 Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 Plumbers; Johnson Controls, Inc., Systems & Services Division v. 1107 Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 490 Severance and Retirement Fund v. Appleton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1018 Ply v. Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1001 Podberesky; Greene v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1128 Podberesky; Kirwan v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1128 Poe v. Caspari . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1024 Poindexter v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1132 Pokaski; Camoscio v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1019 Polansky, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1105 Polk County; McDonald v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1025,1103 Pollard v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1029,1041 Ponseti; Stroik v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1064 Poole; Fellman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1006 Pope v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1029 Porter v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1092 Porter; Singletary v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1048 Posada v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1007 Postmaster General; McCormack v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1053 Postmaster General; McNack v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1023 Postmaster General; Price v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1114 Postmaster General; Waters v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1068 Postmaster General; Weeden v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078 Potts, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1106 Powers v. Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1039 Prater v. Norris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119 President Container, Inc.; Gordon v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1051 Presley; Lancaster v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1026 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:27] PGT: TCR TABLE OF CASES REPORTED liii Page Prevetire v. Weyher/Livsey Constructors, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1063 Price v. North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1021,1124 Price; Ramirez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1053 Price; Rocha v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1120 Price v. Runyon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1114 Price v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1023 Price v. Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1114 Prieto-Arauza v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1020 Pri-Har v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1052 Pritzker, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1081 Pritzker; Yari v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1108 Propst v. Bitzer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1036 Providence College; Bina v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1038 Provine, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1080 Pruitt; Smithson-Bey v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1041 Prytz v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1003 Public Service Co. of N. H.; Rochman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1108 Public Utility Dist. No. 1 of Pend Oreille County v. United States 1015 Pudder v. Irwin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1054 Puerta v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1084 Purgason v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1052 Purkett v. Elem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 765 Quadrangle Development Corp.; Rothberg v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1027 Quaid, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1080,1105 Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 Qualls v. Regional Transportation Dist. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1010,1123 Quetgles; Columbus v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1083 Quinlan; Kimberlin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1049 Quinones v. Kelly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1022 Quiroz v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1027 Radio WTOP; Amiri v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1116 Radloff v. First American National Bank of St. Cloud, N. A. . . . . 1017 Rahman v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1101 Railway Labor Executives' Assn.; Burlington Northern R. Co. v. 1032 Railway Labor Executives' Assn.; National Railway Labor Conf. v. 1032 Raitport, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1126 Raitport v. American Telephone & Telegraph . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032,1103 Rambo; Metropolitan Stevedore Co. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1014 Ramdass v. Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1085 Ramey v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1103 Ramirez v. Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1053 Ramirez-Frias v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1074 Ramos v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1052,1134 Randall v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1107 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:27] PGT: TCR liv TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page Randolph v. Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066 Raney; Leslie v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1036 Raney; Shelton v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1007 Rasberry; Thompson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1021 Ratliff v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067 Rattler v. Department of Veterans Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1006 Ravetti's Estate v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1019 Ravetti's Estate v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1005 Rawlings v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1055 Rawlins v. Olson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033 Reahard v. Lee County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1064 Recile v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1097 Rector v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1056 Redmond v. Schockweiler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1070 Redner; Dean v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066 Reed v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1029,1089 Reese; Hatfield v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1039 Reese, Inc.; Whitaker v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 Reeves v. North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1114 Reeves v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1009 Regents of Univ. of Cal.; Schwemberger v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1029 Regional Transportation Dist.; Qualls v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1010,1123 Rehabilitation Support Services, Inc.; O'Connor v. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1111 Reich; Montana Sulphur & Chemical Co. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1015 Reich v. Spellman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1064 Reich; Tri-State Steel Construction Co. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1015 Reigle; Gracey v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1094 Reilly v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1071 Relic; Searles v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033 Rella v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1084 Rendon v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1133 Reno; Adult Video Assn. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1112 Reno; Echavarria-Olarte v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1090 Reno; McCarthy v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100 Republican Party of Va.; Morse v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1049 Reshard v. Pena . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078 Resolution Trust Corp.; Hedges v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1082 Resolution Trust Corp.; IBJ Schroder Bank & Trust Co. v. . . . . . 1014 Reuscher v. Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119 Revell; Sanders v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1039,1124 Revello v. Grayson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1098 Reynolds; Traylor v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1053 Reynoldsville Casket Co. v. Hyde . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 749 Rhode Island; 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1095 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:27] PGT: TCR TABLE OF CASES REPORTED lv Page Rhode Island Hospital Trust; Amaral v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1055 Rice; Adams v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1022 Rice; Nova Biomedical Corp. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1111 Richardson; Akins v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1044 Richardson; Harris v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1057 Richmond v. Fuller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1017 Ricketts v. Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1103 Ricks; Smith v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035 Riddle v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1068 Ridings v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011 Riggs v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065 Rigsby v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1134 Riley v. Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1052 Riley; Taylor v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1093 Rinehart; Independence v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1096 Rinier v. New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1016 Risbeck v. Bond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1110 Ritchey v. Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1022 Rivera v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1134 Rivera-Garcia v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1074 Rivera-Lopez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1072 Rivera-Urena v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1073 River Bank America; Gatov v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1055 Robaina-Gonzalez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100 Roberts v. Kings County Hospital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1083 Roberts v. Motion Picture Pension Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1120 Roberts v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1043 Robertson v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1090 Robertson; United States v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 669 Robinson v. Sylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1023 Robinson v. Synthetic Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1054 Robinson v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1041,1062,1091,1125 Robinson v. Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1117 Robinson; Wheel v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066 Robles v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1043 Rocha; Harris v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1024 Rocha v. Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1120 Rochester Housing Authority; Jackson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079 Rochman v. Public Service Co. of N. H. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1108 Rocketts; Flye v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1116 Rocky Mountain Hospital & Medical Service v. Phillips . . . . . . . . 1048 Rodrick v. New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1040 Rodriguez v. Cuevas Cuevas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1051 Rodriguez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1029 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:27] PGT: TCR lvi TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page Rodriguez-Esquivel v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1020 Rodriguez Mendoza v. Scott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033 Rodriguez-Quinones v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1101 Rogers, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078,1107 Rogers v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1072 Rojas v. Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119 Rokke v. Rokke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1059 Roland v. Stalder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1115 Romer; Sharrock v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1026,1124 Romero v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1087,1088 Roque Romero v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1087 Rosales v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1089 Rose v. Morton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1008 Rose v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1075 Rothberg v. Quadrangle Development Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1027 Rowe v. Texas Rehabilitation Comm'n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1026 Rubin, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1013,1105 Rubin; Brookman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1063 Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 476 Rubin; White v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1050 Rudolph v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1086 Ruffin; Camp v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1004 Ruffin v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1074 Ruiz v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1051 Ruiz-Alvarez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1019 Rung Tsang v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031 Runyon; McCormack v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1053 Runyon; McNack v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1023 Runyon; Price v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1114 Runyon; Waters v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1068 Runyon; Weeden v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078 Russell v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1089,1090 Russell v. Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1129 Rutledge, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1013 Ryan v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1064 Ryan v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1082 Sacks, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1059 St. Francis Medical Center v. Shalala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1016 St. Hill v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1074 St. Jude Hospital of Kenner, La., Inc. v. Travelers Ins. Co. . . . . . 1065 St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Malone Freight Lines, Inc. . . . . 1110 Sakai v. Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065 Salaried Employees Assn. of Baltimore Division, Federation of Independent Salaried Unions v. NLRB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1037 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:27] PGT: TCR TABLE OF CASES REPORTED lvii Page Salazar v. Singletary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1069 Salazar v. Whink Products Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1004 Salkind v. Chaplin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1083 Salkind v. Superior Court of Cal., Los Angeles County . . . . . . . . 1083 Salvas v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1056 Samarco, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1105 Samel v. Abramajtys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1026 Samoiliw v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1087 Sampang v. Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1027 Sampsell; Fidelity & Casualty Co. of N. Y. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1063 Sams v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1087 Sanchez v. Scott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1069 Sanchez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1038 Sanchez-Montoya v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1019 Sandahl; Jones v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1025 Sanders v. Revell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1039,1124 Sanders v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1007,1008,1041,1132 Sandford v. Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1099 San Diego County Dept. of Social Services; Norma M. v. . . . . . . . 1120 San Diego County Dept. of Social Services; O'Hara v. . . . . . . 1014,1097 Sands v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032 San Francisco; Hamrol v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1110 San Juan County; Ogden v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1048 Santana v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1072 Santana-Madera v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1073 Sassower v. Mangano . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1109 Savinski v. Wisconsin Dept. of Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1025 Scarnati v. Ohio Dept. of Mental Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1109 Schaefer; Fuller v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1048 Schaffer v. Bevevino . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1010 Schockweiler; Redmond v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1070 Schoonejongen; Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Schorn v. LaRose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1099 Schreyer v. Tattersall, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079 Schriro; Atkins v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1040 Schumacher & Co. v. Alvord-Polk, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1063 Schwartz; DeGrijze v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033 Schwartz v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1076 Schwemberger v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1029 Scindia Steam Navigation Co.; Riggs v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065 Scott; Allridge v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1108 Scott; Armstead v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1071 Scott; Boyd v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1111 Scott; Coleman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1072 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:27] PGT: TCR lviii TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page Scott; Cooper v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1070 Scott; Davis v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079 Scott; Geiger v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1115 Scott; Hammond v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1097 Scott; Hicks v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1088 Scott; Hoenig v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1007 Scott v. Kernan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1115 Scott; Lackey v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1093 Scott; Lewis v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1069 Scott; Mann v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1117 Scott; Mays v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1057 Scott; Rodriguez Mendoza v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033 Scott; Sanchez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1069 Scott; Sorens v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1022 Scott; Templin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1068 Seacatcher Fisheries, Inc.; Horn v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1048 Seagle v. Merkel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1023 Sealy, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1106 Searles v. Relic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033 Sears, Roebuck & Co.; Baker v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065 Seaton v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1133 Sebring v. Wayne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1127 Secretary of Air Force; Mizkun v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011 Secretary of Air Force; Smith v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1005 Secretary of Ed.; Taylor v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1093 Secretary of HHS; Duenas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1051 Secretary of HHS; Greenspan v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1120 Secretary of HHS v. Guernsey Memorial Hospital . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Secretary of HHS; Kinchen v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1131 Secretary of HHS v. Mother Frances Hospital of Tyler . . . . . . . . 1011 Secretary of HHS; Oliver v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1038 Secretary of HHS; St. Francis Medical Center v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1016 Secretary of HHS; Spragens v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035 Secretary of HHS; Tsimbidaros v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1041 Secretary of HHS v. Whitecotton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268,1049 Secretary of Interior; Atlantic Richfield Co. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1092 Secretary of Interior v. Phillips Petroleum Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1092 Secretary of Labor; Montana Sulphur & Chemical Co. v. . . . . . . . 1015 Secretary of Labor; Tri-State Steel Construction Co. v. . . . . . . . . 1015 Secretary of Navy; Voge v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1016 Secretary of Revenue of N. C.; Fulton Corp. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1062 Secretary of State of Fla.; Nipper v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1083 Secretary of State of Md.; Center for Auto Safety Inc. v. . . . . . . . 1036 Secretary of Transportation; Dehainaut v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1050 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:27] PGT: TCR TABLE OF CASES REPORTED lix Page Secretary of Transportation; Reshard v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078 Secretary of Treasury; Brookman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1063 Secretary of Treasury v. Coors Brewing Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 476 Secretary of Treasury; White v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1050 Secretary of Veterans Affairs; Arensberg v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1006 Secretary of Veterans Affairs; Curry v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119 Securities and Exchange Comm'n; Bilzerian v. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011,1094 Seinfeld; Abbott Laboratories v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1126 Selsky v. Young . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1102 Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1125 Senior v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1073 Senkowski; Walker v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1026 Serben v. Inter-City Mfg. Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1037 7232 Pleasant View Drive; Harris v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033 Sexton v. Twinsburg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1017 Shalala; Duenas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1051 Shalala; Greenspan v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1120 Shalala v. Guernsey Memorial Hospital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Shalala; Kinchen v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1131 Shalala v. Mother Frances Hospital of Tyler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011 Shalala; Oliver v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1038 Shalala; St. Francis Medical Center v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1016 Shalala; Spragens v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035 Shalala; Tsimbidaros v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1041 Shalala v. Whitecotton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268,1049 Shao Ming v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1056 Sharp v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1130 Sharp v. Connelly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1017 Sharp; Haburn v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1113 Sharp v. Sharp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1017 Sharrock v. Romer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1026,1124 Shea v. Pierceton Trucking Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1007,1124 Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc.; Mastrobuono v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Sheet Metal Workers v. Guidry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1063 Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund; Guidry v. . . . . . . . 1063 Shelton v. Raney . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1007 Shelton v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1042 Sherrod v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1005 Sherwin v. Department of Air Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1096 Shilaos; Young v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1053 Shokai, Inc. v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1062 Shong-Ching Tong v. First Interstate Services Co. . . . . . . . . . . . 1036 Shores v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1019 Shows v. Dyal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1053 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:27] PGT: TCR lx TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page Shreve, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1060 Sias v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1009 Sidor v. Janigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1084 Siegel; Brown v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079 Sigmon v. Bishop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1023 Simione v. Gillis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1006 Simmons; BDO Seidman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079 Simmons; Continental Ins. Co. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079 Simms v. Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118 Simone, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1105 Simpson; Green v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1038 Simpson v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1043 Sims v. LeFevre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1023 Sims v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1042,1089 Singer v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1068 Singletary; Calamia v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1124 Singletary; Christian v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1021 Singletary; Coleman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1086 Singletary; Gonzalez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1070 Singletary; Ortiz v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1026 Singletary v. Porter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1048 Singletary; Salazar v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1069 Singletary; Ve v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1039 Singletary; White v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1131 Singleton; Bolt v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1105 Sinicropi v. Milone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1059 Sipco, Inc. v. Jensen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1050 Skeet v. New York City Dept. of Consumer Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . 1098 Skinner, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012 Slater v. Newman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1055 Sloan v. Amherst County Dept. of Social Services . . . . . . . . . . . . 1130 Sluys v. Grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1005 Smith, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1106 Smith; Abedi v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1069 Smith v. Board of Regents, Univ. of Houston System . . . . . . . . . . 1111 Smith; Byrd v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1112 Smith v. Edgar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1115 Smith; Eichelberger v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1050 Smith v. Gilbert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1112 Smith v. Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119 Smith; Nipper v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1083 Smith v. Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1085 Smith v. Pifer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1110 Smith v. Ricks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:27] PGT: TCR TABLE OF CASES REPORTED lxi Page Smith; Sakai v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065 Smith; Simms v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118 Smith v. Stratus Computer, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1108 Smith v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1112 Smith v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1072,1086,1113,1114,1132 Smith v. Widnall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1005 Smithson-Bey v. Pruitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1041 Snavely, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1106 Snead v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1096 Snead v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1127 Sneed v. Brooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1129 Snell v. Norris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079 Society Expeditions, Inc.; Chan v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1004 Sokolowski; Bailey v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1071 Solimine, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1062 Solimine v. U. S. District Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012 Solis v. Circle K Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1098 Sorens v. Scott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1022 Soto v. Keane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1097 Soto v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1074 Soun v. Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1057 Southview Farm v. Concerned Area Residents for Environment 1082 Southwest Flagler Associates, Ltd.; Walsh v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1123 Southworth; Hughes v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1086 Spada; Cramer v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1055 Spellman; Reich v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1064 Spencer v. Mrs. Baird's Bakeries, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1108 Spendthrift Farm, Inc.; Plaut v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 Spiegel v. Goodman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1109 Spierer; Evans, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1083 Spitz; Wilson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1027 Spivak, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1060 Spragens v. Shalala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035 Stadler; Roland v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1115 Stafford v. Ward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1099 Staley v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1020 Stanton v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1009 Stanwood v. Multnomah County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1071 State. See name of State. State Bar of Ga.; Bishop v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079 State Farm Fire & Casualty Ins. Co.; Olinde v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1116 Stauffer v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1089 Steele v. Chicago Police Dept. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1023 Steelworkers; Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1014 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:27] PGT: TCR lxii TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page Stern, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1061 Steutermann, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1105 Stevens; Swain v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066 Stith v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1097 Stone v. Immigration and Naturalization Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386 Stonum v. CCH Computax Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1064 Storm v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1084 Stow v. Horan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1069 Stratus Computer, Inc.; Smith v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1108 Strauss v. Holman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1026 Strauss v. Noonan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1071 Strobridge v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1076 Stroik v. Ponseti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1064 Strumpf; Citizens Bank of Md. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035,1125 Suggs v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1083 Summerfield v. Immigration and Naturalization Service . . . . . . . 1050 Summers v. Griffith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065 Summit Coffee Co.; Anheuser-Busch Cos. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1001 Sun City Taxpayers' Assn. v. Citizens Utilities Co. . . . . . . . . . . . 1064 Superintendent of Ins. of Me.; American Republic Ins. Co. v. . . . . 1035 Superintendent of penal or correctional institution. See name or title of superintendent. Superior Court of Cal., Los Angeles County; Mason v. . . . . . . . . . 1053 Superior Court of Cal., Los Angeles County; Salkind v. . . . . . . . . 1083 Superior Court of Cal., San Francisco County; Whitaker v. . . . . . 208 Sustaita v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1042 Sutton v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1069 Sutton v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031,1072 Swain v. Stevens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066 Swank v. Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1133 Swann v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1007 Sweetheart Cup Co.; Gable v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1057 Swint v. Chambers County Comm'n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Swint; Morgan v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1003 Sword v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1117 Sydnor, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1059 Sylvania; Robinson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1023 Synthetic Products; Robinson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1054 Sysco Corp. v. Tone Brothers, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1015 Szabo; Burke v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1024 Tahoe Sierra Preservation Council; California v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1036 Tai Tan Duong v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079 Talley v. Walker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1131 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:27] PGT: TCR TABLE OF CASES REPORTED lxiii Page Tampa Crown Distributors, Inc. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Dept. of Business Regulation of Fla. . . . . . . . . . . 1083 Tan Duong v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079 Tattersall, Inc.; Schreyer v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079 Taveras v. New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1073 Taylor; Montgomery v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1116 Taylor v. Riley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1093 Taylor v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1132 Teas v. Norris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1087 Temple Univ.; Kviatkovsky v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1049,1113 Templin v. Scott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1068 Tennessee; Randolph v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066 Territory. See name of Territory. Terry; Gamble v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119 Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc.; Davis v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1127 Texas; Alexander v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1127 Texas; Barraza v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1097 Texas; Brewer v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1020 Texas; Burdine v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1057 Texas; Casey v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1020 Texas; Garcia v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1005 Texas; Granviel v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1022 Texas; Hernandez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1085 Texas; Hughes v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1112 Texas; Jones v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067 Texas; Lackey v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1001,1045 Texas; Mays v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1058 Texas; McQueen v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1120 Texas; Mines v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012,1117 Texas; Morris v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1114 Texas v. New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1095 Texas; Riddle v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1068 Texas; Smith v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1112 Texas; Staley v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1020 Texas; Torres Garcia v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1021 Texas v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1034 Texas v. Ysleta del Sur Pueblo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1016 Texas; Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1016 Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division; Pierce v. 1107 Texas Rehabilitation Comm'n; Rowe v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1026 Thibodo v. Board of Trustees of Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern Cal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1017 Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1095 Thomas; Devier v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078,1105,1124 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:27] PGT: TCR lxiv TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page Thomas v. Gomez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1054 Thomas; Hicks v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1020 Thomas; Ingram v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1058,1059 Thomas; Lepiscopo v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1025 Thomas v. Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1054 Thomas; Maes v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1115 Thomas; North Star Steel Co. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1014 Thomas v. Pacific Rivers Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1082 Thomas; Peacock v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1126 Thomas v. Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1134 Thomas v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1074,1085 Thomas; Vargas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1040,1092 Thomas v. Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1072 Thomas M. v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065 Thompkins v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1038 Thompson v. Alexander . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1130 Thompson v. Boggs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1063 Thompson v. Missouri Bd. of Probation and Parole . . . . . . . . . . . 1113 Thompson v. Rasberry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1021 Thompson v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031,1088 Thornton; U. S. Term Limits, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 779 Thurlow v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1121 Thurman; Montgomery v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1117 Tillman v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067 Tilson v. Forrest City Police Dept. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1004 Timmerman v. Utah State Tax Comm'n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1072 Tinari, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1059 T. L. C. Services, Inc.; Kamin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1004 Todd; Conrad v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1022 Tone Brothers, Inc.; Sysco Corp. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1015 Tong v. First Interstate Services Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1036 Tonn v. Forsberg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078 Toro-Nino v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1010 Torres Garcia v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1021 Toski v. McDonnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1014 Tous Rodriguez v. Cuevas Cuevas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1051 Town. See name of town. Tracy v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1074 Transcraft Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1123 Traughber; Flowers v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1115 Travelers Ins. Co.; Hospital Assn. of N. Y. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 645 Travelers Ins. Co.; N. Y. Conference of Blue Cross Plans v. . . . . . 645 Travelers Ins. Co.; Pataki v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 645 Travelers Ins. Co.; St. Jude Hospital of Kenner, La., Inc. v. . . . . . 1065 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:27] PGT: TCR TABLE OF CASES REPORTED lxv Page Traylor v. Reynolds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1053 Treasury Employees; United States v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1002 Tremelling v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1122 Trice, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1014,1103 TriEnda Corp.; Cadillac Products, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1110 Trinidad Loza v. Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1120 Triplett v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066 Tri-State Steel Construction Co. v. Reich . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1015 Trout; Bulette v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065 Trupiano v. Captain Gus & Brothers, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1096 Tsang v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031 T. S. Books, Inc. v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1096 Tschuor v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1092 Tsimbidaros v. Shalala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1041 Tucker v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1049 Tudor Associates, Ltd., II; AJ & AJ Servicing, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . 1107 Tufaro v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1122 Tunkhannock Township; Mattioli v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1064 Turcks v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1074 Turner v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1068 Turner v. Giles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1108 Turner v. Jabe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1017,1136 Turner; Kikumura v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1005,1078 Turner v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1041 Tutiven v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031 Twinsburg; Sexton v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1017 Tyrell J. v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1068 Uboh, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1014 Uboh v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1086 Ukpabia v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1101 Ullyses-Salazar v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1020 Ulrich; Godaire v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1057 Umana v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1042 Underwood v. Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1064 Union. For labor union, see name of trade. Union National Bank; Davis v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065 United. For labor union, see name of trade. United Capitol Ins. Co. v. Nichols & Associates Tryon Properties 1016 United Engineers & Constructors, Inc.; Jose v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1123 United Nations Organization; De Luca v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1051,1135 United States. See name of other party. United States Aviation Underwriters, Inc.; Crocker v. . . . . . . . . . 1129 U. S. District Court; Dawson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1070 U. S. District Court; DeBardeleben v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1037 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:27] PGT: TCR lxvi TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page U. S. District Court; Gellert v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1048 U. S. District Court; Holston v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1024 U. S. District Court; Jackson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1021 U. S. District Court; Johnson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1053 U. S. District Court; Kukes v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118 U. S. District Court; Solimine v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012 U. S. District Judge; Jose v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1123 U. S. District Judge; Judd v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1057 U. S. Parole Comm'n; Brady v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1056 U. S. Postal Service; Fenelon v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1114 U. S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 779 Universal City Studios, Inc.; Lane v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1007,1092 University of Pittsburgh; Kramer v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079 UNUM Life Ins. Co. of America; Snead v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1127 USX Corp. v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1003 Utah State Tax Comm'n; Timmerman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1072 Valdez-Soto v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1113 Valenzuela-Ruiz v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1075 Van Hook v. Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1099 Van Krieken v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1075 Vargas v. Thomas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1040,1092 Vargas-Sandoval v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1044 Varity Corp. v. Howe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1082 Vasquez Moreno v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1132 Vaughn; McNeil v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1116 Ve v. Singletary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1039 Velsicol Chemical Corp.; Mathis v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1051 Verdone, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1081,1106 Verrichia v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Revenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1016 Vial v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1073 Vijendira v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079 Village. See name of village. Villalobos; Kim v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1098 Villareal v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1021 Virginia; Burket v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1053 Virginia; Cardwell v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1097 Virginia; Dunbar v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1131 Virginia; Ramdass v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1085 Virginia; Robinson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1117 Virginia; Sampang v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1027 Virginia; Thomas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1072 Virginia; Wright v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1085 Virgin Islands; De la Rosa v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1074 Virgin Islands; James v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1074 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:27] PGT: TCR TABLE OF CASES REPORTED lxvii Page Visintine, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1081 Voge v. Dalton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1016 Vohra, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1026,1124 Volkswagen of America; O'Bryan v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032 Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Hernandez-Gomez . . . . . . . . . . . . 1094 Voth, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035 Vought Aircraft Co.; Plant v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066 Vrooman v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1132 Wagner, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1061 Wagshal v. Bramon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1096 Wagshal v. Foster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1004 Waite v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1088 Wakefield v. North Plainfield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1022 Waldron v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100 Walker; Bossett v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1054 Walker v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1099 Walker v. Senkowski . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1026 Walker; Talley v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1131 Walker v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100,1122 Walker & Sons, Inc. v. Eller & Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1018,1081 Wallace v. Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1115 Walsh v. Southwest Flagler Associates, Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1123 Walsh v. West Flagler Associates, Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1016 Walter v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1075 Walton v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1091 Wamsley v. Champlin Refining & Chemicals, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1037 Ward v. Cain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1123 Ward v. North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1134 Ward; Stafford v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1099 Ward v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030,1129,1134 Warden. See name of warden. Wardlaw v. Burt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033 Warren; Brown v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119 Warren v. Hollerauer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1098 Warren v. Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1109 Washegesic; Bloomingdale Public Schools v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1095 Washington v. Barger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1102 Washington; Bell v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119 Washington; Gregory v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1025 Washington; Ply v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1001 Washington; Price v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1114 Washington; Russell v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1129 Washington v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1057,1073,1132 Waters v. Runyon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1068 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:27] PGT: TCR lxviii TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page Watson, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1105 Watson v. Balsamo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1130 Watson v. North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1071 Watson v. White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1071 Watters v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100 Wayne; Sebring v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1127 Weaver's Estate; Cadle Co. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1128 Webb; Lewis v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1128 Webb v. Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1023 Weeden v. Runyon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078 Weeks v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078,1104 Weeks v. Kay & Associates, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1120 Weer; McKenzie v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033 Weinstein v. Lasover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1022,1124 Weinstein v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1134 Welborn; Gleason v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1109 Welborn; Musgrave v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1103 Wellington Leasing Co.; Hearn v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1001,1055 Wellman v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077 Wells v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1051,1085,1101 Werner v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1095 Werth v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1129 West; Metzger v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1017 Western Palm Beach County Farm Bureau, Inc. v. United States 1107 West Flagler Associates, Ltd.; Walsh v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1016 Westinghouse Electric Corp.; McCann v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1007,1103 Westler, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1080 West One Bank, Idaho; East v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078 West Virginia State Dept. of Tax and Revenue v. IRS . . . . . . . . . 1082 Weyerhaeuser Co.; Douglas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1039 Weyer/Livsey Constructors, Inc.; Prevetire v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1063 WFC Tower A Co.; Fei, Ltd. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1051 Wheel v. Robinson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066 Wheeler v. Gomez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1114 Wheeler v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1089 Whink Products Co.; Salazar v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1004 Whitaker v. Merrill Reese, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 Whitaker v. Superior Court of Cal., San Francisco County . . . . . 208 White, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012,1106 White; Harris v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078 White; Jones v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1053 White v. Plant Guard Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1025 White v. Rubin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1050 White v. Singletary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1131 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:27] PGT: TCR TABLE OF CASES REPORTED lxix Page White v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1009,1010,1074 White; Watson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1071 Whitecotton; Shalala v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268,1049 Whitehair, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1080 Whitfield, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1106 Whitley; Brown v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118 Whitley; Cutinello v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035 Whitley; Dean v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1040 Whitley; Guillory v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1099 Whitley; Hillard v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1084 Whitley; James v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1024,1069 Whitley; Kyles v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419 Whitley; Layton v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1112 Whitley; Pizzo v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011,1057 Whitney; Edmond v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1037 Whittlesey v. Office of Hearings and App., Social Security Admin. 1063 Widnall; Mizkun v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011 Widnall; Smith v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1005 Wilbur M. v. Mental Hygiene Legal Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1130 Wiles v. Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1075 Wilkes v. Gomez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1052 Wilkins v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1024,1124 Wilkinson; Johnson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1071 Wilks; Arrington v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065 Wilks; Martin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065 Will v. Will . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011 Willett v. Norris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1052 Williams v. Arnold & Arnold Law Firm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1034,1113 Williams v. Borg & Warner Automotive Electronics & Mechanical System Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033 Williams v. Clarke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033 Williams; Class v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032 Williams v. Columbus Police Dept. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1054 Williams v. Gramley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011 Williams v. Granite Shoals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1003 Williams v. Meese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1103 Williams v. Metropolitan Transit Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1006 Williams v. Nagel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1064 Williams v. United States . . . . . 1003,1028,1030,1052,1056,1062,1073,1088 Williams; United States v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 527 Williamson County v. Bondholder Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1096 Willie; Holland v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1038 Willman v. Heartland Hospital East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1018 Wilson, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012,1081,1125 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:27] PGT: TCR lxx TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page Wilson v. Alexander's Power Shipping Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066 Wilson v. Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 927 Wilson v. Spitz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1027 Wilson v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1102,1122 Winback & Conserve Program, Inc. v. American Tel. & Tel. Co. . 1103 Windheim, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1060 Winnetka; DePluzer v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1127 Winters v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1056 Wisconsin; Flynn v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030 Wisconsin; McBride v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1084 Wisconsin; Pesek v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1069 Wisconsin; Soun v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1057 Wisconsin Dept. of Corrections; Savinski v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1025 Wisdom; Joiner v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1117 Wismer & Becker; Culp v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1108 Witherspoon v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1092 Wohlfarth, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1002 Wood; Cerny v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1037,1123 Wood v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1044 Woodard v. Burt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1021 Woodson v. McGeorge Camping Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1126 Workman v. Jordan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1015 Wortham v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1056 Worthon v. Caspari . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1130 Wray v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031 Wright; Brim v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1070 Wright v. Heimer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1096 Wright v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1135 Wright v. Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1085 Wrolstad; Jensen v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118 Wuornos v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1069,1070 Wyatt v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1023,1119 Wyatt v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1122 Yamaha Motor Corp., U. S. A. v. Calhoun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1126 Yanez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1121 Yari v. Pritzker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1108 Ylst; Litmon v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1130 Young, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1081 Young; Armstrong v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1021 Young v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1054 Young; King v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032 Young v. Lombardi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1115 Young v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1068 Young; Selsky v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1102 Job: 514BV$ Unit: $$U5 [09-12-99 16:02:27] PGT: TCR TABLE OF CASES REPORTED lxxi Page Young v. Shilaos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1053 Young v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1029 Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1016 Ysleta del Sur Pueblo; Texas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1016 Yukins; Federico v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1038 Yuk Rung Tsang v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031 Yung v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1008 Zaldivar v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100 Zamudio Madrigal v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1089 Zant; Crawford v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1082 Zavala v. Industrial Comm'n of Ill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1039,1124 Zehrbach v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067 Zeltzer, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1080 Zettlemoyer v. Horn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1104 Zicherman v. Korean Air Lines Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1062 Zicherman; Korean Air Lines Co. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1062 Zidor v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1041 Zilich v. Longo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1036 Zilich; Longo v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1036 Zisk v. High Street Associates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078 Zodiac Investment, Inc.; California Pozzolan, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . 1128 Zukinta v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1009 Zurito-Berrio v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1075 514us1$30Z 06-11-98 18:12:58 PAGES OPINPGT CASES ADJUDGED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES AT OCTOBER TERM, 1994 ARIZONA v. EVANS certiorari to the supreme court of arizona No. 93­1660. Argued December 7, 1994-Decided March 1, 1995 Respondent was arrested by Phoenix police during a routine traffic stop when a patrol car's computer indicated that there was an outstanding misdemeanor warrant for his arrest. A subsequent search of his car revealed a bag of marijuana, and he was charged with possession. Re- spondent moved to suppress the marijuana as the fruit of an unlawful arrest, since the misdemeanor warrant had been quashed before his ar- rest. The trial court granted the motion, but the Court of Appeals reversed on the ground that the exclusionary rule's purpose would not be served by excluding evidence obtained because of an error by em- ployees not directly associated with the arresting officers or their police department. In reversing, the Arizona Supreme Court rejected the distinction between clerical errors committed by law enforcement per- sonnel and similar mistakes by court employees and predicted that the exclusionary rule's application would serve to improve the efficiency of criminal justice system recordkeepers. Held:1. This Court has jurisdiction to review the State Supreme Court's decision. Under Michigan v. Long, 463 U. S. 1032, when a state-court decision fairly appears to rest primarily on federal law, or to be inter- woven with federal law, and when the adequacy and independence of any possible state-law ground is not clear from the opinion's face, this Court will accept as the most reasonable explanation that the state court decided the case the way it did because it believed that federal law required it to do so. This standard for determining whether a 1 514us1$30Z 06-11-98 18:12:58 PAGES OPINPGT 2 ARIZONA v. EVANS Syllabus state-court decision rests upon an adequate and independent state ground was adopted (1) to obviate the unsatisfactory and intrusive prac- tice of requiring state courts to clarify their decisions to this Court's satisfaction and (2) to provide state judges with a clearer opportunity to develop state jurisprudence unimpeded by federal interference and yet preserve the federal law's integrity. Michigan properly serves its purpose and should not be disturbed. State courts are free both to interpret state constitutional provisions to accord greater protection to individual rights than do similar provisions of the United States Consti- tution and to serve as experimental laboratories. However, in cases where they interpret the United States Constitution, they are not free from the final authority of this Court. In this case, the State Supreme Court based its decision squarely upon its interpretation of federal law when it discussed the appropriateness of applying the exclusionary rule, and it offered no plain statement that its references to federal law were being used only for the purpose of guidance and did not compel the result reached. Pp. 6­10. 2. The exclusionary rule does not require suppression of evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment where the erroneous infor- mation resulted from clerical errors of court employees. The exclusion- ary rule is a judicially created remedy designed to safeguard against future violations of Fourth Amendment rights through its deterrent effect. However, the issue of exclusion is separate from whether the Amendment has been violated. The Amendment does not expressly preclude the use of evidence obtained in violation of its commands, and exclusion is appropriate only where the rule's remedial objectives are thought most efficaciously served. The same framework that this Court used in United States v. Leon, 468 U. S. 897, to determine that there was no sound reason to apply the exclusionary rule as a means of deterring misconduct on the part of judicial officers responsible for issu- ing search warrants applies in this case. The exclusionary rule was historically designed as a means of deterring police misconduct, not mis- takes by court employees. See id., at 916. In addition, respondent offers no evidence that court employees are inclined to ignore or subvert the Fourth Amendment or that lawlessness among these actors requires application of the extreme sanction of exclusion. See ibid. In fact, the Justice Court Clerk testified that this type of error occurred only once every three or four years. Finally, there is no basis for believing that application of the exclusionary rule will have a significant effect on court employees responsible for informing the police that a warrant has been quashed. Since they are not adjuncts to the law enforcement team en- gaged in ferreting out crime, they have no stake in the outcome of par- ticular prosecutions. Application of the exclusionary rule also could not 514us1$30Z 06-11-98 18:12:58 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 1 (1995) 3 Opinion of the Court be expected to alter an arresting officer's behavior, since there is no indication that the officer here was not acting reasonably when he relied upon the computer record. Pp. 10­16. 177 Ariz. 201, 866 P. 2d 869, reversed and remanded. Rehnquist, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which O'Con- nor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, and Breyer, JJ., joined. O'Connor, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Souter and Breyer, JJ., joined, post, p. 16. Souter, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Breyer, J., joined, post, p. 18. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 18. Ginsburg, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens, J., joined, post, p. 23. Gerald R. Grant argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioner. Carol A. Carrigan argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.* Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court. This case presents the question whether evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment by an officer who *Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the United States by Solicitor General Days, Assistant Attorney General Harris, Deputy Solicitor General Bryson, and Jeffrey P. Minear; for the State of Florida et al. by Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General of Florida, and Michael J. Neimand, Assistant Attorney General, and by the Attorneys General for their respective jurisdictions as follows: James H. Evans of Alabama, Bruce M. Botelho of Alaska, Larry EchoHawk of Idaho, Pamela Carter of Indiana, Robert T. Stephan of Kansas, Chris Gorman of Kentucky, Scott Harshbarger of Massachusetts, Joseph P. Mazurek of Montana, Lee Fisher of Ohio, T. Travis Medlock of South Carolina, Jeffrey L. Amestoy of Ver- mont, and James S. Gilmore III of Virginia; for Americans for Effective Law Enforcement, Inc., et al. by Richard M. Weintraub, William C. O'Malley, Bernard J. Farber, Fred E. Inbau, Wayne W. Schmidt, and James P. Manak; and for the Washington Legal Foundation et al. by Paul J. Larkin, Jr., Daniel J. Popeo, and Paul D. Kamenar. Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the American Civil Liberties Union et al. by Steven R. Shapiro; and for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers by Ephraim Margolin and Barry P. Helft. 514us1$30H 06-11-98 18:12:58 PAGES OPINPGT 4 ARIZONA v. EVANS Opinion of the Court acted in reliance on a police record indicating the existence of an outstanding arrest warrant-a record that is later de- termined to be erroneous-must be suppressed by virtue of the exclusionary rule regardless of the source of the error. The Supreme Court of Arizona held that the exclusionary rule required suppression of evidence even if the erroneous information resulted from an error committed by an em- ployee of the office of the Clerk of Court. We disagree. In January 1991, Phoenix police officer Bryan Sargent ob- served respondent Isaac Evans driving the wrong way on a one-way street in front of the police station. The officer stopped respondent and asked to see his driver's license. After respondent told him that his license had been sus- pended, the officer entered respondent's name into a com- puter data terminal located in his patrol car. The computer inquiry confirmed that respondent's license had been sus- pended and also indicated that there was an outstanding mis- demeanor warrant for his arrest. Based upon the outstand- ing warrant, Officer Sargent placed respondent under arrest. While being handcuffed, respondent dropped a hand-rolled cigarette that the officers determined smelled of marijuana. Officers proceeded to search his car and discovered a bag of marijuana under the passenger's seat. The State charged respondent with possession of mari- juana. When the police notified the Justice Court that they had arrested him, the Justice Court discovered that the ar- rest warrant previously had been quashed and so advised the police. Respondent argued that because his arrest was based on a warrant that had been quashed 17 days prior to his arrest, the marijuana seized incident to the arrest should be suppressed as the fruit of an unlawful arrest. Respond- ent also argued that "[t]he `good faith' exception to the exclu- sionary rule [was] inapplicable . . . because it was police error, not judicial error, which caused the invalid arrest." App. 5. At the suppression hearing, the Chief Clerk of the Justice Court testified that a Justice of the Peace had issued the 514us1$30H 06-11-98 18:12:58 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 1 (1995) 5 Opinion of the Court arrest warrant on December 13, 1990, because respondent had failed to appear to answer for several traffic violations. On December 19, 1990, respondent appeared before a pro tem Justice of the Peace who entered a notation in respondent's file to "quash warrant." Id., at 13. The Chief Clerk also testified regarding the standard court procedure for quashing a warrant. Under that procedure a justice court clerk calls and informs the warrant section of the Sheriff's Office when a warrant has been quashed. The Sheriff's Office then removes the warrant from its computer records. After calling the Sheriff's Office, the clerk makes a note in the individual's file indicating the clerk who made the phone call and the person at the Sheriff's Office to whom the clerk spoke. The Chief Clerk testified that there was no indication in respondent's file that a clerk had called and noti- fied the Sheriff's Office that his arrest warrant had been quashed. A records clerk from the Sheriff's Office also tes- tified that the Sheriff's Office had no record of a telephone call informing it that respondent's arrest warrant had been quashed. Id., at 42­43. At the close of testimony, respondent argued that the evi- dence obtained as a result of the arrest should be suppressed because "the purposes of the exclusionary rule would be served here by making the clerks for the court, or the clerk for the Sheriff's office, whoever is responsible for this mis- take, to be more careful about making sure that warrants are removed from the records." Id., at 47. The trial court granted the motion to suppress because it concluded that the State had been at fault for failing to quash the warrant. Presumably because it could find no "distinction between State action, whether it happens to be the police department or not," id., at 52, the trial court made no factual finding as to whether the Justice Court or Sheriff's Office was responsi- ble for the continued presence of the quashed warrant in the police records. 514us1$30H 06-11-98 18:12:58 PAGES OPINPGT 6 ARIZONA v. EVANS Opinion of the Court A divided panel of the Arizona Court of Appeals reversed because it "believe[d] that the exclusionary rule [was] not intended to deter justice court employees or Sheriff's Office employees who are not directly associated with the arresting officers or the arresting officers' police department." 172 Ariz. 314, 317, 836 P. 2d 1024, 1027 (1992). Therefore, it concluded, "the purpose of the exclusionary rule would not be served by excluding the evidence obtained in this case." Ibid. The Arizona Supreme Court reversed. 177 Ariz. 201, 866 P. 2d 869 (1994). The court rejected the "distinction drawn by the court of appeals . . . between clerical errors committed by law enforcement personnel and similar mistakes by court employees." Id., at 203, 866 P. 2d, at 871. The court pre- dicted that application of the exclusionary rule would "hope- fully serve to improve the efficiency of those who keep rec- ords in our criminal justice system." Id., at 204, 866 P. 2d, at 872. Finally, the court concluded that "[e]ven assuming that deterrence is the principal reason for application of the exclusionary rule, we disagree with the court of appeals that such a purpose would not be served where carelessness by a court clerk results in an unlawful arrest." Ibid. We granted certiorari to determine whether the exclusion- ary rule requires suppression of evidence seized incident to an arrest resulting from an inaccurate computer record, re- gardless of whether police personnel or court personnel were responsible for the record's continued presence in the police computer. 511 U. S. 1126 (1994).1 We now reverse. We first must consider whether we have jurisdiction to review the Arizona Supreme Court's decision. Respondent argues that we lack jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1257 be- cause the Arizona Supreme Court never passed upon the 1 Petitioner has conceded that respondent's arrest violated the Fourth Amendment. Brief for Petitioner 10. We decline to review that determi- nation. Cf. United States v. Leon, 468 U. S. 897, 905 (1984); Illinois v. Krull, 480 U. S. 340, 357, n. 13 (1987). 514us1$30H 06-11-98 18:12:58 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 1 (1995) 7 Opinion of the Court Fourth Amendment issue and instead based its decision on the Arizona good-faith statute, Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13­ 3925 (1993), an adequate and independent state ground. In the alternative, respondent asks that we remand to the Ari- zona Supreme Court for clarification. In Michigan v. Long, 463 U. S. 1032 (1983), we adopted a standard for determining whether a state-court decision rested upon an adequate and independent state ground. When "a state court decision fairly appears to rest primarily on federal law, or to be interwoven with the federal law, and when the adequacy and independence of any possible state law ground is not clear from the face of the opinion, we will accept as the most reasonable explanation that the state court decided the case the way it did because it believed that federal law required it to do so." Id., at 1040­1041. We adopted this practice, in part, to obviate the "unsatisfactory and intrusive practice of requiring state courts to clarify their decisions to the satisfaction of this Court." Id., at 1041. We also concluded that this approach would "provide state judges with a clearer opportunity to develop state jurisprudence unimpeded by federal interference, and yet will preserve the integrity of federal law." Ibid. Justice Ginsburg would overrule Michigan v. Long, supra, because she believes that the rule of that case "im- pedes the States' ability to serve as laboratories for testing solutions to novel legal problems." Post, at 24.2 The opin- 2 Justice Ginsburg certainly is correct when she notes that " `[s]ince Long, we repeatedly have followed [its] "plain statement" requirement.' " Post, at 33 (quoting Harris v. Reed, 489 U. S. 255, 261, n. 7 (1989) (opinion of Blackmun, J.)); see also Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U. S. 177, 182 (1990) (opinion of Scalia, J.); Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U. S. 582, 588, n. 4 (1990) (opinion of Brennan, J.); Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U. S. 79, 83­84 (1987) (opinion of Stevens, J.); Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U. S. 320, 327­ 328 (1985) (opinion of Marshall, J.); California v. Carney, 471 U. S. 386, 389, n. 1 (1985) (opinion of Burger, C. J.); Ohio v. Johnson, 467 U. S. 493, 497­498, n. 7 (1984) (opinion of Rehnquist, J.); Oliver v. United States, 466 U. S. 170, 175­176, n. 5 (1984) (opinion of Powell, J.); cf. Coleman 514us1$30H 06-11-98 18:12:58 PAGES OPINPGT 8 ARIZONA v. EVANS Opinion of the Court ion in Long describes the 60-year history of the Court's dif- fering approaches to the determination whether the judg- ment of the highest court of a State rested on federal or nonfederal grounds. 463 U. S., at 1038­1040. When we were in doubt, on some occasions we dismissed the writ of certiorari; on other occasions we vacated the judgment of the state court and remanded so that it might clarify the basis for its decision. See ibid. The latter approach did not always achieve the desired result and burdened the state courts with additional work. Ibid. We believe that Michigan v. Long properly serves its pur- pose and should not be disturbed. Under it, state courts are absolutely free to interpret state constitutional provisions to accord greater protection to individual rights than do similar provisions of the United States Constitution. They also are free to serve as experimental laboratories, in the sense that Justice Brandeis used that term in his dissenting opinion in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U. S. 262, 311 (1932) (urg- ing that the Court not impose federal constitutional re- straints on the efforts of a State to "serve as a laboratory"). Under our decision today, the State of Arizona remains free to seek whatever solutions it chooses to problems of law en- forcement posed by the advent of computerization.3 Indeed, it is freer to do so because it is disabused of its erroneous view of what the United States Constitution requires. State courts, in appropriate cases, are not merely free to- they are bound to-interpret the United States Constitution. In doing so, they are not free from the final authority of this v. Thompson, 501 U. S. 722, 740 (1991) (opinion of O'Connor, J.) (declining to expand the Long and Harris presumption to instances "where the rele- vant state court decision does not fairly appear to rest primarily on federal law or to be interwoven with such law"). 3 Justice Ginsburg acknowledges as much when she states that since Long, "state courts, on remand, have reinstated their prior judgments after clarifying their reliance on state grounds." Post, at 32 (citing statistics). 514us1$30H 06-11-98 18:12:58 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 1 (1995) 9 Opinion of the Court Court. This principle was enunciated in Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264 (1821), and presumably Justice Ginsburg does not quarrel with it.4 In Minnesota v. National Tea Co., 309 U. S. 551 (1940), we recognized that our authority as final arbiter of the United States Constitution could be eroded by a lack of clarity in state-court decisions. "It is fundamental that state courts be left free and un- fettered by us in interpreting their state constitutions. But it is equally important that ambiguous or obscure adjudications by state courts do not stand as barriers to a determination by this Court of the validity under the federal constitution of state action. Intelligent exercise of our appellate powers compels us to ask for the elimi- nation of the obscurities and ambiguities from the opin- ions in such cases. . . . For no other course assures that important federal issues, such as have been argued here, will reach this Court for adjudication; that state courts will not be the final arbiters of important issues under the federal constitution; and that we will not encroach on the constitutional jurisdiction of the states." Id., at 557. We therefore adhere to the standard adopted in Michigan v. Long, supra. Applying that standard here, we conclude that we have jurisdiction. In reversing the Court of Appeals, the Arizona Supreme Court stated that "[w]hile it may be inappropriate to invoke the exclusionary rule where a magistrate has is- sued a facially valid warrant (a discretionary judicial func- tion) based on an erroneous evaluation of the facts, the law, or both, Leon, 468 U. S. 897 . . . (1984), it is useful and proper 4 Surely if we have jurisdiction to vacate and remand a state-court judg- ment for clarification, post, at 34, n. 7, we also must have jurisdiction to determine whether a state-court judgment is based upon an adequate and independent state ground. See Abie State Bank v. Bryan, 282 U. S. 765, 773 (1931). 514us1$30H 06-11-98 18:12:58 PAGES OPINPGT 10 ARIZONA v. EVANS Opinion of the Court to do so where negligent record keeping (a purely clerical function) results in an unlawful arrest." 177 Ariz., at 204, 866 P. 2d, at 872. Thus, the Arizona Supreme Court's deci- sion to suppress the evidence was based squarely upon its interpretation of federal law. See ibid. Nor did it offer a plain statement that its references to federal law were "being used only for the purpose of guidance, and d[id] not themselves compel the result that [it] reached." Long, supra, at 1041. The Fourth Amendment states that "[t]he right of the peo- ple to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be vio- lated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describ- ing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." We have recognized, however, that the Fourth Amendment contains no provision expressly precluding the use of evidence obtained in violation of its commands. See United States v. Leon, 468 U. S. 897, 906 (1984). "The wrong condemned by the [Fourth] Amendment is `fully accom- plished' by the unlawful search or seizure itself," ibid. (quot- ing United States v. Calandra, 414 U. S. 338, 354 (1974)), and the use of the fruits of a past unlawful search or seizure " `work[s] no new Fourth Amendment wrong,' " Leon, supra, at 906 (quoting Calandra, supra, at 354). "The question whether the exclusionary rule's remedy is appropriate in a particular context has long been regarded as an issue separate from the question whether the Fourth Amendment rights of the party seeking to invoke the rule were violated by police conduct." Illinois v. Gates, 462 U. S. 213, 223 (1983); see also United States v. Havens, 446 U. S. 620, 627­628 (1980); Stone v. Powell, 428 U. S. 465, 486­487 (1976); Calandra, supra, at 348. The exclusionary rule op- erates as a judicially created remedy designed to safeguard against future violations of Fourth Amendment rights through the rule's general deterrent effect. Leon, supra, at 514us1$30H 06-11-98 18:12:59 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 1 (1995) 11 Opinion of the Court 906; Calandra, supra, at 348. As with any remedial device, the rule's application has been restricted to those instances where its remedial objectives are thought most efficaciously served. Leon, supra, at 908; Calandra, supra, at 348. Where "the exclusionary rule does not result in appreciable deterrence, then, clearly, its use . . . is unwarranted." United States v. Janis, 428 U. S. 433, 454 (1976). In Leon, we applied these principles to the context of a police search in which the officers had acted in objectively reasonable reliance on a search warrant, issued by a neutral and detached Magistrate, that later was determined to be invalid. 468 U. S., at 905. On the basis of three factors, we determined that there was no sound reason to apply the exclusionary rule as a means of deterring misconduct on the part of judicial officers who are responsible for issuing war- rants. See Illinois v. Krull, 480 U. S. 340, 348 (1987) (ana- lyzing Leon, supra). First, we noted that the exclusionary rule was historically designed " `to deter police misconduct rather than to punish the errors of judges and magistrates.' " Krull, supra, at 348 (quoting Leon, supra, at 916). Second, there was " `no evidence suggesting that judges and magis- trates are inclined to ignore or subvert the Fourth Amend- ment or that lawlessness among these actors requires the application of the extreme sanction of exclusion.' " Krull, supra, at 348 (quoting Leon, supra, at 916). Third, and of greatest importance, there was no basis for believing that exclusion of evidence seized pursuant to a warrant would have a significant deterrent effect on the issuing judge or magistrate. Krull, supra, at 348. The Leon Court then examined whether application of the exclusionary rule could be expected to alter the behavior of the law enforcement officers. We concluded: "[W]here the officer's conduct is objectively reasonable, `excluding the evidence will not further the ends of the exclusionary rule in any appreciable way; for it is pain- fully apparent that . . . the officer is acting as a reason- 514us1$30H 06-11-98 18:12:59 PAGES OPINPGT 12 ARIZONA v. EVANS Opinion of the Court able officer would and should act in similar circum- stances. Excluding the evidence can in no way affect his future conduct unless it is to make him less willing to do his duty.' " Leon, supra, at 919­920 (quoting Stone, supra, at 539­540 (White, J., dissenting)). See also Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U. S. 981, 990­991 (1984) ("[S]uppressing evidence because the judge failed to make all the necessary clerical corrections despite his assur- ances that such changes would be made will not serve the deterrent function that the exclusionary rule was designed to achieve"). Thus, we held that the "marginal or nonexist- ent benefits produced by suppressing evidence obtained in objectively reasonable reliance on a subsequently invalidated search warrant cannot justify the substantial costs of exclu- sion." Leon, supra, at 922. Respondent relies on United States v. Hensley, 469 U. S. 221 (1985), and argues that the evidence seized incident to his arrest should be suppressed because he was the victim of a Fourth Amendment violation. Brief for Respondent 10­12, 21­22. In Hensley, the Court determined that evi- dence uncovered as a result of a stop pursuant to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968), was admissible because the officers who made the stop acted in objectively reasonable reliance on a flyer that had been issued by officers of another police department who possessed a reasonable suspicion to justify a Terry stop. 469 U. S., at 231. Because the Hensley Court determined that there had been no Fourth Amendment vio- lation, id., at 236, the Court never considered whether the seized evidence should have been excluded. Hensley does not contradict our earlier pronouncements that "[t]he ques- tion whether the exclusionary rule's remedy is appropriate in a particular context has long been regarded as an issue separate from the question whether the Fourth Amendment rights of the party seeking to invoke the rule were violated by police conduct." Gates, supra, at 223; see also Stone, supra, at 486­487; Calandra, supra, at 348. 514us1$30H 06-11-98 18:12:59 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 1 (1995) 13 Opinion of the Court Respondent also argues that Whiteley v. Warden, Wyo. State Penitentiary, 401 U. S. 560 (1971), compels exclusion of the evidence. In Whiteley, the Court determined that the Fourth Amendment had been violated when police officers arrested Whiteley and recovered inculpatory evidence based upon a radio report that two suspects had been involved in two robberies. Id., at 568­569. Although the "police were entitled to act on the strength of the radio bulletin," the Court determined that there had been a Fourth Amendment violation because the initial complaint, upon which the arrest warrant and subsequent radio bulletin were based, was in- sufficient to support an independent judicial assessment of probable cause. Id., at 568. The Court concluded that "an otherwise illegal arrest cannot be insulated from challenge by the decision of the instigating officer to rely on fellow officers to make the arrest." Ibid. Because the "arrest violated [Whiteley's] constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments; the evidence secured as an in- cident thereto should have been excluded from his trial. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 (1961)." Id., at 568­569. Although Whiteley clearly retains relevance in determin- ing whether police officers have violated the Fourth Amend- ment, see Hensley, supra, at 230­231, its precedential value regarding application of the exclusionary rule is dubious. In Whiteley, the Court treated identification of a Fourth Amendment violation as synonymous with application of the exclusionary rule to evidence secured incident to that vio- lation. 401 U. S., at 568­569. Subsequent case law has rejected this reflexive application of the exclusionary rule. Cf. Illinois v. Krull, 480 U. S. 340 (1987); Sheppard, supra; United States v. Leon, 468 U. S. 897 (1984); United States v. Calandra, 414 U. S. 338 (1974). These later cases have emphasized that the issue of exclusion is separate from whether the Fourth Amendment has been violated, see, e. g., Leon, supra, at 906, and exclusion is appropriate only if the 514us1$30H 06-11-98 18:12:59 PAGES OPINPGT 14 ARIZONA v. EVANS Opinion of the Court remedial objectives of the rule are thought most efficaciously served, see Calandra, supra, at 348. Our approach is consistent with the dissenting Justices' position in Krull, our only major case since Leon and Shep- pard involving the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. In that case, the Court found that the good-faith exception applies when an officer conducts a search in objec- tively reasonable reliance on the constitutionality of a stat- ute that subsequently is declared unconstitutional. Krull, supra, at 346. Even the dissenting Justices in Krull agreed that Leon provided the proper framework for analyzing whether the exclusionary rule applied; they simply thought that "application of Leon's stated rationales le[d] to a con- trary result." 480 U. S., at 362 (O'Connor, J., dissenting). In sum, respondent does not persuade us to abandon the Leon framework. Applying the reasoning of Leon to the facts of this case, we conclude that the decision of the Arizona Supreme Court must be reversed. The Arizona Supreme Court determined that it could not "support the distinction drawn . . . between clerical errors committed by law enforcement personnel and similar mistakes by court employees," 177 Ariz., at 203, 866 P. 2d, at 871, and that "even assuming . . . that responsibility for the error rested with the justice court, it does not follow that the exclusionary rule should be inapplicable to these facts," ibid. This holding is contrary to the reasoning of Leon, supra; Massachusetts v. Sheppard, supra; and, Krull, supra. If court employees were responsible for the erroneous computer record, the exclusion of evidence at trial would not sufficiently deter future errors so as to warrant such a severe sanction. First, as we noted in Leon, the exclusion- ary rule was historically designed as a means of deterring police misconduct, not mistakes by court employees. See Leon, supra, at 916; see also Krull, supra, at 350. Second, respondent offers no evidence that court employees are in- 514us1$30H 06-11-98 18:12:59 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 1 (1995) 15 Opinion of the Court clined to ignore or subvert the Fourth Amendment or that lawlessness among these actors requires application of the extreme sanction of exclusion. See Leon, supra, at 916, and n. 14; see also Krull, supra, at 350­351. To the contrary, the Chief Clerk of the Justice Court testified at the suppression hearing that this type of error occurred once every three or four years. App. 37. Finally, and most important, there is no basis for believing that application of the exclusionary rule in these circum- stances will have a significant effect on court employees re- sponsible for informing the police that a warrant has been quashed. Because court clerks are not adjuncts to the law enforcement team engaged in the often competitive enter- prise of ferreting out crime, see Johnson v. United States, 333 U. S. 10, 14 (1948), they have no stake in the outcome of particular criminal prosecutions. Cf. Leon, supra, at 917; Krull, supra, at 352. The threat of exclusion of evidence could not be expected to deter such individuals from failing to inform police officials that a warrant had been quashed. Cf. Leon, supra, at 917; Krull, supra, at 352. If it were indeed a court clerk who was responsible for the erroneous entry on the police computer, application of the exclusionary rule also could not be expected to alter the be- havior of the arresting officer. As the trial court in this case stated: "I think the police officer [was] bound to arrest. I think he would [have been] derelict in his duty if he failed to arrest." App. 51. Cf. Leon, supra, at 920 (" `Excluding the evidence can in no way affect [the officer's] future conduct unless it is to make him less willing to do his duty.' " quoting Stone, 428 U. S., at 540 (White, J., dissenting)). The Chief Clerk of the Justice Court testified that this type of error occurred "on[c]e every three or four years." App. 37. In fact, once the court clerks discovered the error, they immedi- ately corrected it, id., at 30, and then proceeded to search their files to make sure that no similar mistakes had oc- curred, id., at 37. There is no indication that the arresting 514us1$30H 06-11-98 18:12:59 PAGES OPINPGT 16 ARIZONA v. EVANS O'Connor, J., concurring officer was not acting objectively reasonably when he relied upon the police computer record. Application of the Leon framework supports a categorical exception to the exclusion- ary rule for clerical errors of court employees. See Leon, supra, at 916­922; Sheppard, supra, at 990­991.5 The judgment of the Supreme Court of Arizona is there- fore reversed, and the case is remanded to that court for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. Justice O'Connor, with whom Justice Souter and Justice Breyer join, concurring. The evidence in this case strongly suggests that it was a court employee's departure from established recordkeeping procedures that caused the record of respondent's arrest warrant to remain in the computer system after the warrant had been quashed. Prudently, then, the Court limits itself to the question whether a court employee's departure from such established procedures is the kind of error to which the exclusionary rule should apply. The Court holds that it is not such an error, and I agree with that conclusion and join the Court's opinion. The Court's holding reaffirms that the exclusionary rule imposes significant costs on society's law enforcement interests and thus should apply only where its deterrence purposes are "most efficaciously served," ante, at 11. In limiting itself to that single question, however, the Court does not hold that the court employee's mistake in this case was necessarily the only error that may have occurred and to which the exclusionary rule might apply. While the 5 The Solicitor General, as amicus curiae, argues that an analysis similar to that we apply here to court personnel also would apply in order to determine whether the evidence should be suppressed if police personnel were responsible for the error. As the State has not made any such argu- ment here, we agree that "[t]he record in this case . . . does not adequately present that issue for the Court's consideration." Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 13. Accordingly, we decline to address that question. 514us1$30J 06-11-98 18:12:59 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 1 (1995) 17 O'Connor, J., concurring police were innocent of the court employee's mistake, they may or may not have acted reasonably in their reliance on the recordkeeping system itself. Surely it would not be rea- sonable for the police to rely, say, on a recordkeeping system, their own or some other agency's, that has no mechanism to ensure its accuracy over time and that routinely leads to false arrests, even years after the probable cause for any such arrest has ceased to exist (if it ever existed). This is saying nothing new. We have said the same with respect to other information sources police use, informants being an obvious example. In Illinois v. Gates, 462 U. S. 213 (1983), the Court indicated that where an informant provides information about certain criminal activities but does not specify the basis for his knowledge, a finding of probable cause based on that information will not be upheld unless the informant is "known for [his] unusual reliability." Id., at 233, citing United States v. Sellers, 483 F. 2d 37, 40, n. 1 (CA5 1973) (involving informant who had provided accurate information "in more than one hundred instances in matters of investigation"); see generally 1 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 3.3(b) (2d ed. 1987 and Supp. 1995). Certainly the reliability of recordkeeping systems deserves no less scru- tiny than that of informants. Of course, the comparison to informants may be instructive the opposite way as well. So long as an informant's reliability does pass constitutional muster, a finding of probable cause may not be defeated by an after-the-fact showing that the information the informant provided was mistaken. See 2 id., § 3.5(d), at 21, n. 73 (cita- tion omitted); see also 1 id., § 3.2(d), at 575 ("It is axiomatic that hindsight may not be employed in determining whether a prior arrest or search was made upon probable cause"). In recent years, we have witnessed the advent of powerful, computer-based recordkeeping systems that facilitate ar- rests in ways that have never before been possible. The police, of course, are entitled to enjoy the substantial advan- tages this technology confers. They may not, however, rely on it blindly. With the benefits of more efficient law enforce- 514us1$30J 06-11-98 18:12:59 PAGES OPINPGT 18 ARIZONA v. EVANS Stevens, J., dissenting ment mechanisms comes the burden of corresponding consti- tutional responsibilities. Justice Souter, with whom Justice Breyer joins, concurring. In joining the Court's opinion, I share Justice O'Con- nor's understanding of the narrow scope of what we hold today. To her concurrence, which I join as well, I add only that we do not answer another question that may reach us in due course, that is, how far, in dealing with fruits of com- puterized error, our very concept of deterrence by exclusion of evidence should extend to the government as a whole, not merely the police, on the ground that there would otherwise be no reasonable expectation of keeping the number of re- sulting false arrests within an acceptable minimum limit. Justice Stevens, dissenting. Justice Ginsburg has written an important opinion ex- plaining why the Court unwisely departed from settled law when it interpreted its own jurisdiction so expansively in Michigan v. Long, 463 U. S. 1032 (1983). I join her dissent and her conclusion that the writ of certiorari should be dis- missed. Because the Court has addressed the merits, how- ever, I add this comment on its holding. The Court seems to assume that the Fourth Amendment- and particularly the exclusionary rule, which effectuates the Amendment's commands-has the limited purpose of deter- ring police misconduct. Both the constitutional text and the history of its adoption and interpretation identify a more ma- jestic conception. The Amendment protects the fundamen- tal "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects," against all official searches and seizures that are unreasonable. The Amendment is a constraint on the power of the sovereign, not merely on some of its agents. See Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438, 472­479 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). The remedy for its violation im- poses costs on that sovereign, motivating it to train all of 514us1$30I 06-11-98 18:12:59 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 1 (1995) 19 Stevens, J., dissenting its personnel to avoid future violations. See Stewart, The Road to Mapp v. Ohio and Beyond: The Origins, Develop- ment and Future of the Exclusionary Rule in Search-and- Seizure Cases, 83 Colum. L. Rev. 1365, 1400 (1983). The exclusionary rule is not fairly characterized as an "ex- treme sanction," ante, at 11 (internal quotation marks omit- ted). As Justice Stewart cogently explained, the implemen- tation of this constitutionally mandated sanction merely places the government in the same position as if it had not conducted the illegal search and seizure in the first place.1 Given the undisputed fact in this case that the Constitution prohibited the warrantless arrest of respondent, there is nothing "extreme" about the Arizona Supreme Court's con- clusion that the State should not be permitted to profit from its negligent misconduct. Even if one accepts deterrence as the sole rationale for the exclusionary rule, the Arizona Supreme Court's decision is correct on the merits. The majority's reliance on United States v. Leon, 468 U. S. 897 (1984), is misplaced. The search in that case had been authorized by a presumptively valid warrant issued by a California Superior Court Judge. In 1 See Stewart, The Road to Mapp v. Ohio and Beyond: The Origins, Development and Future of the Exclusionary Rule in Search-and-Seizure Cases, 83 Colum. L. Rev. 1365, 1392 (1983). I am fully aware of the Court's statements that the question whether the exclusionary rule should be applied is distinct from the question whether the Fourth Amendment has been violated. Indeed, the majority twice quotes the same statement from the Court's opinion in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U. S. 213, 223 (1983). See ante, at 10, 12. I would note that such eminent Members of this Court as Justices Holmes, Brandeis, Harlan, and Stewart have expressed the opposite view. See, e. g., Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438, 470 (1928) (Holmes, J., dissenting); id., at 477­479 (Brandeis, J., dissenting); Whiteley v. Warden, Wyo. State Penitentiary, 401 U. S. 560 (1971) (Harlan, J.); Elkins v. United States, 364 U. S. 206 (1960) (Stewart, J.); Stewart, supra, at 1383­1385. The majority today candidly acknowledges that Justice Harlan's opinion for the Court in Whiteley "treated identification of a Fourth Amendment violation as synonymous with application of the exclusionary rule to evidence secured incident to that violation." Ante, at 13. 514us1$30I 06-11-98 18:12:59 PAGES OPINPGT 20 ARIZONA v. EVANS Stevens, J., dissenting contrast, this case involves a search pursuant to an arrest made when no warrant at all was outstanding against re- spondent. The holding in Leon rested on the majority's doubt "that exclusion of evidence seized pursuant to a war- rant will have a significant deterrent effect on the issuing judge or magistrate." Id., at 916. The reasoning in Leon assumed the existence of a warrant; it was, and remains, wholly inapplicable to warrantless searches and seizures.2 The Fourth Amendment's Warrant Clause provides the fundamental check on official invasions of the individual's right to privacy. E. g., Harris v. United States, 331 U. S. 145, 195­196 (1947) (Jackson, J., dissenting); see generally Kamisar, Does (Did) (Should) the Exclusionary Rule Rest on a "Principled Basis" Rather Than an "Empirical Proposi- tion"?, 16 Creighton L. Rev. 565, 571­579 (1983). Leon stands for the dubious but limited proposition that courts should not look behind the face of a warrant on which police have relied in good faith. The Leon Court's exemption of judges and magistrates from the deterrent ambit of the ex- clusionary rule rested, consistently with the emphasis on the warrant requirement, on those officials' constitutionally de- termined role in issuing warrants. See 468 U. S., at 915­ 917. Taken on its own terms, Leon's logic does not extend to the time after the warrant has issued; nor does it extend to court clerks and functionaries, some of whom work in the same building with police officers and may have more regu- lar and direct contact with police than with judges or magistrates. 2 As Justice O'Connor observed in her dissent in Illinois v. Krull, 480 U. S. 340 (1987): "[T]he Leon Court relied explicitly on the tradition of judicial independence in concluding that, until it was presented with evi- dence to the contrary, there was relatively little cause for concern that judicial officers might take the opportunity presented by the good-faith exception to authorize unconstitutional searches." Id., at 365. I joined that dissent, and I take exception to the majority's pronouncement that today's opinion is "consistent with" it. Ante, at 14. 514us1$30I 06-11-98 18:12:59 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 1 (1995) 21 Stevens, J., dissenting The Phoenix Police Department was part of the chain of information that resulted in respondent's unlawful, warrant- less arrest. We should reasonably presume that law en- forcement officials, who stand in the best position to monitor such errors as occurred here, can influence mundane commu- nication procedures in order to prevent those errors. That presumption comports with the notion that the exclusionary rule exists to deter future police misconduct systemically. See, e. g., Stone v. Powell, 428 U. S. 465, 492 (1976); Dunaway v. New York, 442 U. S. 200, 221 (1979) (Stevens, J., concur- ring); see generally Kamisar, 16 Creighton L. Rev., at 659­ 662; Stewart, 83 Colum. L. Rev., at 1400. The deterrent pur- pose extends to law enforcement as a whole, not merely to "the arresting officer." Compare ante, at 15, with Whiteley v. Warden, Wyo. State Penitentiary, 401 U. S. 560, 568 (1971). Consequently, the Phoenix officers' good faith does not di- minish the deterrent value of invalidating their arrest of respondent. The Court seeks to minimize the impact of its holding on the security of the citizen by referring to the testimony of the Chief Clerk of the East Phoenix Number One Justice Court that in her "particular court" this type of error oc- curred " `maybe on[c]e every three or four years.' " See ante, at 15. Apart from the fact that the Clerk promptly contradicted herself,3 see post, at 28, this is slim evidence 3 "Q. In your eight years as a chief clerk with the Justice of the Peace, have there been other occasions where a warrant was quashed but the police were not notified? "A. That does happen on rare occasions. "Q. And when you say rare occasions, about how many times in your eight years as chief clerk? "A. In my particular court, they would be like maybe one every three or four years. "Q. When something like this happens, is anything done by your office to correct that problem? "A. Well, when this one happened, we searched all the files to make sure that there were no other ones in there, which there were three other ones 514us1$30I 06-11-98 18:12:59 PAGES OPINPGT 22 ARIZONA v. EVANS Stevens, J., dissenting on which to base a conclusion that computer error poses no appreciable threat to Fourth Amendment interests. For support, the Court cites a case from 1948. See ante, at 15, citing Johnson v. United States, 333 U. S. 10. The Court overlooks the reality that computer technology has changed the nature of threats to citizens' privacy over the past half century. See post, at 26­28. What has not changed is the reality that only that fraction of Fourth Amendment viola- tions held to have resulted in unlawful arrests is ever noted and redressed. As Justice Jackson observed: "There may be, and I am convinced that there are, many unlawful searches . . . of innocent people which turn up nothing in- criminating, in which no arrest is made, about which courts do nothing, and about which we never hear." Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160, 181 (1949) (dissenting opinion). Moreover, even if errors in computer records of warrants were rare, that would merely minimize the cost of enforcing the exclusionary rule in cases like this. While I agree with Justice Ginsburg that premature adjudication of this issue is particularly unwise because we have much to learn about the consequences of computer error as well as the efficacy of other preventive measures, see post, at 29­30, one consequence of the Court's holding seems immediately obvious. Its most serious impact will be on the otherwise innocent citizen who is stopped for a minor traffic infraction and is wrongfully arrested based on errone- ous information in a computer data base. I assume the po- lice officer who reasonably relies on the computer informa- tion would be immune from liability in a § 1983 action. Of course, the Court has held that respondeat superior is un- available as a basis for imposing liability on his or her munic- ipality. See Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U. S. 658, 663­664, n. 7 (1978). Thus, if courts are to on that same day that it happened. Fortunately, they weren't all ar- rested." App. 37. 514us1$30I 06-11-98 18:12:59 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 1 (1995) 23 Ginsburg, J., dissenting have any power to discourage official error of this kind, it must be through application of the exclusionary rule. The use of general warrants to search for evidence of vio- lations of the Crown's revenue laws understandably outraged the authors of the Bill of Rights. See, e. g., Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York, 442 U. S. 319, 325 (1979); Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383, 389­391 (1914). " `It is a power, that places the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer.' " James Otis, quoted in 2 Works of John Adams 524 (C. Adams ed. 1850), quoted in turn in Illinois v. Krull, 480 U. S. 340, 363 (1987) (O'Connor, J., dissenting). The offense to the dignity of the citizen who is arrested, handcuffed, and searched on a public street simply because some bureaucrat has failed to maintain an accurate computer data base strikes me as equally outrageous. In this case, of course, such an error led to the fortuitous detection of respondent's unlawful possession of marijuana, and the suppression of the fruit of the error would prevent the prosecution of his crime. That cost, however, must be weighed against the interest in pro- tecting other, wholly innocent citizens from unwarranted in- dignity. In my judgment, the cost is amply offset by an ap- propriately "jealous regard for maintaining the integrity of individual rights." Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643, 647 (1961). For this reason, as well as those set forth by Justice Gins- burg, I respectfully dissent. Justice Ginsburg, with whom Justice Stevens joins, dissenting. This case portrays the increasing use of computer technol- ogy in law enforcement; it illustrates an evolving problem this Court need not, and in my judgment should not, resolve too hastily.1 The Arizona Supreme Court relied on "the 1 We have in many instances recognized that when frontier legal prob- lems are presented, periods of "percolation" in, and diverse opinions from, state and federal appellate courts may yield a better informed and more enduring final pronouncement by this Court. See, e. g., McCray v. New 514us1$30P 06-11-98 18:12:59 PAGES OPINPGT 24 ARIZONA v. EVANS Ginsburg, J., dissenting principles of a free society" in reaching its decision. This Court reviews and reverses the Arizona decision on the as- sumption that Arizona's highest court sought assiduously to apply this Court's Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. The Court thus follows the presumption announced in Michigan v. Long, 463 U. S. 1032 (1983): If it is unclear whether a state court's decision rests on state or federal law, Long dictates the assumption that the state court relied on federal law. On the basis of that assumption, the Court asserts jurisdic- tion to review the decision of the Arizona Supreme Court. The Long presumption, as I see it, impedes the States' ability to serve as laboratories for testing solutions to novel legal problems. I would apply the opposite presumption and assume that Arizona's Supreme Court has ruled for its own State and people, under its own constitutional recogni- tion of individual security against unwarranted state intru- sion. Accordingly, I would dismiss the writ of certiorari. I Isaac Evans was arrested because a computer record erro- neously identified an outstanding misdemeanor arrest war- rant in his name. The Arizona Supreme Court's suppression of evidence obtained from this unlawful arrest did not rest on a close analysis of this Court's Fourth Amendment prece- dents. Indeed, the court found our most relevant decision, United States v. Leon, 468 U. S. 897 (1984), "not helpful." 177 Ariz. 201, 203, 866 P. 2d 869, 871 (1994). Instead, the Arizona court emphasized its comprehension of the severe curtailment of personal liberty inherent in arrest warrants. York, 461 U. S. 961, 961­963 (1983) (Stevens, J., respecting denial of peti- tions for writs of certiorari) ("My vote to deny certiorari in these cases does not reflect disagreement with Justice Marshall's appraisal of the importance of the underlying issue . . . . In my judgment it is a sound exercise of discretion for the Court to allow the various States to serve as laboratories in which the issue receives further study before it is ad- dressed by this Court."). 514us1$30P 06-11-98 18:12:59 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 1 (1995) 25 Ginsburg, J., dissenting Specifically, the Arizona Supreme Court saw the growing use of computerized records in law enforcement as a develop- ment presenting new dangers to individual liberty; excluding evidence seized as a result of incorrect computer data, the Arizona court anticipated, would reduce the incidence of un- corrected records: "The dissent laments the `high costs' of the exclusion- ary rule, and suggests that its application here is `pur- poseless' and provides `no offsetting benefits.' Such an assertion ignores the fact that arrest warrants result in a denial of human liberty, and are therefore among the most important of legal documents. It is repugnant to the principles of a free society that a person should ever be taken into police custody because of a computer error precipitated by government carelessness. As automa- tion increasingly invades modern life, the potential for Orwellian mischief grows. Under such circumstances, the exclusionary rule is a `cost' we cannot afford to be without." Id., at 204, 866 P. 2d, at 872. Thus, the Arizona court did not consider this case to in- volve simply and only a court employee's slip in failing to communicate with the police, or a police officer's oversight in failing to record information received from a court employee. That court recognized a "potential for Orwellian mischief" in the government's increasing reliance on computer technology in law enforcement. The Arizona Supreme Court concluded that Leon's distinction between police conduct and judicial conduct loses force where, as here, the error derives not from a discretionary judicial function, but from inattentive record- keeping. Application of an exclusionary rule in the circum- stances Evans' case presents, the Arizona court said, "will hopefully serve to improve the efficiency of those who keep records in our criminal justice system." Ibid. Invoking Long, this Court's majority presumes that the Arizona Supreme Court relied on federal law. Long in- 514us1$30P 06-11-98 18:12:59 PAGES OPINPGT 26 ARIZONA v. EVANS Ginsburg, J., dissenting structs that a state-court opinion discussing both state and federal precedents shall be deemed to rely on federal law, absent a plain statement in the opinion that the decision rests on state law. 463 U. S., at 1040­1042.2 For reasons this case illustrates, I would choose the opposite plain state- ment rule. I would presume, absent a plain statement to the contrary, that a state court's decision of the kind here at issue rests on an independent state-law ground.3 II A Widespread reliance on computers to store and convey in- formation generates, along with manifold benefits, new possi- bilities of error, due to both computer malfunctions and oper- ator mistakes. Most germane to this case, computerization greatly amplifies an error's effect, and correspondingly inten- sifies the need for prompt correction; for inaccurate data can infect not only one agency, but the many agencies that share access to the data base. The computerized data bases of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's National Crime Informa- tion Center (NCIC), to take a conspicuous example, contain 2 The Long presumption becomes operative when two conditions are met: (1) the state-court decision must "fairly appea[r] to rest primarily on federal law, or to be interwoven with the federal law"; and (2) "the ade- quacy and independence of any possible state law ground [must] not [be] clear from the face of the opinion." 463 U. S., at 1040­1041. 3 I recognize, in accord with Long on this point, that there will be cases in which a presumption concerning exercise of the Court's jurisdic- tion should yield, i. e., exceptional instances in which vacation of a state court's judgment and remand for clarification of the court's decision is in order. See id., at 1041, n. 6 ("There may be certain circumstances in which clarification is necessary or desirable, and we will not be foreclosed from taking the appropriate action."); Capital Cities Media, Inc. v. Toole, 466 U. S. 378, 379 (1984) (per curiam) (post-Long decision vacating state- court judgment and remanding for such further proceedings as the state court might deem appropriate to clarify the ground of its decision). 514us1$30P 06-11-98 18:12:59 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 1 (1995) 27 Ginsburg, J., dissenting over 23 million records, identifying, among other things, per- sons and vehicles sought by law enforcement agencies na- tionwide. See Hearings before the Subcommittee on the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies of the House Committee on Appropria- tions, 102d Cong., 2d Sess., pt. 2B, p. 467 (1992). NCIC in- formation is available to approximately 71,000 federal, state, and local agencies. See Hearings before the Subcommittee on the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies of the House Committee on Appropriations, 103d Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 2A, p. 489 (1993). Thus, any mistake entered into the NCIC spreads nation- wide in an instant. Isaac Evans' arrest exemplifies the risks associated with computerization of arrest warrants. Though his arrest was in fact warrantless-the warrant once issued having been quashed over two weeks before the episode in suit-the com- puter reported otherwise. Evans' case is not idiosyncratic. Rogan v. Los Angeles, 668 F. Supp. 1384 (CD Cal. 1987), simi- larly indicates the problem. There, the Los Angeles Police Department, in 1982, had entered into the NCIC computer an arrest warrant for a man suspected of robbery and mur- der. Because the suspect had been impersonating Terry Dean Rogan, the arrest warrant erroneously named Rogan. Compounding the error, the Los Angeles Police Department had failed to include a description of the suspect's physical characteristics. During the next two years, this incorrect and incomplete information caused Rogan to be arrested four times, three times at gunpoint, after stops for minor traffic infractions in Michigan and Oklahoma. See id., at 1387­ 1389.4 In another case of the same genre, the District Court observed: 4 See also Finch v. Chapman, 785 F. Supp. 1277, 1278­1279 (ND Ill. 1992) (misinformation long retained in NCIC records twice caused plaintiff's arrest and detention), affirmance order, 991 F. 2d 799 (CA7 1993). 514us1$30P 06-11-98 18:12:59 PAGES OPINPGT 28 ARIZONA v. EVANS Ginsburg, J., dissenting "Because of the inaccurate listing in the NCIC com- puter, defendant was a `marked man' for the five months prior to his arrest . . . . At any time . . . a routine check by the police could well result in defendant's arrest, booking, search and detention. . . . Moreover, this could happen anywhere in the United States where law en- forcement officers had access to NCIC information. Defendant was subject to being deprived of his liberty at any time and without any legal basis." United States v. Mackey, 387 F. Supp. 1121, 1124 (Nev. 1975). In the instant case, the Court features testimony of the Chief Clerk of the Justice Court in East Phoenix to the effect that errors of the kind Evans encountered are reported only "on[c]e every three or four years." Ante, at 15 (citing App. 37). But the same witness also recounted that, when the error concerning Evans came to light, an immediate check revealed that three other errors of the very same kind had occurred on "that same day." See ante, at 21­22, and n. 3 (Stevens, J., dissenting). B This Court and the Arizona Supreme Court hold diverse views on the question whether application of an exclusionary rule will reduce the incidence of erroneous computer data left without prompt correction. Observing that "court clerks are not adjuncts to the law enforcement team engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime," the Court reasons that "there is no basis for believing that application of the exclusionary rule in these circumstances will have a significant effect on court employees responsible for informing the police that a warrant has been quashed." Ante, at 15. In the Court's view, exclusion of evidence, even if capable of deterring police officer errors, cannot deter the 514us1$30P 06-11-98 18:12:59 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 1 (1995) 29 Ginsburg, J., dissenting carelessness of other governmental actors.5 Whatever fed- eral precedents may indicate-an issue on which I voice no opinion-the Court's conclusion is not the lesson inevitably to be drawn from logic or experience. In this electronic age, particularly with respect to record- keeping, court personnel and police officers are not neatly compartmentalized actors. Instead, they serve together to carry out the State's information-gathering objectives. Whether particular records are maintained by the police or the courts should not be dispositive where a single computer data base can answer all calls. Not only is it artificial to distinguish between court clerk and police clerk slips; in practice, it may be difficult to pinpoint whether one official, e. g., a court employee, or another, e. g., a police officer, caused the error to exist or to persist. Applying an ex- clusionary rule as the Arizona court did may well supply a powerful incentive to the State to promote the prompt updat- ing of computer records. That was the Arizona Supreme Court's hardly unreasonable expectation. The incentive to update promptly would be diminished if court-initiated rec- ords were exempt from the rule's sway. 5 It has been suggested that an exclusionary rule cannot deter careless- ness, but can affect only intentional or reckless misconduct. This sugges- tion runs counter to a premise underlying all of negligence law-that im- posing liability for negligence, i. e., lack of due care, creates an incentive to act with greater care. That the mistake may have been made by a clerical worker does not alter the conclusion that application of the exclusionary rule has deterrent value. Just as the risk of respondeat superior liability encourages em- ployers to supervise more closely their employees' conduct, so the risk of exclusion of evidence encourages policymakers and systems managers to monitor the performance of the systems they install and the personnel employed to operate those systems. In the words of the trial court, the mistake in Evans' case was "perhaps the negligence of the Justice Court, or the negligence of the Sheriff's office. But it is still the negligence of the State." App. 51. 514us1$30P 06-11-98 18:12:59 PAGES OPINPGT 30 ARIZONA v. EVANS Ginsburg, J., dissenting C The debate over the efficacy of an exclusionary rule re- veals that deterrence is an empirical question, not a logical one. "It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic ex- periments without risk to the rest of the country." New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U. S. 262, 311 (1932) (Bran- deis, J., dissenting). With that facet of our federalism in mind, this Court should select a jurisdictional presumption that encourages States to explore different means to secure respect for individual rights in modern times. Historically, state laws were the source, and state courts the arbiters, of individual rights. Linde, First Things First: Rediscovering the States' Bills of Rights, 9 U. Balt. L. Rev. 379, 382 (1980). The drafters of the Federal Bill of Rights looked to provisions in state constitutions as models. Id., at 381. Moreover, many States that adopted constitutions after 1789 modeled their bills of rights on pre-existing state constitutions, rather than on the Federal Bill of Rights. Ibid. And before this Court recognized that the Fourteenth Amendment-which constrains actions by States-incorpo- rates provisions of the Federal Bill of Rights, state consti- tutional rights, as interpreted by state courts, imposed the primary constraints on state action. Brennan, State Con- stitutions and the Protection of Individual Rights, 90 Harv. L. Rev. 489, 501­502 (1977). State courts interpreting state law remain particularly well situated to enforce individual rights against the States. Institutional constraints, it has been observed, may limit the ability of this Court to enforce the federal constitutional guarantees. Sager, Fair Measure: The Legal Status of Underenforced Constitutional Norms, 91 Harv. L. Rev. 1212, 1217­1218 (1978). Prime among the institutional con- straints, this Court is reluctant to intrude too deeply into areas traditionally regulated by the States. This aspect of 514us1$30P 06-11-98 18:12:59 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 1 (1995) 31 Ginsburg, J., dissenting federalism does not touch or concern state courts interpret- ing state law. III Under Long, when state courts engage in the essential process of developing state constitutional law, they may insu- late their decisions from this Court's review by means of a plain statement of intent to rest upon an independent state ground. The plain statement option does not, however, make pleas for reconsideration of the Long presumption much ado about nothing.6 Both on a practical and on a sym- bolic level, the presumption chosen matters. The presumption is an imperfect barometer of state courts' intent. Although it is easy enough for a state court to say the requisite magic words, the court may not recog- nize that its opinion triggers Long's plain statement require- ment. "[A]pplication of Long's presumption depends on a whole series of `soft' requirements: the state decision must `fairly appear' to rest `primarily' on federal law or be `inter- woven' with federal law, and the independence of the state ground must be `not clear' from the face of the state opinion. These are not self-applying concepts." P. Bator, D. Meltzer, P. Mishkin, & D. Shapiro, Hart and Wechsler's The Federal Courts and the Federal System 552 (3d ed. 1988) (hereinafter Hart and Wechsler); cf. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U. S. 722, 735­740 (1991) (declining to apply Long presumption to sum- mary dismissal order). Can the highest court of a State satisfy Long's "plain statement" requirement in advance, through a blanket dis- claimer? The New Hampshire Supreme Court, for example, has declared: "We hereby make clear that when this court cites federal or other State court opinions in construing pro- visions of the New Hampshire Constitution or statutes, we 6 Long has generated many pages of academic commentary, some sup- portive, some critical of the presumption. See, e. g., P. Bator, D. Meltzer, P. Mishkin, & D. Shapiro, Hart and Wechsler's The Federal Courts and the Federal System 553, n. 3 (3d ed. 1988) (citing commentary). 514us1$30P 06-11-98 18:12:59 PAGES OPINPGT 32 ARIZONA v. EVANS Ginsburg, J., dissenting rely on those precedents merely for guidance and do not con- sider our results bound by those decisions." State v. Ball, 124 N. H. 226, 233, 471 A. 2d 347, 352 (1983). See also State v. Kennedy, 295 Ore. 260, 267, 666 P. 2d 1316, 1321 (1983) ("Lest there be any doubt about it, when this court cites federal opinions in interpreting a provision of Oregon law, it does so because it finds the views there expressed persua- sive, not because it considers itself bound to do so by its understanding of federal doctrines."). This Court's stated reluctance to look beneath or beyond the very state-court opinion at issue in order to answer the jurisdictional ques- tion, see Long, 463 U. S., at 1040, may render such blanket declarations ineffective. Cf. Hart and Wechsler 553 ("[T]he Court's protestations-that its presumption shows greater respect for state courts than asking them to clarify their opinions-ring hollow: Long simply puts the burden of clari- fication on the state court in advance."). Application of the Long presumption has increased the in- cidence of nondispositive United States Supreme Court de- terminations-instances in which state courts, on remand, have reinstated their prior judgments after clarifying their reliance on state grounds. Westling, Advisory Opinions and the "Constitutionally Required" Adequate and Independent State Grounds Doctrine, 63 Tulane L. Rev. 379, 389, and n. 47 (1988) (pre-Long, i. e., between January 1, 1978, and June 30, 1983, 14.3% of decisions (2 of 14) involving potentially ade- quate and independent state grounds were reinstated on state grounds upon remand; post-Long, i. e., between July 1, 1983, and January 1, 1988, 26.7% of such decisions (4 of 15) were reinstated on remand). Even if these reinstatements do not render the Supreme Court's opinion technically "advi- sory," see Hart and Wechsler 537, they do suggest that the Court unnecessarily spent its resources on cases better left, at the time in question, to state-court solution. The Long presumption, in sum, departs from the tradi- tional understanding that "every federal court is `without 514us1$30P 06-11-98 18:12:59 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 1 (1995) 33 Ginsburg, J., dissenting jurisdiction' unless `the contrary appears affirmatively from the record.' " Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U. S. 673, 692 (1986) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (quoting King Bridge Co. v. Otoe County, 120 U. S. 225, 226 (1887)). And it is out of sync with the principle that this Court will avoid constitutional questions when an alternative basis of decision fairly pre- sents itself. Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U. S. 288, 346­347 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring). Most critically, as this case shows, the Long presumption interferes prematurely with state-court endeavors to explore different solutions to new problems facing modern society. I recognize that "[s]ince Long, we repeatedly have fol- lowed [its] `plain statement' requirement," Harris v. Reed, 489 U. S. 255, 261, n. 7 (1989), and that precedent ought not be overruled absent strong cause. But the Long ruling it- self did "a virtual about-face regarding the guidelines for deter- mining the reviewability of state court decisions in situ- ations where the state court opinion is not absolutely clear about the bases on which it rests. The traditional presumption was that the Court lacked jurisdiction un- less its authority to review was clear on the face of the state court opinion. When faced with uncertainty, the Court in the past occasionally remanded such cases to the state court for clarification. But more commonly, the Court would deny jurisdiction where there was uncertainty." G. Gunther, Constitutional Law 56 (12th ed. 1991). Restoring a main rule "deny[ing] jurisdiction where there [is] uncertainty," ibid., would stop this Court from asserting authority in matters belonging, or at least appropriately left, to the States' domain. Cf. Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U. S. 64, 77­80 (1938). Recognizing that "adequate state grounds are independent unless it clearly appears other- 514us1$30P 06-11-98 18:12:59 PAGES OPINPGT 34 ARIZONA v. EVANS Ginsburg, J., dissenting wise," Long, 463 U. S., at 1066 (Stevens, J., dissenting),7 would also avoid premature settlement of important federal questions. The submission for the United States is telling in this regard. While filing in support of petitioner, the United States acknowledges the problem occasioned by "erroneous information contained in law enforcement computer-information systems," but does not see this case as a proper vehicle for a pathmarking opinion. The United States suggests that the Court "await a case in which rele- vant characteristics of such systems and the legal questions they pose can be thoroughly explored." Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 13. * * * The Arizona Supreme Court found it "repugnant to the principles of a free society," 177 Ariz., at 204, 866 P. 2d, at 872, to take a person "into police custody because of a computer error precipitated by government carelessness." Ibid. Few, I believe, would disagree. Whether, in order to guard against such errors, "the exclusionary rule is a `cost' we cannot afford to be without," ibid., seems to me a ques- tion this Court should not rush to decide. The Court errs, as I see it, in presuming that Arizona rested its decision on federal grounds. I would abandon the Long presumption and dismiss the writ because the generally applicable obliga- tion affirmatively to establish the Court's jurisdiction has not been satisfied. 7 For instances in which a state court's decision, even if arguably placed on a state ground, embodies a misconstruction of federal law threatening gravely to mislead, or to engender disuniformity, confusion, or instability, a Supreme Court order vacating the judgment and remanding for clarifi- cation should suffice. See Hart and Wechsler 554; see also supra, at 26, n. 3. 514us1$31Z 05-29-98 14:50:44 PAGES OPINPGT OCTOBER TERM, 1994 35 Syllabus SWINT et al. v. CHAMBERS COUNTY COMMISSION et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eleventh circuit No. 93­1636. Argued January 10, 1995-Decided March 1, 1995 In the wake of police raids on a nightclub in Chambers County, Alabama, two of the club's owners joined by an employee and a patron (all petition- ers here) sued respondent Chambers County Commission, along with a municipality and three individual police officers; petitioners sought dam- ages and other relief under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 for alleged civil rights violations. The District Court denied the summary judgment motions of all five defendants, ruling, inter alia, that the individual officers were not entitled to qualified immunity from suit and that the sheriff who authorized the raids, although a state employee, may have been the county's final policymaker for law enforcement. The District Court stated that it would rule dispositively on the county's liability before jury deliberations. Invoking the rule that an order denying qualified immunity is appealable before trial, Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U. S. 511, 530, the individual defendants immediately appealed. The county com- mission also appealed, arguing that the denial of its summary judgment motion was immediately appealable as a collateral order satisfying the test announced in Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541, 546, and, alternatively, that the Eleventh Circuit had "pendent ap- pellate jurisdiction" to decide the questions presented by the commis- sion. The Eleventh Circuit rejected the county commission's first argu- ment, but asserted pendent jurisdiction over the commission's appeal. Determining that the sheriff was not a policymaker for the county, the Eleventh Circuit held that the county commission qualified for sum- mary judgment. Held: The Eleventh Circuit lacked jurisdiction to rule on the county com- mission's liability at this interlocutory stage of the litigation and, accord- ingly, should have dismissed the commission's appeal. Pp. 41­51. (a) The order denying the county commission's summary judgment motion was not an appealable collateral order under Cohen, supra, at 546, which allows immediate appeal from decisions that are conclusive, resolve important questions separate from the merits, and are effec- tively unreviewable on appeal from final judgment. The order in ques- tion fails this test because it was tentative, the District Court having announced its intention to revisit its initial determination. Moreover, 514us1$31Z 05-29-98 14:50:44 PAGES OPINPGT 36 SWINT v. CHAMBERS COUNTY COMM'N Syllabus the order is effectively reviewable after final judgment, because the commission's assertion that the sheriff is not its policymaker ranks solely as a defense to liability, not as an immunity from suit that is effectively lost if the case is erroneously permitted to go to trial. See Mitchell, supra, at 526. Pp. 41­43. (b) There is no "pendent party" appellate jurisdiction of the kind the Eleventh Circuit purported to exercise. Although that court unques- tionably had jurisdiction immediately to review the denial of the individ- ual officers' summary judgment motions, it did not thereby gain author- ity to review at once the unrelated question of the county commission's liability. The parties' arguments to the contrary drift away from the statutory instructions Congress has given to control the timing of appel- late proceedings. In particular, 28 U. S. C. § 1292(b) confers on district courts first line discretion to certify for immediate appeal interlocutory orders deemed pivotal and debatable; this provision grants to the court of appeals discretion to review only orders first certified by the district court. If courts of appeals had jurisdiction of the type here claimed by the Eleventh Circuit, § 1292(b)'s two-tiered arrangement would be severely undermined. Furthermore, provisions Congress passed in 1990 and 1992, 28 U. S. C. § 2072(c) and 28 U. S. C. § 1292(e), designate the rulemaking process as the way to define or refine when a district court ruling is "final" and when an interlocutory order is appealable. These legislative provisions counsel resistance to expansion of appellate jurisdiction by court decision. Abney v. United States, 431 U. S. 651, 662­663, and United States v. Stanley, 483 U. S. 669, 676­677, securely support the conclusion that the Eleventh Circuit lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of the county commission's summary judgment motion. Although the parties are correct that this Court has not universally required courts of appeals to confine review to the precise decision inde- pendently subject to review, the Court need not definitively or preemp- tively settle here whether or when it may be proper for a court of ap- peals with jurisdiction over one ruling to review, conjunctively, related rulings that are not themselves independently appealable. The parties do not-indeed could not-contend that the District Court's decision to deny the commission's motion on the ground that the sheriff may have been a county policymaker was inextricably intertwined with that court's decision to deny the individual defendants' qualified immunity motions, or that review of the former decision was necessary to ensure meaningful review of the latter. Pp. 43­51. 5 F. 3d 1435 and 11 F. 3d 1030, vacated in part and remanded. Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. 514us1$31Z 05-29-98 14:50:44 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 35 (1995) 37 Opinion of the Court Robert B. McDuff argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Carlos A. Williams, Bryan Steven- son, and Bernard Harcourt. Paul R. Q. Wolfson argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae in support of petitioners. On the brief were Solicitor General Days, Assistant Attorney General Patrick, Deputy Solicitor General Bender, Beth S. Brink- mann, Jessica Dunsay Silver, and Linda F. Thome. Paul M. Smith argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief for respondent Chambers County Commis- sion were Bruce J. Ennis, Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., James W. Webb, Kendrick E. Webb, and Bart Harmon.* Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court. In the wake of successive police raids on a nightclub in Chambers County, Alabama, two of the club's owners joined by an employee and a patron (petitioners here) sued the Chambers County Commission (respondent here), the city of Wadley, and three individual police officers. Petitioners sought damages and other relief, pursuant to 42 U. S. C. § 1983, for alleged civil rights violations. We granted certio- rari to review the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which held that the Cham- bers County Commission qualified for summary judgment because the sheriff who authorized the raids was a state ex- ecutive officer and not an agent of the county commission. We do not reach that issue, however, because we conclude *J. Michael McGuinness filed a brief for the Southern States Police Benevolent Association as amicus curiae urging reversal. Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for Jefferson County, Alabama, by Charles S. Wagner; and for the National Association of Coun- ties et al. by Richard Ruda. Mitchell F. Dolin, T. Jeremy Gunn, Steven R. Shapiro, Michael A. Coo- per, Herbert J. Hansell, Norman Redlich, Thomas J. Henderson, and Sharon R. Vinick filed a brief for the American Civil Liberties Union et al. as amici curiae. 514us1$31P 05-29-98 14:50:44 PAGES OPINPGT 38 SWINT v. CHAMBERS COUNTY COMM'N Opinion of the Court that the Eleventh Circuit lacked jurisdiction to rule on the county commission's liability at this interlocutory stage of the litigation. The Eleventh Circuit unquestionably had jurisdiction to review the denial of the individual police officer defendants' motions for summary judgment based on their alleged quali- fied immunity from suit. But the Circuit Court did not thereby gain authority to review the denial of the Chambers County Commission's motion for summary judgment. The commission's appeal, we hold, does not fit within the "collat- eral order" doctrine, nor is there "pendent party" appellate authority to take up the commission's case. We therefore vacate the relevant portion of the Eleventh Circuit's judg- ment and remand the case for proceedings consistent with this opinion. I On December 14, 1990, and again on March 29, 1991, law enforcement officers from Chambers County and the city of Wadley, Alabama, raided the Capri Club in Chambers County as part of a narcotics operation. The raids were conducted without a search warrant or an arrest warrant. Petitioners filed suit, alleging, among other claims for relief, violations of their federal civil rights. Petitioners named as defendants the county commission; the city of Wadley; and three individual defendants, Chambers County Sheriff James C. Morgan, Wadley Police Chief Freddie Morgan, and Wadley Police Officer Gregory Dendinger. The five defendants moved for summary judgment on varying grounds. The three individual defendants asserted qualified immunity from suit on petitioners' federal claims. See Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 639 (1987) (gov- ernmental officials are immune from suit for civil damages unless their conduct is unreasonable in light of clearly estab- lished law). Without addressing the question whether Wad- ley Police Chief Freddie Morgan, who participated in the 514us1$31P 05-29-98 14:50:45 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 35 (1995) 39 Opinion of the Court raids, was a policymaker for the municipality, the city argued that a respondeat superior theory could not be used to hold it liable under § 1983. See Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U. S. 658, 694 (1978) (a local government may not be sued under § 1983 for injury inflicted solely by its nonpolicymaking employees or agents). The Chambers County Commission argued that County Sheriff James C. Morgan, who authorized the raids, was not a policymaker for the county. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama denied the motions for summary judgment. The District Court agreed that § 1983 liability could not be im- posed on the city for an injury inflicted by a nonpolicy- making employee; that court denied the city's summary judg- ment motion, however, because the city had failed to argue that Wadley Police Chief Freddie Morgan was not its policy- maker for law enforcement. Regarding the county commis- sion's motion, the District Court was "persuaded by the Plaintiffs that Sheriff [James C.] Morgan may have been the final decision-maker for the County in ferreting out crime, although he is a State of Alabama employee." App. to Pet. for Cert. 67a. The District Court later denied the defend- ants' motions for reconsideration, but indicated its intent to revisit, before jury deliberations, the question whether Sher- iff Morgan was a policymaker for the county: "The Chambers County Defendants correctly point out that whether Sheriff James Morgan was the final policy maker is a question of law that this Court can decide. What th[is] Court decided in its [prior order] was that the Plaintiffs had come forward with sufficient evidence to persuade this Court that Sheriff Morgan may be the final policy maker for the County. The par- ties will have an opportunity to convince this Court that Sheriff Morgan was or was not the final policy maker 514us1$31P 05-29-98 14:50:45 PAGES OPINPGT 40 SWINT v. CHAMBERS COUNTY COMM'N Opinion of the Court for the County, and the Court will make a ruling as a matter of law on that issue before the case goes to the jury." Id., at 72a. Invoking the rule that an order denying qualified immu- nity is appealable before trial, Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U. S. 511, 530 (1985), the individual defendants immediately ap- pealed. The city of Wadley and the Chambers County Com- mission also appealed, arguing, first, that the denial of their summary judgment motions-like the denial of the individ- ual defendants' summary judgment motions-was immedi- ately appealable as a collateral order satisfying the test an- nounced in Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541, 546 (1949) (decisions that are conclusive, that resolve important questions apart from the merits of the underlying action, and that are effectively unreviewable on appeal from final judgment may be appealed immediately). Alternatively, the city and county commission urged the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to exercise "pendent ap- pellate jurisdiction," a power that court had asserted in ear- lier cases. Stressing the Eleventh Circuit's undisputed ju- risdiction over the individual defendants' qualified immunity pleas, the city and county commission maintained that, in the interest of judicial economy, the court should resolve, simul- taneously, the city's and commission's appeals. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the District Court's order denying summary judgment for the individual defendants. 5 F. 3d 1435, 1448 (1993), modified, 11 F. 3d 1030, 1031­1032 (1994). Next, the Eleventh Circuit held that the District Court's rejections of the county commis- sion's and city's summary judgment motions were not im- mediately appealable as collateral orders. 5 F. 3d, at 1449, 1452. Nevertheless, the Circuit Court decided to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over the county commission's appeal. Id., at 1449­1450. Holding that Sheriff James C. 514us1$31P 05-29-98 14:50:45 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 35 (1995) 41 Opinion of the Court Morgan was not a policymaker for the county in the area of law enforcement, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the District Court's order denying the county commission's motion for summary judgment. Id., at 1450­1451. The Eleventh Cir- cuit declined to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over the city's appeal because the District Court had not yet de- cided whether Wadley Police Chief Freddie Morgan was a policymaker for the city. Id., at 1451­1452.1 We granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' de- cision that Sheriff Morgan is not a policymaker for Chambers County. 512 U. S. 1204 (1994). We then instructed the par- ties to file supplemental briefs addressing this question: Given the Eleventh Circuit's jurisdiction to review imme- diately the District Court's refusal to grant summary judgment for the individual defendants in response to their pleas of qualified immunity, did the Circuit Court also have jurisdiction to review at once the denial of the county commission's summary judgment motion? 513 U. S. 958 (1994). We now hold that the Eleventh Circuit should have dismissed the county commission's appeal for want of jurisdiction. II We inquire first whether the denial of the county commis- sion's summary judgment motion was appealable as a collat- eral order. The answer, as the Court of Appeals recognized, is a firm "No." By statute, federal courts of appeals have "jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts," except where direct review may be had in this Court. 28 U. S. C. § 1291. "The collateral order doctrine is best understood not as an exception to the `final decision' rule laid down by Con- 1 On Sheriff James C. Morgan's suggestion for rehearing en banc, the Eleventh Circuit modified its opinion with respect to an issue not relevant here and denied rehearing en banc. 11 F. 3d 1030 (1994). 514us1$31P 05-29-98 14:50:45 PAGES OPINPGT 42 SWINT v. CHAMBERS COUNTY COMM'N Opinion of the Court gress in § 1291, but as a `practical construction' of it." Digi- tal Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U. S. 863, 867 (1994) (quoting Cohen, 337 U. S., at 546). In Cohen, we held that § 1291 permits appeals not only from a final decision by which a district court disassociates itself from a case, but also from a small category of decisions that, although they do not end the litigation, must nonetheless be considered "final." Id., at 546. That small category includes only decisions that are conclusive, that resolve important questions separate from the merits, and that are effectively unreviewable on appeal from the final judgment in the underlying action. Ibid. The District Court planned to reconsider its ruling on the county commission's summary judgment motion before the case went to the jury. That court had initially determined only that "Sheriff Morgan . . . may have been the final policy maker for the County." App. to Pet. for Cert. 67a (emphasis added). The ruling thus fails the Cohen test, which "disal- low[s] appeal from any decision which is tentative, informal or incomplete." 337 U. S., at 546; see Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U. S. 463, 469 (1978) (order denying class certi- fication held not appealable under collateral order doctrine, in part because such an order is "subject to revision in the District Court"). Moreover, the order denying the county commission's sum- mary judgment motion does not satisfy Cohen's requirement that the decision be effectively unreviewable after final judg- ment. When we placed within the collateral order doctrine decisions denying pleas of government officials for qualified immunity, we stressed that an official's qualified immunity is "an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liabil- ity; and like an absolute immunity, it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial." Mitchell, 472 U. S., at 526 (emphasis in original). 514us1$31P 05-29-98 14:50:45 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 35 (1995) 43 Opinion of the Court The county commission invokes our decision in Monell, which held that municipalities are liable under § 1983 only for violations of federal law that occur pursuant to official governmental policy or custom. Monell, the commission contends, should be read to accord local governments a quali- fied right to be free from the burdens of trial. Accordingly, the commission maintains, the commission should be able to appeal immediately the District Court's denial of its sum- mary judgment motion. This argument undervalues a core point we reiterated last Term: "§ 1291 requires courts of ap- peals to view claims of a `right not to be tried' with skepti- cism, if not a jaundiced eye," Digital Equipment, 511 U. S., at 873, for "virtually every right that could be enforced ap- propriately by pretrial dismissal might loosely be described as conferring a `right not to stand trial,' " ibid.; cf. United States v. MacDonald, 435 U. S. 850, 858­859 (1978) (denial of pretrial motion to dismiss an indictment on speedy trial grounds held not appealable under collateral order doctrine). The commission's assertion that Sheriff Morgan is not its policymaker does not rank, under our decisions, as an immu- nity from suit. Instead, the plea ranks as a "mere defense to liability." Mitchell, 472 U. S., at 526. An erroneous rul- ing on liability may be reviewed effectively on appeal from final judgment. Therefore, the order denying the county commission's summary judgment motion was not an appeal- able collateral order. III Although the Court of Appeals recognized that the Dis- trict Court's order denying the county commission's sum- mary judgment motion was not appealable as a collateral order, the Circuit Court reviewed that ruling by assuming jurisdiction pendent to its undisputed jurisdiction to review the denial of the individual defendants' summary judgment motions. Describing this "pendent appellate jurisdiction" as discretionary, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that judicial 514us1$31P 05-29-98 14:50:45 PAGES OPINPGT 44 SWINT v. CHAMBERS COUNTY COMM'N Opinion of the Court economy warranted its exercise in the instant case: "If the County Commission is correct about the merits in its ap- peal," the court explained, "reviewing the district court's order would put an end to the entire case against the County . . . ." 5 F. 3d, at 1450.2 2 The Federal Courts of Appeals have endorsed the doctrine of pendent appellate jurisdiction, although they have expressed varying views about when such jurisdiction is properly exercised. See, e. g., Roque-Rodriguez v. Lema Moya, 926 F. 2d 103, 105, n. 2 (CA1 1991) (noting that the First Circuit has "refrained" from exercising pendent appellate jurisdiction, but characterizing the Circuit's practice as "self-imposed"); Golino v. New Haven, 950 F. 2d 864, 868­869 (CA2 1991) (exercising discretion to consider otherwise nonappealable issues because sufficient overlap exists in the fac- tors relevant to the appealable and nonappealable issues), cert. denied, 505 U. S. 1221 (1992); Natale v. Ridgefield, 927 F. 2d 101, 104 (CA2 1991) ("Only in exceptional circumstances should litigants, over whom this Court cannot ordinarily exercise jurisdiction, be permitted to ride on the jurisdictional coattails of another party."); National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. City Savings, F. S. B., 28 F. 3d 376, 382, and n. 4 (CA3 1994) (reserving question whether pendent appellate jurisdiction is available in any circumstances other than when "necessary to ensure meaningful review of an appealable order") (internal quotation marks omitted); Roberson v. Mullins, 29 F. 3d 132, 136 (CA4 1994) (recognizing pendent appellate jurisdiction "if the issues involved in the two rulings substantially overlap and review will advance the litigation or avoid further appeals") (internal quotation marks omit- ted); Silver Star Enterprises v. M/V SARAMACCA, 19 F. 3d 1008, 1014 (CA5 1994) (declining to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction because otherwise nonappealable order was not "inextricably entwined" with appealable order); Williams v. Kentucky, 24 F. 3d 1526, 1542 (CA6 1994) (same); United States ex rel. Valders Stone & Marble, Inc. v. C-Way Constr. Co., 909 F. 2d 259, 262 (CA7 1990) (pendent appellate jurisdiction is proper only "[w]hen an ordinarily unappealable interlocutory order is inextricably entwined with an appealable order" and there are "compelling reasons" for immediate review; a "close relationship" between the two orders does not suffice) (internal quotation marks omitted); Drake v. Scott, 812 F. 2d 395, 399 (CA8) ("[W]hen an interlocutory appeal is properly before us . . . we have jurisdiction also to decide closely related issues of law."), cert. denied, 484 U. S. 965 (1987); TransWorld Airlines, Inc. v. American Coupon Exchange, Inc., 913 F. 2d 676, 680 (CA9 1990) (jurisdic- tion under § 1291(a)(1) to review on an interlocutory basis a preliminary 514us1$31P 05-29-98 14:50:45 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 35 (1995) 45 Opinion of the Court Petitioners join respondent Chambers County Commission in urging that the Eleventh Circuit had pendent appellate jurisdiction to review the District Court's order denying the commission's summary judgment motion. Both sides em- phasize that § 1291's final decision requirement is designed to prevent parties from interrupting litigation by pursuing piecemeal appeals. Once litigation has already been inter- rupted by an authorized pretrial appeal, petitioners and the county commission reason, there is no cause to resist the economy that pendent appellate jurisdiction promotes. See Supplemental Brief for Petitioners 16­17; Supplemental Brief for Respondent 5, 9. Respondent county commission invites us to adopt a " `libera[l]' " construction of § 1291, and petitioners urge an interpretation sufficiently "[p]ractical" and "[f]lexible" to accommodate pendent appellate review as exercised by the Eleventh Circuit. See id., at 4; Supplemen- tal Brief for Petitioners 14. These arguments drift away from the statutory instruc- tions Congress has given to control the timing of appellate proceedings. The main rule on review of "final decisions," § 1291, is followed by prescriptions for appeals from "inter- locutory decisions," § 1292. Section 1292(a) lists three cate- injunction order "extends to all matters `inextricably bound up' with th[at] order"); Robinson v. Volkswagenwerk AG, 940 F. 2d 1369, 1374 (CA10 1991) (pendent appellate jurisdiction is properly exercised where "review of the appealable issue involves consideration of factors closely related or relevant to the otherwise nonappealable issue" and judicial economy is served by review), cert. denied, 502 U. S. 1091 (1992); Stewart v. Baldwin County Bd. of Ed., 908 F. 2d 1499, 1509 (CA11 1990) ("Pendent jurisdiction is properly exercised over nonappealable decisions of the district court when the reviewing court already has jurisdiction over one issue in the case."); Consarc Corp. v. Iraqi Ministry, 27 F. 3d 695, 700 (CADC 1994) ("This Circuit has invoked [pendent appellate jurisdiction] only in a narrow class of cases, to review an interlocutory order that itself is not yet subject to appeal but is `closely related' to an appealable order."). 514us1$31P 05-29-98 14:50:45 PAGES OPINPGT 46 SWINT v. CHAMBERS COUNTY COMM'N Opinion of the Court gories of immediately appealable interlocutory decisions.3 Of prime significance to the jurisdictional issue before us, Congress, in 1958, augmented the § 1292 catalog of imme- diately appealable orders; Congress added a provision, § 1292(b), according the district courts circumscribed author- ity to certify for immediate appeal interlocutory orders deemed pivotal and debatable. Section 1292(b) provides: "When a district judge, in making in a civil action an order not otherwise appealable under this section, shall be of the opinion that such order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate ter- mination of the litigation, he shall so state in writing in such order. The Court of Appeals which would have jurisdiction of an appeal of such action may thereupon, in its discretion, permit an appeal to be taken from such order, if application is made to it within ten days after the entry of the order: Provided, however, That applica- tion for an appeal hereunder shall not stay proceedings in the district court unless the district judge or the Court of Appeals or a judge thereof shall so order." 3 Section 1292(a) provides in relevant part: "[T]he courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from: "(1) Interlocutory orders of the district courts . . . granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions, except where a direct review may be had in the Su- preme Court; "(2) Interlocutory orders appointing receivers, or refusing orders to wind up receiverships or to take steps to accomplish the purposes thereof, such as directing sales or other disposals of property; "(3) Interlocutory decrees of such district courts or the judges thereof determining the rights and liabilities of the parties to admiralty cases in which appeals from final decrees are allowed." 514us1$31P 05-29-98 14:50:45 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 35 (1995) 47 Opinion of the Court Congress thus chose to confer on district courts first line discretion to allow interlocutory appeals.4 If courts of ap- peals had discretion to append to a Cohen-authorized appeal from a collateral order further rulings of a kind neither inde- pendently appealable nor certified by the district court, then the two-tiered arrangement § 1292(b) mandates would be se- verely undermined.5 4 When it passed § 1292(b), Congress had before it a proposal, by Jerome Frank of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, to give the courts of appeals sole discretion to allow interlocutory appeals. Judge Frank had opposed making interlocutory appeal contingent upon procurement of a certificate from the district judge; he advanced instead the following proposal: " `It shall be the duty of the district judge to state in writing whether in his opinion the appeal is warranted; this statement shall be appended to the petition for appeal or, as promptly as possible after the filing of such petition in the court of appeals, shall be forwarded to said court by the district judge. The court of appeals shall take into account, but shall not be bound by, such statement in exercising its discretion.' " Undated letter from study committee to the Tenth Circuit Judicial Conference, in S. Rep. No. 2434, 85th Cong., 2d Sess., 8­9 (1958). 5 This case indicates how the initial discretion Congress lodged in dis- trict courts under § 1292(b) could be circumvented by the "liberal" or "flexible" approach petitioners and respondent prefer. The District Court here ruled only tentatively on the county commission's motion and appar- ently contemplated receipt of further evidence from the parties before ruling definitively. See order denying motions to reconsider, App. to Pet. for Cert. 72a ("The parties will have an opportunity to convince this Court that Sheriff Morgan was or was not the final policy maker for the County, and the Court will make a ruling as a matter of law on that issue before the case goes to the jury."); cf. Swint v. Wadley, 5 F. 3d 1435, 1452 (CA11 1993) (to determine whether an official is a final policymaker, a district court "should examine not only the relevant positive law . . . but also the relevant customs and practices having the force of law") (emphasis in original). In view of the incomplete state of the District Court's adjudica- tion, including some uncertainty whether plaintiffs meant to sue the county as discrete from the commission members, it is unlikely that a § 1292(b) certification would have been forthcoming from the District Judge. 514us1$31P 05-29-98 14:50:45 PAGES OPINPGT 48 SWINT v. CHAMBERS COUNTY COMM'N Opinion of the Court Two relatively recent additions to the Judicial Code also counsel resistance to expansion of appellate jurisdiction in the manner endorsed by the Eleventh Circuit. The Rules Enabling Act, 28 U. S. C. § 2071 et seq., gives this Court "the power to prescribe general rules of practice and procedure . . . for cases in the United States district courts . . . and courts of appeals." § 2072(a). In 1990, Congress added § 2072(c), which authorizes us to prescribe rules "defin[ing] when a ruling of a district court is final for the purposes of appeal under section 1291." Two years later, Congress added § 1292(e), which allows us to "prescribe rules, in ac- cordance with section 2072 . . . to provide for an appeal of an interlocutory decision to the courts of appeals that is not otherwise provided for under [§ 1292] (a), (b), (c), or (d)." Congress thus has empowered this Court to clarify when a decision qualifies as "final" for appellate review pur- poses, and to expand the list of orders appealable on an interlocutory basis. The procedure Congress ordered for such changes, however, is not expansion by court decision, but by rulemaking under § 2072. Our rulemaking authority is constrained by §§ 2073 and 2074, which require, among other things, that meetings of bench-bar committees estab- lished to recommend rules ordinarily be open to the public, § 2073(c)(1), and that any proposed rule be submitted to Con- gress before the rule takes effect, § 2074(a). Congress' des- ignation of the rulemaking process as the way to define or refine when a district court ruling is "final" and when an interlocutory order is appealable warrants the Judiciary's full respect.6 6 In the instant case, the Eleventh Circuit asserted not merely pendent appellate jurisdiction, but pendent party appellate jurisdiction: The court appended to its jurisdiction to review the denial of the individual defend- ants' qualified immunity motions jurisdiction to review the denial of the commission's summary judgment motion. We note that in 1990, Con- gress endeavored to clarify and codify instances appropriate for the ex- ercise of pendent or "supplemental" jurisdiction in district courts. 28 U. S. C. § 1367 (1988 ed., Supp. V); see § 1367(a) (providing for "supplemen- 514us1$31P 05-29-98 14:50:45 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 35 (1995) 49 Opinion of the Court Two decisions of this Court securely support the conclu- sion that the Eleventh Circuit lacked jurisdiction instantly to review the denial of the county commission's summary judgment motion: Abney v. United States, 431 U. S. 651 (1977), and United States v. Stanley, 483 U. S. 669 (1987). In Abney, we permitted appeal before trial of an order denying a motion to dismiss an indictment on double jeopardy grounds. Immediate appeal of that ruling, we held, fit within the Cohen collateral order doctrine. 431 U. S., at 662. But we further held that the Court of Appeals lacked author- ity to review simultaneously the trial court's rejection of the defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the indictment. Id., at 662­663. We explained: "Our conclusion that a defendant may seek immediate appellate review of a district court's rejection of his dou- ble jeopardy claim is based on the special considerations permeating claims of that nature which justify a depar- ture from the normal rule of finality. Quite obviously, such considerations do not extend beyond the claim of formal jeopardy and encompass other claims presented to, and rejected by, the district court in passing on the accused's motion to dismiss. Rather, such claims are appealable if, and only if, they too fall within Cohen's collateral-order exception to the final-judgment rule. Any other rule would encourage criminal defendants to seek review of, or assert, frivolous double jeopardy claims in order to bring more serious, but otherwise nonappealable questions to the attention of the courts of appeals prior to conviction and sentence." Id., at 663 (citation omitted). Petitioners suggest that Abney should control in criminal cases only. Supplemental Brief for Petitioners 11. But the concern expressed in Abney-that a rule loosely allowing pendent appellate jurisdiction would encourage parties to tal jurisdiction" over "claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties"). 514us1$31P 05-29-98 14:50:45 PAGES OPINPGT 50 SWINT v. CHAMBERS COUNTY COMM'N Opinion of the Court parlay Cohen-type collateral orders into multi-issue interloc- utory appeal tickets-bears on civil cases as well. In Stanley, we similarly refused to allow expansion of the scope of an interlocutory appeal. That civil case involved an order certified by the trial court, and accepted by the appellate court, for immediate review pursuant to § 1292(b). Immediate appellate review, we held, was limited to the certified order; issues presented by other, noncertified orders could not be considered simultaneously. 483 U. S., at 676­677. The parties are correct that we have not universally re- quired courts of appeals to confine review to the precise deci- sion independently subject to appeal. See, e. g., Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U. S. 747, 755­757 (1986) (Court of Appeals reviewing Dis- trict Court's ruling on preliminary injunction request prop- erly reviewed merits as well); Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U. S. 156, 172­173 (1974) (Court of Appeals reviewing District Court's order allocating costs of class notification also had jurisdiction to review ruling on methods of notifica- tion); Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Stude, 346 U. S. 574, 578 (1954) (Court of Appeals reviewing order granting motion to dismiss properly reviewed order denying opposing party's motion to remand); Deckert v. Independence Shares Corp., 311 U. S. 282, 287 (1940) (Court of Appeals reviewing order granting preliminary injunction also had jurisdiction to re- view order denying motions to dismiss). Cf. Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U. S. 104, 110­111 (1964) (Court of Appeals exercising mandamus power should have reviewed not only whether District Court had authority to order mental and physical examinations of defendant in personal injury case, but also whether there was good cause for the ordered examinations). We need not definitively or preemptively settle here whether or when it may be proper for a court of appeals, with jurisdiction over one ruling, to review, conjunctively, 514us1$31P 05-29-98 14:50:45 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 35 (1995) 51 Opinion of the Court related rulings that are not themselves independently ap- pealable. See supra, at 48 (describing provisions by Con- gress for rulemaking regarding appeals prior to the district court's final disposition of entire case). The parties do not contend that the District Court's decision to deny the Cham- bers County Commission's summary judgment motion was inextricably intertwined with that court's decision to deny the individual defendants' qualified immunity motions, or that review of the former decision was necessary to ensure meaningful review of the latter. Cf. Kanji, The Proper Scope of Pendent Appellate Jurisdiction in the Collateral Order Context, 100 Yale L. J. 511, 530 (1990) ("Only where essential to the resolution of properly appealed collateral or- ders should courts extend their Cohen jurisdiction to rulings that would not otherwise qualify for expedited consider- ation."). Nor could the parties so argue. The individual defendants' qualified immunity turns on whether they vio- lated clearly established federal law; the county commission's liability turns on the allocation of law enforcement power in Alabama. * * * The Eleventh Circuit's authority immediately to review the District Court's denial of the individual police officer de- fendants' summary judgment motions did not include author- ity to review at once the unrelated question of the county commission's liability. The District Court's preliminary rul- ing regarding the county did not qualify as a "collateral order," and there is no "pendent party" appellate jurisdiction of the kind the Eleventh Circuit purported to exercise. We therefore vacate the relevant portion of the Eleventh Cir- cuit's judgment and remand the case for proceedings consist- ent with this opinion. It is so ordered. 514us1$32z 06-11-98 18:14:25 PAGES OPINPGT 52 OCTOBER TERM, 1994 Syllabus MASTROBUONO et al. v. SHEARSON LEHMAN HUTTON, INC., et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the seventh circuit No. 94­18. Argued January 10, 1995-Decided March 6, 1995 Petitioners filed this action in the Federal District Court, alleging that their securities trading account had been mishandled by respondent brokers. An arbitration panel, convened under the arbitration provi- sion in the parties' standard-form contract and under the Federal Arbi- tration Act (FAA), awarded petitioners punitive damages and other relief. The District Court and the Court of Appeals disallowed the pu- nitive damages award because the contract's choice-of-law provision specifies that "the laws of the State of New York" should govern, but New York law allows only courts, not arbitrators, to award punitive damages. Held: The arbitral award should have been enforced as within the scope of the contract between the parties. Pp. 55­64. (a) This case is governed by what the contract has to say about the arbitrability of petitioners' punitive damages claim. The FAA's central purpose is to ensure "that private agreements to arbitrate are enforced according to their terms." Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 489 U. S. 468, 479. This Court's decisions make clear that if contracting parties agree to include punitive damages claims within the issues to be arbitrated, the FAA ensures that their agreement will be enforced according to its terms even if a rule of state law would otherwise exclude such claims from arbitration. See, e. g., Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson, 513 U. S. 265. Pp. 55­58. (b) The Court of Appeals misinterpreted the parties' contract by reading the choice-of-law provision and the arbitration provision as con- flicting. Although the agreement contains no express reference to pu- nitive damages claims, the fact that it is intended to include such claims is demonstrated by considering separately the impact of each of the two provisions, and then inquiring into their meaning taken together. This process reveals that the choice-of-law provision is not, in itself, an un- equivocal exclusion of punitive damages claims, that the arbitration pro- vision strongly implies that an arbitral award of punitive damages is appropriate, and that the best way to harmonize the two is to read "the laws of the State of New York" to encompass substantive principles that 514us1$32z 06-11-98 18:14:25 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 52 (1995) 53 Opinion of the Court New York courts would apply, but not to include special rules limiting the authority of arbitrators. Thus, the choice-of-law provision covers the rights and duties of the parties, while the arbitration clause covers arbitration; neither provision intrudes upon the other. Pp. 58­64. 20 F. 3d 713, reversed. Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 64. William J. Harte argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Robert L. Tucker and Joan M. Mannix. Malcolm L. Stewart argued the cause for the United States et al. as amici curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Days, Deputy Solicitor General Wallace, Simon M. Lorne, Paul Gonson, Jacob H. Stillman, Lucinda O. McConathy, and Mark Pennington. Joseph Polizzotto argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Phil C. Neal, H. Nicholas Ber- berian, and Robert J. Mandel.* Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court. New York law allows courts, but not arbitrators, to award punitive damages. In a dispute arising out of a standard- form contract that expressly provides that it "shall be gov- erned by the laws of the State of New York," a panel of arbitrators awarded punitive damages. The District Court and Court of Appeals disallowed that award. The question presented is whether the arbitrators' award is consistent with the central purpose of the Federal Arbitration Act to *Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the American Association of Limited Partners by Michael B. Dashjian; for the Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association by Stuart C. Goldberg and Seth E. Lipner. Andrew L. Frey, Andrew J. Pincus, and Stuart J. Kaswell filed a brief for the Securities Industry Association as amicus curiae urging affirmance. 514us1$32I 06-11-98 18:14:25 PAGES OPINPGT 54 MASTROBUONO v. SHEARSON LEHMAN HUTTON, INC. Opinion of the Court ensure "that private agreements to arbitrate are enforced according to their terms." Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 489 U. S. 468, 479 (1989). I In 1985, petitioners, Antonio Mastrobuono, then an assist- ant professor of medieval literature, and his wife Diana Mas- trobuono, an artist, opened a securities trading account with respondent Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc. (Shearson), by ex- ecuting Shearson's standard-form Client's Agreement. Re- spondent Nick DiMinico, a vice president of Shearson, man- aged the Mastrobuonos' account until they closed it in 1987. In 1989, petitioners filed this action in the United States Dis- trict Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging that respondents had mishandled their account and claiming dam- ages on a variety of state and federal law theories. Paragraph 13 of the parties' agreement contains an arbi- tration provision and a choice-of-law provision. Relying on the arbitration provision and on §§ 3 and 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U. S. C. §§ 3, 4, respondents filed a motion to stay the court proceedings and to compel arbitra- tion pursuant to the rules of the National Association of Securities Dealers. The District Court granted that motion, and a panel of three arbitrators was convened. After con- ducting hearings in Illinois, the panel ruled in favor of petitioners. In the arbitration proceedings, respondents argued that the arbitrators had no authority to award punitive damages. Nevertheless, the panel's award included punitive damages of $400,000, in addition to compensatory damages of $159,327. Respondents paid the compensatory portion of the award but filed a motion in the District Court to vacate the award of punitive damages. The District Court granted the motion, 812 F. Supp. 845 (ND Ill. 1993), and the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed, 20 F. 3d 713 (1994). Both courts relied on the choice-of-law provision in paragraph 13 514us1$32I 06-11-98 18:14:25 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 52 (1995) 55 Opinion of the Court of the parties' agreement, which specifies that the contract shall be governed by New York law. Because the New York Court of Appeals has decided that in New York the power to award punitive damages is limited to judicial tribunals and may not be exercised by arbitrators, Garrity v. Lyle Stuart, Inc., 40 N. Y. 2d 354, 353 N. E. 2d 793 (1976), the District Court and the Seventh Circuit held that the panel of arbitra- tors had no power to award punitive damages in this case. We granted certiorari, 513 U. S. 921 (1994), because the Courts of Appeals have expressed differing views on whether a contractual choice-of-law provision may preclude an arbitral award of punitive damages that otherwise would be proper. Compare Barbier v. Shearson Lehman Hutton Inc., 948 F. 2d 117 (CA2 1991), and Pierson v. Dean, Witter, Reynolds, Inc., 742 F. 2d 334 (CA7 1984), with Bonar v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 835 F. 2d 1378, 1386­1388 (CA11 1988), Raytheon Co. v. Automated Business Systems, Inc., 882 F. 2d 6 (CA1 1989), and Lee v. Chica, 983 F. 2d 883 (CA8 1993). We now reverse.1 II Earlier this Term, we upheld the enforceability of a predis- pute arbitration agreement governed by Alabama law, even though an Alabama statute provides that arbitration agree- ments are unenforceable. Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson, 513 U. S. 265 (1995). Writing for the Court, Jus- tice Breyer observed that Congress passed the FAA "to overcome courts' refusals to enforce agreements to arbi- trate." Id., at 270. See also Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 489 U. S., at 474; Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd, 470 1 Because our disposition would be the same under either a de novo or a deferential standard, we need not decide in this case the proper standard of a court's review of an arbitrator's decision as to the arbitrability of a dispute or as to the scope of an arbitration. We recently granted cer- tiorari in a case that involves some of these issues. First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, No. 94­560, now pending before the Court. 514us1$32I 06-11-98 18:14:25 PAGES OPINPGT 56 MASTROBUONO v. SHEARSON LEHMAN HUTTON, INC. Opinion of the Court U. S. 213, 220 (1985). After determining that the FAA applied to the parties' arbitration agreement, we readily concluded that the federal statute pre-empted Alabama's statutory prohibition. Allied-Bruce, 513 U. S., at 272­273, 281­282. Petitioners seek a similar disposition of the case before us today. Here, the Seventh Circuit interpreted the contract to incorporate New York law, including the Garrity rule that arbitrators may not award punitive damages. Petitioners ask us to hold that the FAA pre-empts New York's prohibi- tion against arbitral awards of punitive damages because this state law is a vestige of the " ` "ancient" ' " judicial hostility to arbitration. See Allied-Bruce, 513 U. S., at 270, quoting Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co. of America, Inc., 350 U. S. 198, 211, n. 5 (1956) (Frankfurter, J., concurring). Petitioners rely on Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U. S. 1 (1984), and Perry v. Thomas, 482 U. S. 483 (1987), in which we held that the FAA pre-empted two California statutes that purported to require judicial resolution of certain disputes. In South- land, we explained that the FAA not only "declared a na- tional policy favoring arbitration," but actually "withdrew the power of the states to require a judicial forum for the resolution of claims which the contracting parties agreed to resolve by arbitration." 465 U. S., at 10. Respondents answer that the choice-of-law provision in their contract evidences the parties' express agreement that punitive damages should not be awarded in the arbitration of any dispute arising under their contract. Thus, they claim, this case is distinguishable from Southland and Perry, in which the parties presumably desired unlimited arbitra- tion but state law stood in their way. Regardless of whether the FAA pre-empts the Garrity decision in contracts not ex- pressly incorporating New York law, respondents argue that the parties may themselves agree to be bound by Garrity, just as they may agree to forgo arbitration altogether. In other words, if the contract says "no punitive damages," that 514us1$32I 06-11-98 18:14:25 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 52 (1995) 57 Opinion of the Court is the end of the matter, for courts are bound to interpret contracts in accordance with the expressed intentions of the parties-even if the effect of those intentions is to limit arbitration. We have previously held that the FAA's proarbitration policy does not operate without regard to the wishes of the contracting parties. In Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 489 U. S. 468 (1989), the California Court of Appeal had con- strued a contractual provision to mean that the parties in- tended the California rules of arbitration, rather than the FAA's rules, to govern the resolution of their dispute. Id., at 472. Noting that the California rules were "manifestly designed to encourage resort to the arbitral process," id., at 476, and that they "generally foster[ed] the federal policy favoring arbitration," id., at 476, n. 5, we concluded that such an interpretation was entirely consistent with the federal policy "to ensure the enforceability, according to their terms, of private agreements to arbitrate," id., at 476. After refer- ring to the holdings in Southland and Perry, which struck down state laws limiting agreed-upon arbitrability, we added: "But it does not follow that the FAA prevents the en- forcement of agreements to arbitrate under different rules than those set forth in the Act itself. Indeed, such a result would be quite inimical to the FAA's primary purpose of ensuring that private agreements to arbi- trate are enforced according to their terms. Arbitra- tion under the Act is a matter of consent, not coercion, and parties are generally free to structure their arbitra- tion agreements as they see fit. Just as they may limit by contract the issues which they will arbitrate, see Mit- subishi [Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U. S. 614, 628 (1985)], so too may they specify by contract the rules under which that arbitration will be conducted." Volt, 489 U. S., at 479. 514us1$32I 06-11-98 18:14:25 PAGES OPINPGT 58 MASTROBUONO v. SHEARSON LEHMAN HUTTON, INC. Opinion of the Court Relying on our reasoning in Volt, respondents thus argue that the parties to a contract may lawfully agree to limit the issues to be arbitrated by waiving any claim for punitive damages. On the other hand, we think our decisions in Allied-Bruce, Southland, and Perry make clear that if con- tracting parties agree to include claims for punitive damages within the issues to be arbitrated, the FAA ensures that their agreement will be enforced according to its terms even if a rule of state law would otherwise exclude such claims from arbitration. Thus, the case before us comes down to what the contract has to say about the arbitrability of peti- tioners' claim for punitive damages. III Shearson's standard-form "Client Agreement," which peti- tioners executed, contains 18 paragraphs. The two relevant provisions of the agreement are found in paragraph 13.2 The first sentence of that paragraph provides, in part, that the entire agreement "shall be governed by the laws of the 2 "Paragraph 13 of the Client's Agreement provides: "This agreement shall inure to the benefit of your [Shearson's] succes- sors and assigns[,] shall be binding on the undersigned, my [petitioners'] heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, and shall be governed by the laws of the State of New York. Unless unenforceable due to federal or state law, any controversy arising out of or relating to [my] accounts, to transactions with you, your officers, directors, agents and/or employees for me or to this agreement or the breach thereof, shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the rules then in effect, of the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. or the Boards of Directors of the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. and/or the American Stock Exchange Inc. as I may elect. If I do not make such election by registered mail ad- dressed to you at your main office within 5 days after demand by you that I make such election, then you may make such election. Judgment upon any award rendered by the arbitrators may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. This agreement to arbitrate does not apply to future disputes arising under certain of the federal securities laws to the extent it has been determined as a matter of law that I cannot be compelled to arbitrate such claims." App. to Pet. for Cert. 44. 514us1$32I 06-11-98 18:14:25 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 52 (1995) 59 Opinion of the Court State of New York." App. to Pet. for Cert. 44. The second sentence provides that "any controversy" arising out of the transactions between the parties "shall be settled by arbitra- tion" in accordance with the rules of the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD), or the Boards of Directors of the New York Stock Exchange and/or the American Stock Exchange. Ibid. The agreement contains no express reference to claims for punitive damages. To ascertain whether paragraph 13 expresses an intent to include or ex- clude such claims, we first address the impact of each of the two relevant provisions, considered separately. We then move on to the more important inquiry: the meaning of the two provisions taken together. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 202(2) (1979) ("A writing is interpreted as a whole"). The choice-of-law provision, when viewed in isolation, may reasonably be read as merely a substitute for the conflict- of-laws analysis that otherwise would determine what law to apply to disputes arising out of the contractual relationship. Thus, if a similar contract, without a choice-of-law provision, had been signed in New York and was to be performed in New York, presumably "the laws of the State of New York" would apply, even though the contract did not expressly so state. In such event, there would be nothing in the contract that could possibly constitute evidence of an intent to exclude punitive damages claims. Accordingly, punitive damages would be allowed because, in the absence of contractual in- tent to the contrary, the FAA would pre-empt the Garrity rule. See supra, at 58, and n. 8, infra. Even if the reference to "the laws of the State of New York" is more than a substitute for ordinary conflict-of-laws analysis and, as respondents urge, includes the caveat, "de- tached from otherwise-applicable federal law," the provision might not preclude the award of punitive damages because New York allows its courts, though not its arbitrators, to enter such awards. See Garrity, 40 N. Y. 2d, at 358, 353 514us1$32I 06-11-98 18:14:25 PAGES OPINPGT 60 MASTROBUONO v. SHEARSON LEHMAN HUTTON, INC. Opinion of the Court N. E. 2d, at 796. In other words, the provision might include only New York's substantive rights and obligations, and not the State's allocation of power between alternative tribu- nals.3 Respondents' argument is persuasive only if "New York law" means "New York decisional law, including that State's allocation of power between courts and arbitrators, notwithstanding otherwise-applicable federal law." But, as we have demonstrated, the provision need not be read so broadly. It is not, in itself, an unequivocal exclusion of puni- tive damages claims.4 The arbitration provision (the second sentence of para- graph 13) does not improve respondents' argument. On the contrary, when read separately this clause strongly implies that an arbitral award of punitive damages is appropriate. It explicitly authorizes arbitration in accordance with NASD rules; 5 the panel of arbitrators in fact proceeded under that 3 In a related point, respondents argue that there is no meaningful distinction between "substance" and "remedy," that is, between an en- titlement to prevail on the law and an entitlement to a specific form of damages. See Brief for Respondents 25­27. We do not rely on such a distinction here, nor do we pass upon its persuasiveness. 4 The dissent makes much of the similarity between this choice-of-law clause and the one in Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 489 U. S. 468 (1989), which we took to incorporate a California statute allowing a court to stay arbitration pend- ing resolution of related litigation. In Volt, however, we did not interpret the contract de novo. Instead, we deferred to the California court's con- struction of its own State's law. Id., at 474 ("[T]he interpretation of pri- vate contracts is ordinarily a question of state law, which this Court does not sit to review"). In the present case, by contrast, we review a federal court's interpretation of this contract, and our interpretation accords with that of the only decisionmaker arguably entitled to deference-the arbitra- tor. See n. 1, supra. 5 The contract also authorizes (at petitioners' election) that the arbitra- tion be governed by the rules of the New York Stock Exchange or the American Stock Exchange, instead of those of the NASD. App. to Pet. for Cert. 44. Neither set of alternative rules purports to limit an arbitrator's discretion to award punitive damages. Moreover, even if there were any doubt as to the ability of an arbitrator to award punitive damages under 514us1$32I 06-11-98 18:14:25 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 52 (1995) 61 Opinion of the Court set of rules.6 The NASD's Code of Arbitration Procedure indicates that arbitrators may award "damages and other re- lief." NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure ¶ 3741(e) (1993). While not a clear authorization of punitive damages, this pro- vision appears broad enough at least to contemplate such a remedy. Moreover, as the Seventh Circuit noted, a manual provided to NASD arbitrators contains this provision: "B. Punitive Damages "The issue of punitive damages may arise with great frequency in arbitrations. Parties to arbitration are in- formed that arbitrators can consider punitive damages as a remedy." 20 F. 3d, at 717. Thus, the text of the arbitration clause itself surely does not support-indeed, it contradicts-the conclusion that the par- ties agreed to foreclose claims for punitive damages.7 the Exchanges' rules, the contract expressly allows petitioners, the claim- ants in this case, to choose NASD rules; and the panel of arbitrators in this case in fact proceeded under NASD rules. 6 As the Solicitor General reminds us, one NASD rule is not before us, namely Rule 21(f)(4) of the NASD Rules of Fair Practice, which reads: " `No agreement [between a member and a customer] shall include any condition which . . . limits the ability of a party to file any claim in arbitra- tion or limits the ability of the arbitrators to make any award.' " Brief for United States et al. 6. Rule 21(f)(4) applies only to contracts executed after September 7, 1989. Notwithstanding any effect it may have on agreements signed after that date, this rule is not applicable to the agreement in this case, which was executed in 1985. 7 "Were we to confine our analysis to the plain language of the arbitra- tion clause, we would have little trouble concluding that a contract clause which bound the parties to `settle' `all disputes' through arbitration con- ducted according to rules which allow any form of `just and equitable' `remedy of relief' was sufficiently broad to encompass the award of puni- tive damages. Inasmuch as agreements to arbitrate are `generously con- strued,' Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, [Inc., 473 U. S. 614, 626 (1985)], it would seem sensible to interpret the `all disputes' and `any remedy or relief' phrases to indicate, at a minimum, an intention to resolve through arbitration any dispute that would otherwise be settled 514us1$32I 06-11-98 18:14:25 PAGES OPINPGT 62 MASTROBUONO v. SHEARSON LEHMAN HUTTON, INC. Opinion of the Court Although neither the choice-of-law clause nor the arbitra- tion clause, separately considered, expresses an intent to preclude an award of punitive damages, respondents argue that a fair reading of the entire paragraph 13 leads to that conclusion. On this theory, even if "New York law" is am- biguous, and even if "arbitration in accordance with NASD rules" indicates that punitive damages are permissible, the juxtaposition of the two clauses suggests that the contract incorporates "New York law relating to arbitration." We disagree. At most, the choice-of-law clause introduces an ambiguity into an arbitration agreement that would other- wise allow punitive damages awards. As we pointed out in Volt, when a court interprets such provisions in an agree- ment covered by the FAA, "due regard must be given to the federal policy favoring arbitration, and ambiguities as to the scope of the arbitration clause itself resolved in favor of arbi- tration." 489 U. S., at 476. See also Moses H. Cone Memo- rial Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U. S. 1, 24­25 (1983).8 Moreover, respondents cannot overcome the common-law rule of contract interpretation that a court should construe ambiguous language against the interest of the party that drafted it. See, e. g., United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Schnack- enberg, 88 Ill. 2d 1, 4, 429 N. E. 2d 1203, 1205 (1981); Graff v. Billet, 64 N. Y. 2d 899, 902, 477 N. E. 2d 212, 213­214 in a court, and to allow the chosen dispute resolvers to award the same varieties and forms of damages or relief as a court would be empowered to award. Since courts are empowered to award punitive damages with respect to certain types of claims, the Raytheon-Automated arbitrators would be equally empowered." Raytheon Co. v. Automated Business Systems, Inc., 882 F. 2d 6, 10 (CA1 1989). 8 "The Arbitration Act establishes that, as a matter of federal law, any doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration, whether the problem at hand is the construction of the contract language itself or an allegation of waiver, delay, or a like defense to arbitrability." Moses H. Cone, 460 U. S., at 24­25. 514us1$32I 06-11-98 18:14:25 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 52 (1995) 63 Opinion of the Court (1984); 9 Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 206; United States v. Seckinger, 397 U. S. 203, 210 (1970). Respondents drafted an ambiguous document, and they cannot now claim the benefit of the doubt. The reason for this rule is to pro- tect the party who did not choose the language from an unin- tended or unfair result.10 That rationale is well suited to the facts of this case. As a practical matter, it seems un- likely that petitioners were actually aware of New York's bifurcated approach to punitive damages, or that they had any idea that by signing a standard-form agreement to arbi- trate disputes they might be giving up an important substan- tive right. In the face of such doubt, we are unwilling to impute this intent to petitioners. Finally respondents' reading of the two clauses violates another cardinal principle of contract construction: that a document should be read to give effect to all its provisions and to render them consistent with each other. See, e. g., In re Halas, 104 Ill. 2d 83, 92, 470 N. E. 2d 960, 964 (1984); Crimmins Contracting Co. v. City of New York, 74 N. Y. 2d 166, 172­173, 542 N. E. 2d 1097, 1100 (1989); Trump- Equitable Fifth Avenue Co. v. H. R. H. Constr. Corp., 106 App. Div. 2d 242, 244, 485 N. Y. S. 2d 65, 67 (1985); Restate- ment (Second) of Contracts § 203(a) and Comment b; id., § 202(5). We think the best way to harmonize the choice-of- 9 We cite precedent from Illinois, the forum State and place where the contract was executed, and New York, the State designated in the con- tract's choice-of-law clause. The parties suggest no other State's law as arguably relevant to this controversy. 10 The drafters of the Second Restatement justified the rule as follows: "Where one party chooses the terms of a contract, he is likely to provide more carefully for the protection of his own interests than for those of the other party. He is also more likely than the other party to have reason to know of uncertainties of meaning. Indeed, he may leave meaning de- liberately obscure, intending to decide at a later date what meaning to assert. In cases of doubt, therefore, so long as other factors are not deci- sive, there is substantial reason for preferring the meaning of the other party." Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 206, Comment a (1979). 514us1$32I 06-11-98 18:14:25 PAGES OPINPGT 64 MASTROBUONO v. SHEARSON LEHMAN HUTTON, INC. Thomas, J., dissenting law provision with the arbitration provision is to read "the laws of the State of New York" to encompass substantive principles that New York courts would apply, but not to include special rules limiting the authority of arbitrators. Thus, the choice-of-law provision covers the rights and duties of the parties, while the arbitration clause covers arbitration; neither sentence intrudes upon the other. In contrast, re- spondents' reading sets up the two clauses in conflict with one another: one foreclosing punitive damages, the other allowing them. This interpretation is untenable. We hold that the Court of Appeals misinterpreted the parties' agreement. The arbitral award should have been enforced as within the scope of the contract. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is, therefore, reversed. It is so ordered. Justice Thomas, dissenting. In Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 489 U. S. 468, 478 (1989), we held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) simply requires courts to enforce private contracts to arbitrate as they would normal contracts-according to their terms. This holding led us to enforce a choice-of-law provision that incorporated a state procedural rule concerning arbitration proceedings. Because the choice-of-law provision here cannot reasonably be distinguished from the one in Volt, I dissent.1 1 The Seventh Circuit adopted a de novo standard of review of the ar- bitrators' decision. Although we have not yet decided what standard of review to apply in cases of this sort, see First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, cert. granted, 513 U. S. 1040 (1994), petitioners waived the argu- ment that a deferential standard was appropriate. Petitioners did not raise the argument in their petition for certiorari or in their opening brief. While the standard of review may be an antecedent question, see United States Nat. Bank of Ore. v. Independent Ins. Agents of America, Inc., 508 U. S. 439 (1993), given petitioners' waiver of the argument it seems more appropriate to resolve the question in First Options than here. 514us1$32N 06-11-98 18:14:25 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 52 (1995) 65 Thomas, J., dissenting I A In Volt, Stanford University had entered into a construc- tion contract under which Volt Information Sciences, Inc., was to install certain electrical systems on the Stanford cam- pus. The contract contained an agreement to arbitrate all disputes arising out of the contract. A choice-of-law clause in the contract provided that "[t]he Contract shall be gov- erned by the law of the place where the Project is located," id., at 470 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), which happened to be California. When a dispute arose re- garding compensation, Volt invoked arbitration. Stanford filed an action in state court, however, and moved to stay arbitration pursuant to California Rules of Civil Procedure. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code Ann. § 1281.2(c) (West 1982). Opposing the stay, Volt argued that the relevant state statute author- izing the stay was pre-empted by the FAA, 9 U. S. C. § 1 et seq. We concluded that even if the FAA pre-empted the state statute as applied to other parties, the choice-of-law clause in the contract at issue demonstrated that the parties had agreed to be governed by the statute. Rejecting Volt's posi- tion that the FAA imposes a proarbitration policy that pre- cluded enforcement of the statute permitting the California courts to stay the arbitration proceedings, we concluded that the Act "simply requires courts to enforce privately negoti- ated agreements to arbitrate, like other contracts, in accord- ance with their terms." 489 U. S., at 478. As a result, we interpreted the choice-of-law clause "to make applicable state rules governing the conduct of arbitration," id., at 476, even if a specific rule itself hampers or delays arbitration. We rejected the argument that the choice-of-law clause was to be construed as incorporating only substantive law, and dismissed the claim that the FAA pre-empted those contract provisions that might hinder arbitration. 514us1$32N 06-11-98 18:14:25 PAGES OPINPGT 66 MASTROBUONO v. SHEARSON LEHMAN HUTTON, INC. Thomas, J., dissenting We so held in Volt because we concluded that the FAA does not force arbitration on parties who enter into contracts involving interstate commerce. Instead, the FAA requires only that "arbitration proceed in the manner provided for in [the parties'] agreement." 9 U. S. C. § 4. Although we will construe ambiguities concerning the scope of arbitrability in favor of arbitration, see Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U. S. 1, 24­25 (1983), we re- main mindful that "as with any other contract, the parties' intentions control," Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U. S. 614, 626 (1985). Thus, if the parties intend that state procedure shall govern, federal courts must enforce that understanding. "There is no fed- eral policy favoring arbitration under a certain set of proce- dural rules; the federal policy is simply to ensure the en- forceability, according to their terms, of private agreements to arbitrate." Volt, 489 U. S., at 476. B In this case, as in Volt, the parties agreed to mandatory arbitration of all disputes. As in Volt, the contract at issue here includes a choice-of-law clause. Indeed, the language of the two clauses is functionally equivalent: Whereas the choice-of-law clause in Volt provided that "[t]he Contract shall be governed by the law of [the State of California]," id., at 470 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), the one before us today states, in paragraph 13 of the Client's Agreement, App. to Pet. for Cert. 44, that "[t]his agreement . . . shall be governed by the laws of the State of New York." New York law prohibits arbitrators from awarding punitive damages, Garrity v. Lyle Stuart, Inc., 40 N. Y. 2d 354, 353 N. E. 2d 793 (1976), and permits only courts to award such damages. As in Volt, petitioners here argue that the New York rule is "antiarbitration," and hence is pre-empted by the FAA. In concluding that the choice-of-law clause is am- 514us1$32N 06-11-98 18:14:25 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 52 (1995) 67 Thomas, J., dissenting biguous, the majority essentially accepts petitioners' argu- ment. Volt itself found precisely the same argument irrele- vant, however, and the majority identifies no reason to think that the state law governing the interpretation of the par- ties' choice-of-law clause supports a different result. The majority claims that the incorporation of New York law "need not be read so broadly" as to include both substan- tive and procedural law, and that the choice of New York law "is not, in itself, an unequivocal exclusion of punitive dam- ages claims." Ante, at 60. But we rejected these same ar- guments in Volt, and the Garrity rule is just the sort of "state rul[e] governing the conduct of arbitration" that Volt requires federal courts to enforce. 489 U. S., at 476. "Just as [the parties] may limit by contract the issues which they will arbitrate, so too may they specify by contract the rules under which that arbitration will be conducted." Id., at 479 (citation omitted). To be sure, the majority might be correct that Garrity is a rule concerning the State's allocation of power between "alternative tribunals," ante, at 60, although Garrity appears to describe itself as substantive New York law.2 Nonetheless, Volt makes no distinction between rules that serve only to distribute authority between courts and arbitrators (which the majority finds unenforceable) and other types of rules (which the majority finds enforceable). Indeed, the California rule in Volt could be considered to be one that allocates authority between arbitrators and courts, for it permits California courts to stay arbitration pend- ing resolution of related litigation. See Volt, supra, at 471. 2 The New York Court of Appeals rested its holding on the principle that punitive damages are exemplary social remedies intended to punish, rather than to compensate. Because the power to punish can rest only in the hands of the State, the court found that private arbitrators could not wield the authority to impose such damages. Garrity v. Lyle Stuart, Inc., 40 N. Y. 2d, at 360, 353 N. E. 2d, at 796­797. 514us1$32N 06-11-98 18:14:25 PAGES OPINPGT 68 MASTROBUONO v. SHEARSON LEHMAN HUTTON, INC. Thomas, J., dissenting II The majority relies upon two assertions to defend its de- parture from Volt. First, it contends that "[a]t most, the choice-of-law clause introduces an ambiguity into an arbitra- tion agreement." Ante, at 62. We are told that the agree- ment "would otherwise allow punitive damages awards," ibid., because of paragraph 13's statement that arbitration would be conducted "in accordance with the rules then in effect, of the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. [NASD]." App. to Pet. for Cert. 44. It is unclear which NASD "rules" the parties mean, although I am willing to agree with the majority that the phrase refers to the NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure. But the provision of the NASD Code offered by the majority simply does not speak to the availability of punitive damages. It only states: "The award shall contain the names of the parties, the name of counsel, if any, a summary of the issues, includ- ing the type(s) of any security or product, in contro- versy, the damages and other relief requested, the dam- ages and other relief awarded, a statement of any other issues resolved, the names of the arbitrators, the dates the claim was filed and the award rendered, the number and dates of hearing sessions, the location of the hear- ings, and the signatures of the arbitrators concurring in the award." NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure § 41(e) (1985). It is clear that § 41(e) does not define or limit the powers of the arbitrators; it merely describes the form in which the arbitrators must announce their decision. The other provi- sions of § 41 confirm this point. See, e. g., § 41(a) ("All awards shall be in writing and signed by a majority of the arbitrators . . ."); § 41(c) ("Director of Arbitration shall en- deavor to serve a copy of the award" to the parties); § 41(d) (arbitrators should render an award within 30 days); § 41(f) 514us1$32N 06-11-98 18:14:26 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 52 (1995) 69 Thomas, J., dissenting (awards shall be "publicly available"). The majority cannot find a provision of the NASD Code that specifically ad- dresses punitive damages, or that speaks more generally to the types of damages arbitrators may or may not allow. Such a rule simply does not exist. The code certainly does not require that arbitrators be empowered to award punitive damages; it leaves to the parties to define the arbitrators' remedial powers. The majority also purports to find a clear expression of the parties' agreement on the availability of punitive damages in "a manual provided to NASD arbitrators." Ante, at 61. But paragraph 13 of the Client's Agreement nowhere men- tions this manual; it mentions only "the rules then in effect, of the [NASD]." App. to Pet. for Cert. 44. The manual does not fit either part of this description: it is neither "of the [NASD]," nor a set of "rules." First, the manual apparently is not an official NASD docu- ment. The manual was not promulgated or adopted by the NASD. Instead, it apparently was compiled by members of the Securities Industry Conference on Arbitration (SICA) as a supplement to the Uniform Code of Arbitration, which the parties clearly did not adopt in paragraph 13. Petitioners present no evidence that the NASD has a policy of giving this specific manual to its arbitrators. Nor do petitioners assert that this manual was even used in the arbitration that gave rise to this case. More importantly, there is no indica- tion in the text of the Client's Agreement that the parties intended this manual to be used by the arbitrators. Second, the manual does not provide any "rules" in the sense contemplated by paragraph 13; instead, it provides general information and advice to the arbitrator, such as "Hints for the Chair." SICA, Arbitrator's Manual 21 (1992). The manual is nothing more than a sort of "how to" guide for the arbitrator. One bit of advice, for example, states: "Care should be exercised, particularly when questioning a witness, so that the arbitrator does not indicate disbelief. 514us1$32N 06-11-98 18:14:26 PAGES OPINPGT 70 MASTROBUONO v. SHEARSON LEHMAN HUTTON, INC. Thomas, J., dissenting Grimaces, frowns, or hand signals should all be avoided. A `poker' face is the goal." Id., at 19.3 Even if the parties had intended to adopt the manual, it cannot be read to resolve the issue of punitive damages. When read in context, the portion of the SICA manual upon which the majority relies seems only to explain what puni- tive damages are, not to establish whether arbitrators have the authority to award them: "The issue of punitive damages may arise with great frequency in arbitrations. Parties to arbitration are informed that arbitrators can consider punitive damages as a remedy. Generally, in court proceedings, punitive damages consist of compensation in excess of actual damages and are awarded as a form of punishment against the wrongdoer. If punitive damages are awarded, the decision of the arbitrators should clearly specify what portion of the award is intended as punitive damages, and the arbitrators should consider referring to the authority on which they relied." Id., at 26­27. A glance at neighboring passages, which explain the purpose of "Compensatory/Actual Damages," "Injunctive Relief," "Interest," "Attorneys' Fees," and "Forum Fees," see id., at 26­29, confirms that the SICA manual does not even attempt to provide a standardized set of procedural rules. Even if one made the stretch of reading the passage on punitive damages to relate to an NASD arbitrator's author- ity, the SICA manual limits its own applicability in the situa- 3 Other "rules" include: "The Chair should maintain decorum at all times. Shouting, profanity, or gratuitous remarks should be stopped." SICA, Arbitrator's Manual 20. "Some attorneys think that the more often a statement is made, the truer it becomes. The Chair, however, should discourage needless repetition." Ibid. "Immediately after the close of the hearing, the arbitrators usually remain in the hearing room either to begin deliberations or set a date for deliberation. Unlike jurors, the panel members are not restricted from discussing the case among themselves." Id., at 25. 514us1$32N 06-11-98 18:14:26 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 52 (1995) 71 Thomas, J., dissenting tion presented by this case. According to the manual's Code of Ethics for Arbitrators, "[w]hen an arbitrator's authority is derived from an agreement of the parties, the arbitrator should neither exceed that authority nor do less than is re- quired to exercise that authority completely." Id., at 38. Regarding procedural rules, the code states that "[w]here the agreement of the parties sets forth procedures to be fol- lowed in conducting the arbitration or refers to rules to be followed, it is the obligation of the arbitrator to comply with such procedures or rules." Id., at 38­39. The manual clearly contemplates that the parties' agreement will define the powers and authorities of the arbitrator. Thus, we are directed back to the rest of paragraph 13 and the intent of the parties, whose only expression on the issue is their deci- sion to incorporate the laws of New York.4 My examination of the Client's Agreement, the choice-of- law provision, the NASD Code of Procedure, and the SICA manual demonstrates that the parties made their intent clear, but not in the way divined by the majority. New York law specifically precludes arbitrators from awarding punitive damages, and it should be clear that there is no "conflict," as the majority puts it, between the New York law and the NASD rules. The choice-of-law provision speaks directly to the issue, while the NASD Code is silent. Giving effect to every provision of the contract requires us to honor the par- ties' intent, as indicated in the text of the agreement, to pre- clude the award of punitive damages by arbitrators. III Thankfully, the import of the majority's decision is limited and narrow. This case amounts to nothing more than a fed- 4 It is telling that petitioners did not even claim until their reply brief that paragraph 13 expressed an intent to reserve to arbitrators the author- ity to award punitive damages. Instead, petitioners consistently have ar- gued only that the agreement did not constitute a "waiver" of their "right" to obtain punitive damages. 514us1$32N 06-11-98 18:14:26 PAGES OPINPGT 72 MASTROBUONO v. SHEARSON LEHMAN HUTTON, INC. Thomas, J., dissenting eral court applying Illinois and New York contract law to an agreement between parties in Illinois. Much like a federal court applying a state rule of decision to a case when sitting in diversity, the majority's interpretation of the contract rep- resents only the understanding of a single federal court re- garding the requirements imposed by state law. As such, the majority's opinion has applicability only to this specific contract and to no other. But because the majority reaches an erroneous result on even this narrow question, I respect- fully dissent. 514us1$33z 05-29-98 14:51:51 PAGES OPINPGT OCTOBER TERM, 1994 73 Syllabus CURTISS-WRIGHT CORP. v. SCHOONEJONGEN et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the third circuit No. 93­1935. Argued January 17, 1995-Decided March 6, 1995 Petitioner Curtiss-Wright Corp. amended its employee benefit plan to pro- vide that the postretirement health care coverage it had maintained for many years would cease for retirees upon the termination of business operations in the facility from which they retired. In ruling for re- spondent retirees in their ensuing suit, the District Court found, among other things, that the new provision constituted an "amendment" to the plan; that the plan documents nowhere contained a valid "procedure for amending [the] plan, and for identifying the persons who have authority to amend the plan," as required by § 402(b)(3) of the Employee Retire- ment Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA); and that the proper remedy for this violation was to declare the provision void ab initio. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the standard reservation clause con- tained in Curtiss-Wright's plan constitution-which states that "[t]he Company reserves the right . . . to modify or amend" the plan-is too vague to be an amendment procedure under § 402(b)(3). Held:1. Curtiss-Wright's reservation clause sets forth a valid amendment procedure. Pp. 78­86. (a) The clause satisfies the plain text of § 402(b)(3)'s two require- ments. Since ERISA's general definitions section makes quite clear that the term "person," wherever it appears in the statute, includes companies, the clause appears to satisfy § 402(b)(3)'s identification re- quirement by naming "[t]he Company" as "the perso[n]" with amend- ment authority. This outright identification necessarily indicates a pro- cedure for identifying the person as well, since the plan, in effect, says that the procedure is to look always to the company rather than to any other party. The reservation clause also contains a "procedure for amending [the] plan." Section 402(b)(3) requires only that there be an amendment procedure, and its literal terms are indifferent to the proce- dure's level of detail. As commonly understood, a procedure is a "par- ticular way" of doing something, and a plan that says in effect it may be amended only by "[t]he Company" adequately sets forth a particular way of making an amendment. Principles of corporate law provide a ready-made set of rules for deciding who has authority to act on behalf of the company. But to read § 402(b)(3) as requiring a plan to specify 514us1$33z 05-29-98 14:51:51 PAGES OPINPGT 74 CURTISS-WRIGHT CORP. v. SCHOONEJONGEN Syllabus on its face who has authority to act on the company's behalf might lead to the invalidation of myriad amendment procedures that no one would think violate the statute. Pp. 78­81. (b) There is no support for respondents' argument that Congress intended amendment procedures to convey enough detail to serve bene- ficiaries' interest in knowing their plans' terms. Section 402(b)(3)'s pri- mary purpose is to ensure that every plan has a workable amendment procedure, while ERISA's goal of enabling plan beneficiaries to learn their rights and obligations under the plan at any time is served by an elaborate scheme, detailed elsewhere in the statute, which specifies that a plan must be written, meet certain reporting and disclosure require- ments, and be made available for inspection at the plan administrator's office. Pp. 81­85. 2. On remand, the Court of Appeals must decide whether Curtiss- Wright's valid amendment procedure was complied with in this case. The answer will depend on a fact-intensive inquiry, under applicable corporate law principles, into who at Curtiss-Wright had plan amend- ment authority and whether they approved the new provision. If the new provision was not properly authorized when issued, the question would arise whether any subsequent actions served to ratify it ex post. Pp. 85­86. 18 F. 3d 1034, reversed and remanded. O'Connor, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Laurence Reich argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Stephen F. Payerle and Aaron J. Carr. Richard P. Bress argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Days, Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler, Allen H. Feldman, and Ellen L. Beard. Thomas M. Kennedy argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Everett E. Lewis, Nicholas F. Lewis, Daniel Clifton, Ira Cure, and Shirley Fingerhood.* *Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States by Hollis T. Hurd, Stephen A. Bokat, Robin S. Conrad, and Mona C. Zeiberg; for the ERISA Industry Commit- tee et al. by Steven J. Sacher and Susan A. Cahoon; for the Manufacturers Alliance for Productivity and Innovation, Inc., by Peter Buscemi and Neal 514us1$33J 05-29-98 14:51:51 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 73 (1995) 75 Opinion of the Court 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. § 1102(b)(3), requires that every employee benefit plan pro- vide "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 Wood- Ridge, New Jersey. The specific terms of the plan, the Dis- trict 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 BENE- FITS . . . . 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, Curtiss-Wright's director of benefits and its labor counsel, D. Mollen; and for the National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., by Robert N. Eccles. Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the American Association of Retired Persons by Steven S. Zaleznick and Mary Ellen Signorille; and for the National Association of Securities and Commercial Law Attorneys by Jonathan W. Cuneo, Kevin P. Roddy, Steve W. Berman, Bryan L. Clobes, and Henry H. Rossbacher. 514us1$33J 05-29-98 14:51:51 PAGES OPINPGT 76 CURTISS-WRIGHT CORP. v. SCHOONEJONGEN Opinion of the Court testified that they did not think the provision effected a "change" in the plan, but rather merely clarified it. Id., at 70­71, 79. Probably for this reason, the record is less than clear as to which Curtiss-Wright officers or committees had authority to make plan amendments on behalf of the company and whether such officers or committees approved or ratified the new SPD provision. In any event, later that year, Curtiss-Wright announced that the Wood-Ridge facility would close. Shortly thereafter, an executive vice president wrote respondents a series of letters informing them that their post-retirement health benefits were being terminated. Respondents brought suit in federal court over the termi- nation of their benefits, and many years of litigation ensued. The District Court ultimately rejected most of respondents' claims, including their contention that Curtiss-Wright had bound itself contractually to provide health benefits to them for life. The District Court agreed, however, that the new SPD provision effected a significant change in the plan's terms and thus constituted an "amendment" to the plan; that the plan documents nowhere contained a valid amendment procedure, as required by § 402(b)(3); and that the proper remedy for the § 402(b)(3) violation was to declare the new SPD provision void ab initio. The court eventually or- dered Curtiss-Wright to pay respondents $2,681,086 in back benefits. On appeal, Curtiss-Wright primarily argued that the plan documents did contain an amendment procedure, namely, the standard reservation clause contained in the plan constitu- tion and in a few secondary plan documents. The clause states: "The Company reserves the right at any time and from time to time to modify or amend, in whole or in part, any or all of the provisions of the Plan." App. 37; see also 2 RIA Pension Coordinator ¶ 13,181, p. 13,276R­124 (1994) (reproducing IRS' prototype employee benefits plan, which contains similar language). In Curtiss-Wright's view, this 514us1$33J 05-29-98 14:51:51 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 73 (1995) 77 Opinion of the Court clause sets forth an amendment procedure as required by the statute. It says, in effect, that the plan is to be amended by "[t]he Company." The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rejected this argument, as well as all other arguments before it, and af- firmed the District Court's remedy. See 18 F. 3d 1034 (1994). It explained: "A primary purpose of § 402(b)(3) is to ensure that all interested parties [including beneficiaries] will know how a plan may be altered and who may make such alterations. Only if they know this information will they be able to determine with certainty at any given time exactly what the plan provides." Id., at 1038. And the court suggested that § 402(b)(3) cannot serve that purpose unless it is read to require that every amendment procedure specify precisely "what individuals or bodies within the Com- pany c[an] promulgate an effective amendment." Id., at 1039. In the court's view, then, a reservation clause that says that the plan may be amended "by the Company," with- out more, is too vague. In so holding, the court distin- guished a case, Huber v. Casablanca Industries, Inc., 916 F. 2d 85 (1990), in which it had upheld a reservation clause that said, in effect, that the plan may be amended "by the Trustees." "By the trustees," the court reasoned, had a very particular meaning in Huber; it meant "by resolutio[n] at a regularly constituted board [of trustees] meeting in accordance with the established process of the trustees." 18 F. 3d, at 1039 (citation omitted). In a footnote, the court related the concurring views of Judge Roth. Id., at 1039, n. 3. According to the court, Judge Roth thought that the notion of an amendment "by the Company" should be read in light of traditional cor- porate law principles, which is to say amendment "by the board of directors or whomever of the company has the authority to take such action." Ibid. And read in this more specific way, "by the Company" indicates a valid amendment procedure that satisfies § 402(b)(3). She con- 514us1$33J 05-29-98 14:51:51 PAGES OPINPGT 78 CURTISS-WRIGHT CORP. v. SCHOONEJONGEN Opinion of the Court curred rather than dissented, however, because, in the court's words, "neither [Curtiss-Wright's] board nor any other person or entity within [Curtiss-Wright] with the power to act on behalf of `the Company' ratified [the new SPD provision]." Ibid. Curtiss-Wright petitioned for certiorari on the questions whether a plan provision stating that "[t]he Company" re- serves the right to amend the plan states a valid amendment procedure under § 402(b)(3) and, if not, whether the proper remedy is to declare this or any other amendment void ab initio. We granted certiorari on both. 512 U. S. 1288 (1994). II In interpreting § 402(b)(3), we are mindful that ERISA does not create any substantive entitlement to employer- provided health benefits or any other kind of welfare bene- fits. Employers or other plan sponsors are generally free under ERISA, for any reason at any time, to adopt, modify, or terminate welfare plans. See Adams v. Avondale Indus- tries, Inc., 905 F. 2d 943, 947 (CA6 1990) ("[A] company does not act in a fiduciary capacity when deciding to amend or terminate a welfare benefits plan"). Nor does ERISA es- tablish any minimum participation, vesting, or funding re- quirements for welfare plans as it does for pension plans. See Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U. S. 85, 90­91 (1983). Accordingly, that Curtiss-Wright amended its plan to de- prive respondents of health benefits is not a cognizable com- plaint under ERISA; the only cognizable claim is that the company did not do so in a permissible manner. A The text of § 402(b)(3) actually requires two things: a "pro- cedure for amending [the] plan" and "[a procedure] for identi- fying the persons who have authority to amend the plan." With respect to the second requirement, the general "Defi- nitions" section of ERISA makes quite clear that the term 514us1$33J 05-29-98 14:51:51 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 73 (1995) 79 Opinion of the Court "person," wherever it appears in the statute, includes compa- nies. See 29 U. S. C. § 1002(9) ("The term `person' means an individual, partnership, joint venture, corporation, mutual company, joint-stock company, trust, estate, unincorporated organization, association, or employee organization"). The Curtiss-Wright reservation clause thus appears to satisfy the statute's identification requirement by naming "[t]he Com- pany" as "the perso[n]" with amendment authority. The text of § 402(b)(3) speaks, somewhat awkwardly, of re- quiring a procedure for identifying the persons with amend- ment authority, rather than requiring identification of those persons outright. Be that as it may, a plan that simply iden- tifies the persons outright necessarily indicates a procedure for identifying the persons as well. With respect to the Curtiss-Wright plan, for example, to identify "[t]he Com- pany" as the person with amendment authority is to say, in effect, that the procedure for identifying the person with amendment authority is to look always to "[t]he Company." Such an identification procedure is more substantial than might first appear. To say that one must look always to "[t]he Company" is to say that one must look only to "[t]he Company" and not to any other person-that is, not to any union, not to any third-party trustee, and not to any of the other kinds of outside parties that, in many other plans, exer- cise amendment authority. The more difficult question in this case is whether the Curtiss-Wright reservation clause contains a "procedure for amending [the] plan." To recall, the reservation clause says in effect that the plan may be amended "by the Company." Curtiss-Wright is correct, we think, that this states an amendment procedure and one that, like the identification procedure, is more substantial than might first appear. It says the plan may be amended by a unilateral company deci- sion to amend, and only by such a decision-and not, for ex- ample, by the unilateral decision of a third-party trustee or upon the approval of the union. Moreover, to the extent 514us1$33J 05-29-98 14:51:51 PAGES OPINPGT 80 CURTISS-WRIGHT CORP. v. SCHOONEJONGEN Opinion of the Court that this procedure is the barest of procedures, that is be- cause the Curtiss-Wright plan is the simplest of plans: a vol- untarily maintained single-employer health plan that is ad- ministered by the employer and funded by the employer. More complicated plans, such as multiemployer plans, may have more complicated amendment procedures, and § 402(b)(3) was designed to cover them as well. In any event, the literal terms of § 402(b)(3) are ultimately indifferent to the level of detail in an amendment procedure, or in an identification procedure for that matter. The pro- vision requires only that there be an amendment procedure, which here there is. A "procedure," as that term is commonly understood, is a "particular way" of doing some- thing, Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1807 (1976), or "a manner of proceeding," Random House Dic- tionary of the English Language 1542 (2d ed. 1987). Cer- tainly a plan that says it may be amended only by a unilateral company decision adequately sets forth "a particular way" of making an amendment. Adequately, that is, with one refinement. In order for an amendment procedure that says the plan may be amended by "[t]he Company" to make any sense, there must be some way of determining what it means for "[t]he Company" to make a decision to amend or, in the lan- guage of trust law, to "sufficiently manifest [its] intention" to amend. Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 331, Comment c (1957). After all, only natural persons are capable of mak- ing decisions. As Judge Roth suggested, however, princi- ples of corporate law provide a ready-made set of rules for determining, in whatever context, who has authority to make decisions on behalf of a company. Consider, for example, an ordinary sales contract between "Company X" and a third party. We would not think of regarding the contract as meaningless, and thus unenforceable, simply because it does not specify on its face exactly who within "Company X" has the power to enter into such an agreement or carry out its 514us1$33J 05-29-98 14:51:51 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 73 (1995) 81 Opinion of the Court terms. Rather, we would look to corporate law principles to give "Company X" content. See 2 W. Fletcher, Cyclope- dia of Law of Private Corporations § 466, p. 505 (rev. ed. 1990) ("[A] corporation is bound by contracts entered into by its officers and agents acting on behalf of the corporation and for its benefit, provided they act within the scope of their express or implied powers"). So too here. In the end, perhaps the strongest argument for a textual reading of § 402(b)(3) is that to read it to require specification of individuals or bodies within a company would lead to im- probable results. That is, it might lead to the invalidation of myriad amendment procedures that no one would think violate § 402(b)(3), especially those in multiemployer plans- which, as we said, § 402(b)(3) covers as well. For example, imagine a multiemployer plan that says "This Plan may be amended at any time by written agreement of two-thirds of the participating Companies, subject to the approval of the plan Trustees." This would seem to be a fairly robust amendment procedure, and we can imagine numerous vari- ants of it. Yet, because our hypothetical procedure does not specify who within any of "the participating Companies" has authority to enter into such an amendment agreement (let alone what counts as the "approval of the plan Trustees"), respondents would say it is insufficiently specific to pass muster under § 402(b)(3). Congress could not have intended such a result. B Curtiss-Wright's reservation clause thus satisfies the plain text of both requirements in § 402(b)(3). Respondents none- theless argue that, in drafting § 402(b)(3), Congress intended amendment procedures to convey enough detail to serve ben- eficiaries' interest in knowing the terms of their plans. Or- dinarily, we would be reluctant to indulge an argument based on legislative purpose where the text alone yields a clear answer, but we do so here because it is the argument the Court of Appeals found persuasive. 514us1$33J 05-29-98 14:51:51 PAGES OPINPGT 82 CURTISS-WRIGHT CORP. v. SCHOONEJONGEN Opinion of the Court Section 402(b)(3)'s primary purpose is obviously functional: to ensure that every plan has a workable amendment proce- dure. This is clear from not only the face of the provision but also its placement in § 402(b), which lays out the requisite functional features of ERISA plans. 29 U. S. C. § 1102(b) (every ERISA plan shall have, in addition to an amendment procedure, "a procedure for establishing and carrying out a funding policy and method," "[a] procedure under the plan for the allocation of responsibilities for the operation and ad- ministration of the plan," and "[a] basis on which payments are made to and from the plan"). Requiring every plan to have a coherent amendment pro- cedure serves several laudable goals. First, for a plan not to have such a procedure would risk rendering the plan forever unamendable under standard trust law principles. See Restatement (Second) of Trusts, supra, § 331(2). Second, such a requirement increases the likelihood that proposed plan amendments, which are fairly serious events, are recog- nized as such and given the special consideration they de- serve. Finally, having an amendment procedure enables plan administrators, the people who manage the plan on a day-to-day level, to have a mechanism for sorting out, from among the occasional corporate communications that pass through their offices and that conflict with the existing plan terms, the bona fide amendments from those that are not. In fact, plan administrators may have a statutory responsi- bility to do this sorting out. See 29 U. S. C. § 1104(a)(1)(D) (plan administrators have a duty to run the plan "in accord- ance with the documents and instruments governing the plan insofar as such documents and instruments are consistent with the provisions of [the statute]," which would include the amendment procedure provision). That Congress may have had plan administrators in mind is suggested by the fact that § 402(b)(3), and § 402(b) more generally, is located in the "fiduciary responsibility" section of ERISA. See 29 U. S. C. §§ 1101­1114. 514us1$33J 05-29-98 14:51:51 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 73 (1995) 83 Opinion of the Court Respondents argue that § 402(b)(3) was intended not only to ensure that every plan has an amendment procedure, but also to guarantee that the procedure conveys enough detail to enable beneficiaries to learn their rights and obligations under the plan at any time. Respondents are no doubt right that one of ERISA's central goals is to enable plan benefici- aries to learn their rights and obligations at any time. But ERISA already has an elaborate scheme in place for en- abling beneficiaries to learn their rights and obligations at any time, a scheme that is built around reliance on the face of written plan documents. The basis of that scheme is another of ERISA's core func- tional requirements, that "[e]very employee benefit plan shall be established and maintained pursuant to a written instrument." 29 U. S. C. § 1102(a)(1) (emphasis added). In the words of the key congressional report, "[a] written plan is to be required in order that every employee may, on exam- ining the plan documents, determine exactly what his rights and obligations are under the plan." H. R. Rep. No. 93­ 1280, p. 297 (1974) (emphasis added). ERISA gives effect to this "written plan documents" scheme through a comprehen- sive set of "reporting and disclosure" requirements, see 29 U. S. C. §§ 1021­1031, of which § 402(b)(3) is not part. One provision, for example, requires that plan administrators periodically furnish beneficiaries with a Summary Plan Description, see 29 U. S. C. § 1024(b)(1), the purpose being to communicate to beneficiaries the essential information about the plan. Not surprisingly, the information that every SPD must contain includes the "name and address" of plan admin- istrators and other plan fiduciaries, but not the names and addresses of those individuals with amendment authority. § 1022(b). The same provision also requires that plan ad- ministrators furnish beneficiaries with summaries of new amendments no later than 210 days after the end of the plan year in which the amendment is adopted. See § 1024(b)(1). Under ERISA, both Summary Plan Descriptions and plan 514us1$33J 05-29-98 14:51:51 PAGES OPINPGT 84 CURTISS-WRIGHT CORP. v. SCHOONEJONGEN Opinion of the Court amendment summaries "shall be written in a manner calcu- lated to be understood by the average plan participant." § 1022(a)(1). More important, independent of any information automati- cally distributed to beneficiaries, ERISA requires that every plan administrator make available for inspection in the ad- ministrator's "principal office" and other designated locations a set of all currently operative, governing plan documents, see § 1024(b)(2), which necessarily includes any new, bona fide amendments. See also § 1024(b)(4) (requiring plan ad- ministrators, upon written request, to furnish beneficiaries with copies of governing plan documents for a reasonable copying charge). As indicated earlier, plan administrators appear to have a statutory responsibility actually to run the plan in accordance with the currently operative, governing plan documents and thus an independent incentive for ob- taining new amendments as quickly as possible and for weed- ing out defective ones. This may not be a foolproof informational scheme, al- though it is quite thorough. Either way, it is the scheme that Congress devised. And we do not think Congress in- tended it to be supplemented by a faraway provision in an- other part of the statute, least of all in a way that would lead to improbable results, supra, at 81. In concluding that Curtiss-Wright's reservation clause sets forth a valid amendment procedure, we do not mean to imply that there is anything wrong with plan beneficiaries trying to prove that unfavorable plan amendments were not properly adopted and are thus invalid. This is exactly what respondents are trying to do here, and nothing in ERISA is designed to obstruct such efforts. But nothing in ERISA is designed to facilitate such efforts either. To be sure, some companies that have plans with the standard reservation clause may want to provide greater specification to their amendment procedures precisely to avoid such costly litigation. Or they may want to retain the flexibility that 514us1$33J 05-29-98 14:51:51 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 73 (1995) 85 Opinion of the Court designating "[t]he Company" (read in light of corporate law) provides them. But either way, this is simply a species of a larger dilemma companies face whenever they must desig- nate who, on behalf of the company, may take legally binding actions that third parties may later have an interest in challenging as unauthorized. Cf. R. Clark, Corporate Law § 3.3.2 (1986). It is not a dilemma ERISA addresses. ERISA, rather, follows standard trust law principles in dictating only that whatever level of specificity a company ultimately chooses, in an amendment procedure or else- where, it is bound to that level. III Having determined that the Curtiss-Wright plan satisfies § 402(b)(3), we do not reach the question of the proper rem- edy for a § 402(b)(3) violation. On remand, the Court of Ap- peals will have to decide the question that has always been at the heart of this case: whether Curtiss-Wright's valid amendment procedure-amendment "by the Company"- was complied with in this case. The answer will depend on a fact-intensive inquiry, under applicable corporate law prin- ciples, into what persons or committees within Curtiss- Wright possessed plan amendment authority, either by ex- press delegation or impliedly, and whether those persons or committees actually approved the new plan provision con- tained in the revised SPD. See 2 W. Fletcher, Cyclopedia of the Law of Private Corporations § 444, pp. 397­398 (1990) (authority may be by express delegation or it "may be in- ferred from circumstances or implied from the acquiescence of the corporation or its agents in a general course of busi- ness"). If the new plan provision is found not to have been properly authorized when issued, the question would then arise whether any subsequent actions, such as the executive vice president's letters informing respondents of the termi- nation, served to ratify the provision ex post. See id., § 437.10, at 386. 514us1$33J 05-29-98 14:51:51 PAGES OPINPGT 86 CURTISS-WRIGHT CORP. v. SCHOONEJONGEN Opinion of the Court The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. 514us1$34z 05-27-98 14:27:39 PAGES OPINPGT OCTOBER TERM, 1994 87 Syllabus SHALALA, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES v. GUERNSEY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit No. 93­1251. Argued October 31, 1994-Decided March 6, 1995 After the refinancing of its bonded debt resulted in a "defeasance" loss for accounting purposes, respondent health care provider (hereinafter Hospital) determined that it was entitled to Medicare reimbursement for part of that loss. Although the Hospital contended that it should receive its full reimbursement in the year of the refinancing, the fiscal intermediary agreed with petitioner Secretary of Health and Human Services that the loss had to be amortized over the life of the Hospital's old bonds in accord with an informal Medicare reimbursement guideline, PRM § 233. The District Court ultimately sustained the Secretary's position, but the Court of Appeals reversed. Interpreting the Secre- tary's Medicare regulations, 42 CFR pt. 413, to require reimbursement according to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), the latter court concluded that, because PRM § 233 departed from GAAP, it ef- fected a substantive change in the regulations and was void by reason of the Secretary's failure to issue it in accordance with the notice-and- comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Held:1. The Secretary is not required to adhere to GAAP in making pro- vider reimbursement determinations. Pp. 91­97. (a) The Medicare regulations do not require reimbursement accord- ing to GAAP. The Secretary's position that 42 CFR § 413.20(a)-which specifies, inter alia, that "[t]he principles of cost reimbursement require that providers maintain sufficient financial records . . . for proper deter- mination of costs," and that "[s]tandardized definitions, accounting, sta- tistics, and reporting practices that are widely accepted in the hospital and related fields are followed"-ensures the existence of adequate pro- vider records but does not dictate the Secretary's own reimbursement determinations is supported by the regulation's text and the overall structure of the regulations and is therefore entitled to deference as a reasonable regulatory interpretation. Moreover, § 413.24-which re- quires that a provider's cost data be based on the accrual basis of ac- counting-does not mandate reimbursement according to GAAP, since GAAP is not the only form of accrual accounting. In fact, PRM § 233 reflects a different accrual method. Pp. 92­95. 514us1$34z 05-27-98 14:27:39 PAGES OPINPGT 88 SHALALA v. GUERNSEY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL Syllabus (b) The Secretary's reading of her regulations is consistent with the Medicare statute, which does not require adherence to GAAP, but merely instructs that, in establishing methods for determining reim- bursable costs, she should "consider, among other things, the principles generally applied by national organizations or established prepayment organizations (which have developed such principles) . . . ," 42 U. S. C. § 1395x(v)(1)(A). Nor is there any basis for suggesting that the Secre- tary has a statutory duty to promulgate regulations that address every conceivable question in the process of determining equitable reimburse- ment. To the extent that § 1395x(v)(1)(A)'s broad delegation of author- ity to her imposes a rulemaking obligation, it is one she has without doubt discharged by issuing comprehensive and intricate regulations that address a wide range of reimbursement questions and by relying upon an elaborate adjudicative structure to resolve particular details not specifically addressed by regulation. The APA does not require that all the specific applications of a rule evolve by further, more precise rules rather than by adjudication, and the Secretary's mode of determin- ing benefits by both rulemaking and adjudication is a proper exercise of her statutory mandate. Pp. 95­97. 2. The Secretary's failure to follow the APA notice-and-comment provisions in issuing PRM § 233 does not invalidate that guideline. It was proper for the Secretary to issue a guideline or interpretive rule in determining that defeasance losses should be amortized. PRM § 233 is the Secretary's means of implementing the statute's mandate that the Medicare program bear neither more nor less than its fair share of reimbursement costs, 42 U. S. C. § 1395x(v)(1)(A)(i), and the regulatory requirement that only the actual cost of services rendered to bene- ficiaries during a given year be reimbursed, 42 CFR § 413.9. As such, PRM § 233 is a prototypical example of an interpretive rule issued by an agency to advise the public of its construction of the statutes and rules it administers. Interpretive rules do not require notice and comment, although they also do not have the force and effect of law and are not accorded that weight in the adjudicatory process. APA rulemaking would be required if PRM § 233 adopted a new position in- consistent with any of the Secretary's existing regulations. However, because the Secretary's regulations do not bind her to make Medicare reimbursements in accordance with GAAP, her determination in PRM § 233 to depart from GAAP by requiring bond defeasance losses to be amortized does not amount to a substantive change to the regulations. Pp. 97­100. 3. An examination of the nature and objectives of GAAP illustrates the unlikelihood that the Secretary would choose to impose upon herself the duty to go through the time-consuming rulemaking process when- 514us1$34z 05-27-98 14:27:39 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 87 (1995) 89 Opinion of the Court ever she disagreed with any anouncements or changes in GAAP and wished to depart from them. Pp. 100­102. (a) GAAP does not necessarily reflect economic reality, and its con- servative orientation in guiding judgments and estimates ill serves Medicare reimbursement and its mandate to avoid cross-subsidization. Pp. 100­101. (b) GAAP is not a lucid or encyclopedic set of pre-existing rules. It encompasses the conventions, rules, and procedures that define ac- cepted accounting practice at a particular point in time, and changes over time. Even at any one point, GAAP consists of multiple sources, any number of which might present conflicting treatments of a particu- lar accounting question. Pp. 101­102. 996 F. 2d 830, reversed. Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. O'Connor, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia, Souter, and Thomas, JJ., joined, post, p. 102. Kent L. Jones argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Days, Assistant Attor- ney General Hunger, Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler, Anthony J. Steinmeyer, and John P. Schnitker. Scott W. Taebel argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Diane M. Signoracci.* Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court. In this case a health care provider challenges a Medicare reimbursement determination by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. What begins as a rather conventional accounting problem raises significant questions respecting the interpretation of the Secretary's regulations and her authority to resolve certain reimbursement issues by adju- *Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the American Hospital Association et al. by Robert A. Klein and Charles W. Bailey; for the hospitals participating in St. John Hospital v. Shalala by William G. Christopher, Chris Rossman, and Kenneth R. Marcus; and for the Mother Frances Hospital et al. by Dan M. Peterson. 514us1$34L 05-27-98 14:27:39 PAGES OPINPGT 90 SHALALA v. GUERNSEY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL Opinion of the Court dication and interpretive rules, rather than by regulations that address all accounting questions in precise detail. The particular dispute concerns whether the Medicare regulations require reimbursement according to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), and whether the re- imbursement guideline the Secretary relied upon is invalid because she did not follow the notice-and-comment provi- sions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in issuing it. We hold that the Secretary's regulations do not require reimbursement according to GAAP and that her guideline is a valid interpretive rule. I Respondent Guernsey Memorial Hospital (hereinafter Hospital) issued bonds in 1972 and 1982 to fund capital im- provements. In 1985, the Hospital refinanced its bonded debt by issuing new bonds. Although the refinancing will result in an estimated $12 million saving in debt service costs, the transaction did result in an accounting loss, some- times referred to as an advance refunding or defeasance loss, of $672,581. The Hospital determined that it was entitled to Medicare reimbursement for about $314,000 of the loss. The total allowable amount of the loss is not in issue, but its tim- ing is. The Hospital contends it is entitled to full reimburse- ment in one year, the year of the refinancing; the Secretary contends the loss must be amortized over the life of the old bonds. The Secretary's position is in accord with an informal Medicare reimbursement guideline. See U. S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Medicare Provider Reimburse- ment Manual § 233 (Mar. 1993) (PRM). PRM § 233 does not purport to be a regulation and has not been adopted pursu- ant to the notice-and-comment procedures of the Administra- tive Procedure Act. The fiscal intermediary relied on § 233 and determined that the loss had to be amortized. The Pro- vider Reimbursement Review Board disagreed, see App. to Pet. for Cert. 54a, but the Administrator of the Health Care 514us1$34L 05-27-98 14:27:39 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 87 (1995) 91 Opinion of the Court Financing Administration reversed the Board's decision, see id., at 40a. In the District Court the Secretary's position was sustained, see Guernsey Memorial Hospital v. Sulli- van, 796 F. Supp. 283 (SD Ohio 1992), but the Court of Ap- peals reversed, see Guernsey Memorial Hospital v. Secre- tary of Health and Human Services, 996 F. 2d 830 (CA6 1993). In agreement with the Hospital, the court inter- preted the Secretary's own regulations to contain a "flat statement that generally accepted accounting principles `are followed' " in determining Medicare reimbursements. Id., at 833 (quoting 42 CFR § 413.20(a)). Although it was willing to accept the argument that PRM § 233's treatment of advance refunding losses "squares with economic reality," 996 F. 2d, at 834, the Court of Appeals concluded that, because PRM § 233 departed from GAAP, it "effects a substantive change in the regulations [and is] void by reason of the agency's fail- ure to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act in adopting it." Id., at 832. Once the court ruled that GAAP controlled the timing of the accrual, it followed that the Hos- pital, not the Secretary, was correct and that the entire loss should be recognized in the year of refinancing. We granted certiorari, 511 U. S. 1016 (1994), and now reverse. II Under the Medicare reimbursement scheme at issue here, participating hospitals furnish services to program bene- ficiaries and are reimbursed by the Secretary through fiscal intermediaries. See 42 U. S. C. §§ 1395g and 1395h (1988 and Supp. V). Hospitals are reimbursed for "reasonable costs," defined by the statute as "the cost actually incurred, excluding therefrom any part of incurred cost found to be unnecessary in the efficient delivery of needed health serv- ices." § 1395x(v)(1)(A). The Medicare Act, 79 Stat. 290, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1395 et seq., authorizes the Secretary to promulgate regulations "establishing the method or meth- ods to be used" for determining reasonable costs, directing 514us1$34L 05-27-98 14:27:39 PAGES OPINPGT 92 SHALALA v. GUERNSEY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL Opinion of the Court her in the process to "consider, among other things, the principles generally applied by national organizations or es- tablished prepayment organizations (which have developed such principles) in computing" reimbursement amounts. § 1395x(v)(1)(A). The Secretary has promulgated, and updated on an annual basis, regulations establishing the methods for determining reasonable cost reimbursement. See Good Samaritan Hos- pital v. Shalala, 508 U. S. 402, 404­407 (1993). The relevant provisions can be found within 42 CFR pt. 413 (1994). Re- spondent contends that two of these regulations, §§ 413.20(a) and 413.24, mandate reimbursement according to GAAP, and the Secretary counters that neither does. A Section 413.20(a) provides as follows: "The principles of cost reimbursement require that providers maintain sufficient financial records and sta- tistical data for proper determination of costs payable under the program. Standardized definitions, account- ing, statistics, and reporting practices that are widely accepted in the hospital and related fields are followed. Changes in these practices and systems will not be re- quired in order to determine costs payable under the principles of reimbursement. Essentially the methods of determining costs payable under Medicare involve making use of data available from the institution's basis accounts, as usually maintained, to arrive at equitable and proper payment for services to beneficiaries." Assuming, arguendo, that the "[s]tandardized definitions, accounting, statistics, and reporting practices" referred to by the regulation refer to GAAP, that nevertheless is just the beginning, not the end, of the inquiry. The decisive question still remains: Who is it that "follow[s]" GAAP, and for what purposes? The Secretary's view is that § 413.20(a) ensures 514us1$34L 05-27-98 14:27:39 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 87 (1995) 93 Opinion of the Court the existence of adequate provider records but does not dic- tate her own reimbursement determinations. We are per- suaded that the Secretary's reading is correct. Section 413.20(a) sets forth its directives in an ordered progression. The first sentence directs that providers must maintain records that are sufficient for proper determination of costs. It does not say the records are conclusive of the entire reimbursement process. The second sentence makes it clear to providers that standardized accounting practices are followed. The third sentence reassures providers that changes in their recordkeeping practices and systems are not required in order to determine what costs the provider can recover when principles of reimbursement are applied to the provider's raw cost data. That sentence makes a distinction between recordkeeping practices and systems on one hand and principles of reimbursement on the other. The last sen- tence confirms the distinction, for it contemplates that a pro- vider's basic financial information is organized according to GAAP as a beginning point from which the Secretary "ar- rive[s] at equitable and proper payment for services." This is far different from saying that GAAP is by definition an equitable and proper measure of reimbursement. The essential distinction between recordkeeping require- ments and reimbursement principles is confirmed by the organization of the regulations in 42 CFR pt. 413 (1994). Sub- part A sets forth introductory principles. Subpart B, con- taining the regulation here in question, is entitled "Account- ing Records and Reports." The logical conclusion is that the provisions in subpart B concern recordkeeping require- ments rather than reimbursement, and closer inspection re- veals this to be the case. Section 413.20 is the first section in subpart B, and is entitled "Financial data and reports." In addition to § 413.20(a), the other paragraphs in § 413.20 govern the "[f]requency of cost reports," "[r]ecordkeeping requirements for new providers," "[c]ontinuing provider rec- ordkeeping requirements," and "[s]uspension of program 514us1$34L 05-27-98 14:27:39 PAGES OPINPGT 94 SHALALA v. GUERNSEY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL Opinion of the Court payments to a provider . . . [who] does not maintain . . . adequate records." Not until the following subparts are cost reimbursement matters considered. Subpart C is enti- tled "Limits on Cost Reimbursement," subpart D "Appor- tionment [of Allowable Costs]," subpart E "Payments to Pro- viders," and subparts F through H address reimbursement of particular cost categories. The logical sequence of a reg- ulation or a part of it can be significant in interpreting its meaning. It is true, as the Court of Appeals said, that § 413.20(a) "does not exist in a vacuum" but rather is a part of the overall Medicare reimbursement scheme. 996 F. 2d, at 835. But it does not follow from the fact that a provider's cost accounting is the first step toward reimbursement that it is the only step. It is hardly surprising that the re- imbursement process begins with certain recordkeeping requirements. The regulations' description of the fiscal intermediary's role underscores this interpretation. The regulations direct the intermediary to consult and assist providers in interpret- ing and applying the principles of Medicare reimbursement to generate claims for reimbursable costs, § 413.20(b), sug- gesting that a provider's own determination of its claims in- volves more than handing over its existing cost reports. The regulations permit initial acceptance of reimbursable cost claims, unless there are obvious errors or inconsisten- cies, in order to expedite payment. § 413.64(f)(2). When a subsequent, more thorough audit follows, it may establish that adjustments are necessary. Ibid.; see also §§ 421.100(a), (c). This sequence as well is consistent with the Secretary's view that a provider's cost accounting systems are only the first step in the ultimate determination of reimbursable costs. The Secretary's position that § 413.20(a) does not bind her to reimburse according to GAAP is supported by the regula- tion's text and the overall structure of the regulations. It 514us1$34L 05-27-98 14:27:39 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 87 (1995) 95 Opinion of the Court is a reasonable regulatory interpretation, and we must defer to it. Thomas Jefferson Univ. v. Shalala, 512 U. S. 504, 512 (1994); see also Martin v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm'n, 499 U. S. 144, 151 (1991) ("Because applying an agency's regulation to complex or changing circumstances calls upon the agency's unique expertise and policymaking prerogatives, we presume that the power authoritatively to interpret its own regulations is a component of the agency's delegated lawmaking powers"); Lyng v. Payne, 476 U. S. 926, 939 (1986) ("agency's construction of its own regulations is entitled to substantial deference"). Respondent argues that, even if § 413.20(a) does not man- date reimbursement according to GAAP, § 413.24 does. This contention need not detain us long. Section 413.24 re- quires that a provider's cost data be based on the accrual basis of accounting, under which "revenue is reported in the period when it is earned, regardless of when it is collected, and expenses are reported in the period in which they are incurred, regardless of when they are paid." § 413.24(b)(2). But GAAP is not the only form of accrual accounting; in fact, both the GAAP approach and PRM § 233 reflect different methods of accrual accounting. See Accounting Principles Board (APB) Opinion No. 26, ¶¶ 5­8, reprinted at App. 64­66 (describing alternative accrual methods of recognizing ad- vance refunding losses, including the one adopted in PRM § 233). Section 413.24 does not, simply by its accrual ac- counting requirement, bind the Secretary to make reim- bursements according to GAAP. B The Secretary's reading of her regulations is consistent with the Medicare statute. Rather than requiring adher- ence to GAAP, the statute merely instructs the Secretary, in establishing the methods for determining reimbursable costs, to "consider, among other things, the principles gener- ally applied by national organizations or established prepay- 514us1$34L 05-27-98 14:27:39 PAGES OPINPGT 96 SHALALA v. GUERNSEY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL Opinion of the Court ment organizations (which have developed such principles) in computing the amount of payment . . . to providers of serv- ices." 42 U. S. C. § 1395x(v)(1)(A). Nor is there any basis for suggesting that the Secretary has a statutory duty to promulgate regulations that, either by default rule or by specification, address every conceivable question in the process of determining equitable reimburse- ment. To the extent the Medicare statute's broad delega- tion of authority imposes a rulemaking obligation, see ibid., it is one the Secretary has without doubt discharged. See Good Samaritan Hospital v. Shalala, 508 U. S., at 418, and n. 13, 419, n. 15. The Secretary has issued regulations to address a wide range of reimbursement questions. The regulations are comprehensive and intricate in detail, ad- dressing matters such as limits on cost reimbursement, apportioning costs to Medicare services, and the specific treatment of numerous particular costs. As of 1994, these regulations consumed some 640 pages of the Code of Fed- eral Regulations. As to particular reimbursement details not addressed by her regulations, the Secretary relies upon an elaborate adjudicative structure which includes the right to review by the Provider Reimbursement Review Board, and, in some instances, the Secretary, as well as judicial review in federal district court of final agency action. 42 U. S. C. § 1395oo(f)(1); see Bethesda Hospital Assn. v. Bowen, 485 U. S. 399, 400­401 (1988). That her regulations do not re- solve the specific timing question before us in a conclusive way, or "could use a more exact mode of calculating," does not, of course, render them invalid, for the "methods for the estimation of reasonable costs" required by the statute only need be "generalizations [that] necessarily will fail to yield exact numbers." Good Samaritan, supra, at 418. The APA does not require that all the specific applications of a rule evolve by further, more precise rules rather than by adjudication. See NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co., 416 U. S. 267 514us1$34L 05-27-98 14:27:39 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 87 (1995) 97 Opinion of the Court (1974); SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U. S. 194 (1947). The Sec- retary's mode of determining benefits by both rulemaking and adjudication is, in our view, a proper exercise of her stat- utory mandate. III We also believe it was proper for the Secretary to issue a guideline or interpretive rule in determining that defeasance losses should be amortized. PRM § 233 is the means to en- sure that capital-related costs allowable under the regula- tions are reimbursed in a manner consistent with the stat- ute's mandate that the program bear neither more nor less than its fair share of costs. 42 U. S. C. § 1395x(v)(1)(A)(i) ("[T]he necessary costs of efficiently delivering covered serv- ices to individuals covered by [Medicare] will not be borne by individuals not so covered, and the costs with respect to individuals not so covered will not be borne by [Medicare]"). The Secretary has promulgated regulations authorizing re- imbursement of capital-related costs such as respondent's that are "appropriate and helpful in . . . maintaining the operation of patient care facilities," 42 CFR § 413.9(b)(2) (1994); see generally §§ 413.130­413.157, including "[n]eces- sary and proper interest" and other costs associated with capital indebtedness, § 413.153(a)(1); see also §§ 413.130(a)(7) and (g). The only question unaddressed by the otherwise comprehensive regulations on this particular subject is whether the loss should be recognized at once or spread over a period of years. It is at this step that PRM § 233 directs amortization. Although one-time recognition in the initial year might be the better approach where the question is how best to por- tray a loss so that investors can appreciate in full a com- pany's financial position, see APB Opinion 26, ¶¶ 4­5, re- printed at App. 64, the Secretary has determined in PRM § 233 that amortization is appropriate to ensure that Medi- care only reimburse its fair share. The Secretary must cal- culate how much of a provider's total allowable costs are 514us1$34L 05-27-98 14:27:40 PAGES OPINPGT 98 SHALALA v. GUERNSEY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL Opinion of the Court attributable to Medicare services, see 42 CFR §§ 413.5(a), 413.9(a), and (c)(3) (1994), which entails calculating what pro- portion of the provider's services were delivered to Medicare patients, §§ 413.50 and 413.53. This ratio is referred to as the provider's "Medicare utilization." App. to Pet. for Cert. 49a. In allocating a provider's total allowable costs to Medi- care, the Secretary must guard against various contingen- cies. The percentage of a hospital's patients covered by Medicare may change from year to year; or the provider may drop from the Medicare program altogether. Either will cause the hospital's Medicare utilization to fluctuate. Given the undoubted fact that Medicare utilization will not be an annual constant, the Secretary must strive to assure that costs associated with patient services provided over time be spread, to avoid distortions in reimbursement. As the pro- vider's yearly Medicare utilization becomes ascertainable, the Secretary is able to allocate costs with accuracy and the program can bear its proportionate share. Proper reim- bursement requires proper timing. Should the Secretary reimburse in one year costs in fact attributable to a span of years, the reimbursement will be determined by the provid- er's Medicare utilization for that one year, not for later years. This leads to distortion. If the provider's utilization rate changes or if the provider drops from the program altogether the Secretary will have reimbursed up front an amount other than that attributable to Medicare services. The result would be cross-subsidization, id., at 50a, which the Act for- bids. 42 U. S. C. § 1395x(v)(1)(A)(i). That PRM § 233 implements the statutory ban on cross- subsidization in a reasonable way is illustrated by the Ad- ministrator's application of § 233 to the facts of this case. The Administrator found that respondent's loss "did not re- late exclusively to patient care services rendered in the year of the loss . . . . [but were] more closely related to [patient care services in] the years over which the original bond term extended." App. to Pet. for Cert. 49a. Because the loss 514us1$34L 05-27-98 14:27:40 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 87 (1995) 99 Opinion of the Court was associated with patient services over a period of time, the Administrator concluded that amortization was required to avoid the statutory ban on cross-subsidization: "The statutory prohibition against cross-subsidization [citing the provision codified at 42 U. S. C. § 1395x (v)(1)(A)], requires that costs recognized in one year, but attributable to health services rendered over a number of years, be amortized and reimbursed during those years when Medicare beneficiaries use those services." Id., at 50a (footnote omitted). "By amortizing the loss to match it to Medicare utiliza- tion over the years to which it relates, the program is protected from any drop in Medicare utilization, and the provider is likewise assured that it will be adequately reimbursed if Medicare utilization increases. Further, the program is protected from making a payment attrib- utable to future years and then having the provider drop out of the Program before services are rendered to Medicare beneficiaries in those future years." Id., at 49a (footnote omitted). As an application of the statutory ban on cross- subsidization and the regulatory requirement that only the actual cost of services rendered to beneficiaries during a given year be reimbursed, 42 U. S. C. § 1395x(v)(1)(A)(i); 42 CFR § 413.9 (1994), PRM § 233 is a prototypical example of an interpretive rule " `issued by an agency to advise the pub- lic of the agency's construction of the statutes and rules which it administers.' " Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U. S. 281, 302, n. 31 (1979) (quoting Attorney General's Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act 30, n. 3 (1947)). Interpre- tive rules do not require notice and comment, although, as the Secretary recognizes, see Foreword to PRM, they also do not have the force and effect of law and are not accorded that weight in the adjudicatory process, ibid. 514us1$34L 05-27-98 14:27:40 PAGES OPINPGT 100 SHALALA v. GUERNSEY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL Opinion of the Court We can agree that APA rulemaking would still be required if PRM § 233 adopted a new position inconsistent with any of the Secretary's existing regulations. As set forth in Part II, however, her regulations do not require reimbursement according to GAAP. PRM § 233 does not, as the Court of Appeals concluded it does, "effec[t] a substantive change in the regulations." 996 F. 2d, at 832. IV There is much irony in the suggestion, made in support of the Hospital's interpretation of the statute and regulations, that the Secretary has bound herself to delegate the determi- nation of any matter not specifically addressed by the regula- tions to the conventions of financial accounting that comprise GAAP. The Secretary in effect would be imposing upon herself a duty to go through the time-consuming rulemaking process whenever she disagrees with any announcements or changes in GAAP and wishes to depart from them. Examin- ing the nature and objectives of GAAP illustrates the unlike- lihood that the Secretary would choose that course. Contrary to the Secretary's mandate to match reimburse- ment with Medicare services, which requires her to deter- mine with some certainty just when and on whose account costs are incurred, GAAP "do[es] not necessarily parallel economic reality." R. Kay & D. Searfoss, Handbook of Ac- counting and Auditing, ch. 5, p. 7 (2d ed. 1989). Financial accounting is not a science. It addresses many questions as to which the answers are uncertain and is a "process [that] involves continuous judgments and estimates." Id., ch. 5, at 7­8. In guiding these judgments and estimates, "financial accounting has as its foundation the principle of conserva- tism, with its corollary that `possible errors in measurement [should] be in the direction of understatement rather than overstatement of net income and net assets.' " Thor Power Tool Co. v. Commissioner, 439 U. S. 522, 542 (1979) (citation omitted). This orientation may be consistent with the ob- 514us1$34L 05-27-98 14:27:40 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 87 (1995) 101 Opinion of the Court jective of informing investors, but it ill serves the needs of Medicare reimbursement and its mandate to avoid cross- subsidization. Cf. id., at 543 ("[T]he accountant's conserva- tism cannot bind the Commissioner [of the IRS] in his efforts to collect taxes"). GAAP is not the lucid or encyclopedic set of pre-existing rules that the dissent might perceive it to be. Far from a single-source accounting rulebook, GAAP "encompasses the conventions, rules, and procedures that define accepted ac- counting practice at a particular point in time." Kay & Searfoss, ch. 5, at 7 (1994 Update). GAAP changes and, even at any one point, is often indeterminate. "[T]he deter- mination that a particular accounting principle is generally accepted may be difficult because no single source exists for all principles." Ibid. There are 19 different GAAP sources, any number of which might present conflicting treatments of a particular accounting question. Id., ch. 5, at 6­7. When such conflicts arise, the accountant is directed to consult an elaborate hierarchy of GAAP sources to deter- mine which treatment to follow. Ibid. We think it is a rather extraordinary proposition that the Secretary has consigned herself to this process in addressing the timing of Medicare reimbursement. The framework followed in this case is a sensible structure for the complex Medicare reimbursement process. The Sec- retary has promulgated regulations setting forth the basic principles and methods of reimbursement, and has issued in- terpretive rules such as PRM § 233 that advise providers how she will apply the Medicare statute and regulations in adjudicating particular reimbursement claims. Because the Secretary's regulations do not bind her to make Medicare reimbursements in accordance with GAAP, her determina- tion in PRM § 233 to depart from GAAP by requiring bond defeasance losses to be amortized does not amount to a sub- stantive change to the regulations. It is a valid interpretive rule, and it was reasonable for the Secretary to follow that 514us1$34L 05-27-98 14:27:40 PAGES OPINPGT 102 SHALALA v. GUERNSEY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL O'Connor, J., dissenting policy here to deny respondent's claim for full reimburse- ment of its defeasance loss in 1985. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed. It is so ordered. Justice O'Connor, with whom Justice Scalia, Justice Souter, and Justice Thomas join, dissenting. Unlike the Court, I believe that general Medicare report- ing and reimbursement regulations require provider costs to be treated according to "generally accepted accounting prin- ciples." As a result, I would hold that contrary guidelines issued by the Secretary of Health and Human Services in an informal policy manual and applied to determine the timing of reimbursement in this case are invalid for failure to com- ply with the notice and comment procedures established by the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. § 553. Because the Court holds to the contrary, I respectfully dissent. I It is undisputed, as the Court notes, ante, at 90, that re- spondent, Guernsey Memorial Hospital (Hospital), is entitled to reimbursement for the reasonable advance refunding costs it incurred when it refinanced its capital improvement bonds in 1985. The only issue here is one of timing: whether reim- bursement is to be made in a lump sum in the year of the refinancing, in accordance with generally accepted account- ing principles (known in the accounting world as GAAP), or in a series of payments over the remaining life of the original bonds, as the Secretary ultimately concluded after applying § 233 of the Medicare Provider Reimbursement Manual (PRM). The Hospital challenged the Secretary's reimburse- ment decision under the Medicare Act, 42 U. S. C. § 1395oo(f), which incorporates the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. § 551 et seq. (1988 ed. and Supp. V), by reference. Under the governing standard, reviewing courts are to "hold 514us1$34J 05-27-98 14:27:40 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 87 (1995) 103 O'Connor, J., dissenting unlawful and set aside" an agency action that is "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accord- ance with law." 5 U. S. C. § 706(2)(A). We must give sub- stantial deference to an agency's interpretation of its own regulations, Lyng v. Payne, 476 U. S. 926, 939 (1986), but an agency's interpretation cannot be sustained if it is " `plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.' " Stinson v. United States, 508 U. S. 36, 45 (1993) (quoting Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U. S. 410, 414 (1945)). In my view, that is the case here. The Medicare Act requires that, for reimbursement pur- poses, the actual reasonable costs incurred by a provider "shall be determined in accordance with regulations estab- lishing the method or methods to be used . . . in determining such costs." 42 U. S. C. § 1395x(v)(1)(A). The Secretary's regulations similarly provide that the "[r]easonable cost of any services must be determined in accordance with regula- tions establishing the method or methods to be used, and the items to be included." 42 CFR § 413.9(b)(1) (1994). The Secretary is not bound to adopt GAAP for reimbursement purposes; indeed, the statute only requires that, in promul- gating the necessary regulations, "the Secretary shall con- sider, among other things, the principles generally applied by national organizations or established prepayment organi- zations (which have developed such principles) in computing the amount of payment . . . to providers of services . . . ." 42 U. S. C. § 1395x(v)(1)(A). Neither the Hospital nor the Court of Appeals disputes that the Secretary has broad and flexible authority to prescribe standards for reimbursement. See Good Samaritan Hospital v. Shalala, 508 U. S. 402, 418, n. 13 (1993). Nevertheless, the statute clearly contemplates that the Secretary will state the applicable reimbursement methods in regulations-including default rules that cover a range of situations unless and until specific regulations are promul- gated to supplant them with respect to a particular type of 514us1$34J 05-27-98 14:27:40 PAGES OPINPGT 104 SHALALA v. GUERNSEY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL O'Connor, J., dissenting cost. Indeed, despite the Court's suggestion to the contrary, ante, at 96, only by employing such default rules can the Secretary operate the sensible, comprehensive reimburse- ment scheme that Congress envisioned. Otherwise, without such background guidelines, providers would not have the benefit of regulations establishing the accounting principles upon which reimbursement decisions will be based, and ad- ministrators would be free to select, without having to com- ply with notice and comment procedures, whatever account- ing rule may appear best in a particular context (so long as it meets minimum standards of rationality). In my view, the question becomes simply whether the Secretary has in fact adopted GAAP as the default rule for cost reimbursement accounting. Like the Court, see ante, at 95­96, I do not think that 42 CFR § 413.24(a) (1994), which provides that Medicare cost data "must be based on . . . the accrual basis of accounting," requires the use of GAAP. As the regulation itself explains, "[u]nder the accrual basis of accounting, revenue is reported in the period when it is earned, regardless of when it is collected, and expenses are reported in the period in which they are incurred, regardless of when they are paid." § 413.24(b)(2). This definition of "accrual basis" simply in- corporates the dictionary understanding of the term, thereby distinguishing the method required of cost providers from "cash basis" accounting (under which revenue is reported only when it is actually received and expenses are reported only when they are actually paid). GAAP employs the gen- erally accepted form of accrual basis accounting, but not the only possible form. In fact, both the applicable GAAP rule, established by Early Extinguishment of Debt, Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 26 (1972), reprinted at App. 62, and PRM § 233 appear to reflect accrual, as opposed to cash basis, accounting principles. Although § 413.24 simply opens the door for the Secretary to employ GAAP, § 413.20 makes clear that she has, in fact, 514us1$34J 05-27-98 14:27:40 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 87 (1995) 105 O'Connor, J., dissenting incorporated GAAP into the cost reimbursement process. That section provides that "[s]tandardized definitions, ac- counting, statistics, and reporting practices that are widely accepted in the hospital and related fields are followed." § 413.20(a). As the Court of Appeals noted, "[i]t is undis- puted, in the case at bar, that Guernsey Memorial Hospital keeps its books on the accrual basis of accounting and in ac- cordance with generally accepted accounting principles." Guernsey Memorial Hospital v. Secretary of HHS, 996 F. 2d 830, 834 (CA6 1993). Similarly, related entities in the health care field employ GAAP as their standardized accounting practices. See American Institute of Certified Public Ac- countants, Audits of Providers of Health Care Services § 3.01, p. 11 (1993) ("Financial statements of health care enti- ties should be prepared in conformity with generally ac- cepted accounting principles"); Brief for American Hospital Association et al. as Amici Curiae 7­8 ("Generally accepted accounting principles have always provided the standard definitions and accounting practices applied by non- government hospitals in maintaining their books and rec- ords"). Accordingly, the Secretary concedes that, under § 413.20, the Hospital at the very least was required to sub- mit its request for Medicare reimbursement in accordance with GAAP. Guernsey Memorial Hospital v. Sullivan, 796 F. Supp. 283, 288­289 (SD Ohio 1992); Tr. of Oral Arg. 8. The remainder of § 413.20 demonstrates, moreover, that the accounting practices commonly used in the health care field determine how costs will be reimbursed by Medicare, not just how they are to be reported. The first sentence of § 413.20(a) begins with a statement that the provision ex- plains what "[t]he principles of cost reimbursement require." (Emphasis added.) And the sentence emphasizing that standardized accounting and reporting practices "are fol- lowed" is itself accompanied by the promise that "[c]hanges in these practices and systems will not be required in order to determine costs payable [that is, reimbursable] under the 514us1$34J 05-27-98 14:27:40 PAGES OPINPGT 106 SHALALA v. GUERNSEY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL O'Connor, J., dissenting principles of reimbursement." The language of the regula- tion, taken as a whole, indicates that the accounting system maintained by the provider ordinarily forms the basis for determining how Medicare costs will be reimbursed. I find it significant that the Secretary, through the Administrator of the Health Care Finance Administration, has changed her interpretation of this regulation, having previously con- cluded that this provision generally requires the costs of Medicare providers to be reimbursed according to GAAP when that construction was to her benefit. See Dr. David M. Brotman Memorial Hospital v. Blue Cross Assn./Blue Cross of Southern California, HCFA Admin. Decision, CCH Medicare and Medicaid Guide ¶ 30,922, p. 9839 (1980) (holding that, "[u]nder 42 CFR 405.406 [now codified as § 413.20], the determination of costs payable under the program should follow standardized accounting practices" and applying the GAAP rule-that credit card costs should be treated as ex- penses in the period incurred-and not the PRM's contrary rule-that such costs should be considered reductions of revenue). Following the Secretary's current position, the Court con- cludes, ante, at 92­93, that § 413.20 was intended to do no more than reassure Medicare providers that they would not be required fundamentally to alter their accounting practices for reporting purposes. Indeed, the Court maintains, the regulation simply ensures the existence of adequate provider financial records, maintained according to widely accepted accounting practices, that will enable the Secretary to calcu- late the costs payable under the Medicare program using some other systemwide method of determining costs, which method she does not, and need not, state in any regulations. For several reasons, I find the Court's interpretation of § 413.20 untenable. Initially, the Court's view is belied by the text and struc- ture of the regulations. As the Court of Appeals noted, "the sentence in [§ 413.20(a)] that says standardized reporting 514us1$34J 05-27-98 14:27:40 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 87 (1995) 107 O'Connor, J., dissenting practices `are followed' does not exist in a vacuum." 996 F. 2d, at 835. The Provider Reimbursement Review Board has explained: "[T]he purpose of cost reporting is to enable a hospital's costs to be known so that its reimbursement can be calculated. For that reason, there must be some consis- tency between the fundamental principles of cost reporting and those principles used for cost reimbursement." Fort Worth Osteopathic Medical Center v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Ass'n/Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas, CCH Medicare and Medicaid Guide ¶ 40,413, p. 31,848 (1991). The text of § 413.20 itself establishes this link between cost re- porting and cost reimbursement by explaining that a pro- vider hospital generally need not modify its accounting and reporting practices in order to determine what costs Medi- care will reimburse. That is, "the methods of determining costs payable under Medicare involve making use of data available from the institution's basis accounts, as usually maintained, to arrive at equitable and proper payment for services to beneficiaries." § 413.20(a). By linking the reim- bursement process to the provider's existing financial rec- ords, the regulation contemplates that both the agency and the provider will be able to determine what costs are reim- bursable. It would make little sense to tie cost reporting to cost reimbursement in this manner while simultaneously mandating different accounting systems for each. In addition, as the Court aptly puts it, "[t]he logical se- quence of a regulation . . . can be significant in interpreting its meaning." Ante, at 94. Consideration of how a provid- er's claim for reimbursement is processed undermines the Court's interpretation of § 413.20(a). The Court suggests that the fiscal intermediaries who make the initial reim- bursement decisions take a hospital's cost report as raw data and apply a separate set of accounting principles to deter- mine the proper amount of reimbursement. In certain situ- ations, namely where the regulations provide for specific de- partures from GAAP, this is undoubtedly the case. But the 514us1$34J 05-27-98 14:27:40 PAGES OPINPGT 108 SHALALA v. GUERNSEY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL O'Connor, J., dissenting description of the intermediary's role in the regulations con- templates reliance on the GAAP-based cost report as deter- mining reimbursable costs in considering the ordinary claim. See, e. g., § 413.60(b) (providing that, "[a]t the end of the [re- porting] period, the actual apportionment, based on the cost finding and apportionment methods selected by the pro- vider, determines the Medicare reimbursement for the actual services provided to beneficiaries during the period" (empha- sis added)); § 413.64(f)(2) ("In order to reimburse the pro- vider as quickly as possible, an initial retroactive adjustment will be made as soon as the cost report is received. For this purpose, the costs will be accepted as reported, unless there are obvious errors or inconsistencies, subject to later audit. When an audit is made and the final liability of the program is determined, a final adjustment will be made" (emphasis added)). The fiscal intermediary, then, is essentially in- structed to check the hospital's cost report for accuracy, rea- sonableness, and presumably compliance with the regula- tions. But that task seems to operate within the framework of the hospital's normal accounting procedure-i. e., GAAP- and not some alternative, uncodified set of accounting princi- ples employed by the Secretary. See generally 42 CFR §§ 421.1­421.128 (1994). I take seriously our obligation to defer to an agency's rea- sonable interpretation of its own regulations, particularly "when, as here, the regulation concerns `a complex and highly technical regulatory program,' in which the identifi- cation and classification of relevant `criteria necessarily re- quire significant expertise and entail the exercise of judg- ment grounded in policy concerns.' " Thomas Jefferson Univ. v. Shalala, 512 U. S. 504, 512 (1994) (quoting Pauley v. BethEnergy Mines, Inc., 501 U. S. 680, 697 (1991)). In this case, however, the Secretary advances a view of the regula- tions that would force us to conclude that she has not fulfilled her statutory duty to promulgate regulations determining the methods by which reasonable Medicare costs are to be 514us1$34J 05-27-98 14:27:40 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 87 (1995) 109 O'Connor, J., dissenting calculated. If § 413.20 does not incorporate GAAP as the basic method for determining cost reimbursement in the absence of a more specific regulation, then there is no reg- ulation that specifies an overall methodology to be applied in the cost determination process. Given that the regulatory scheme could not operate without such a background method, and given that the statute requires the Secretary to make reimbursement decisions "in accordance with regula- tions establishing the method or methods to be used," 42 U. S. C. § 1395x(v)(1)(A), I find the Secretary's interpretation to be unreasonable and unworthy of deference. Unlike the Court, therefore, I would hold that § 413.20 re- quires the costs incurred by Medicare providers to be reim- bursed according to GAAP in the absence of a specific regu- lation providing otherwise. The remainder of my decision flows from this conclusion. PRM § 233, which departs from the GAAP rule concerning advance refunding losses, does not have the force of a regulation because it was promul- gated without notice and comment as required by the Admin- istrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. § 553. And, contrary to the Secretary's argument, PRM § 233 cannot be a valid "in- terpretation" of the Medicare regulations because it is clearly at odds with the meaning of § 413.20 itself. Thus, I would conclude that the Secretary's refusal, premised upon an application of PRM § 233, to reimburse the Hospital's bond defeasement costs in accordance with GAAP was invalid. II The remaining arguments advanced by the Court in sup- port of the Secretary's position do not alter my view of the regulatory scheme. The Court suggests that a contrary de- cision, by requiring the Secretary to comply with the notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act in promulgating reimbursement regulations, would impose an insurmountable burden on the Secretary's administration of the Medicare program. I disagree. Congress obviously 514us1$34J 05-27-98 14:27:40 PAGES OPINPGT 110 SHALALA v. GUERNSEY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL O'Connor, J., dissenting thought that the Secretary could manage that task when it required that she act by regulation. Moreover, despite the Court's suggestion, ante, at 96, nothing in my position re- quires the agency to adopt substantive rules addressing every detailed and minute reimbursement issue that might arise. An agency certainly cannot foresee every factual sce- nario with which it may be presented in administering its programs; to fill in the gaps, it must rely on adjudication of particular cases and other forms of agency action, such as the promulgation of interpretive rules and policy statements, that give effect to the statutory principles and the back- ground methods embodied in the regulations. Far from being foreclosed from case-by-case adjudication, the Secre- tary is simply obligated, in making those reimbursement de- cisions, to abide by whatever ground rules she establishes by regulation. Under the Court's reading of the regula- tions, the Secretary in this case did not apply any accounting principle found in the regulations to the specific facts at issue-and indeed could not have done so because no such principles are stated outside the detailed provisions govern- ing particular reimbursement decisions. I believe that the Medicare Act's command that reimbursement requests by providers be evaluated "in accordance with regulations es- tablishing the method or methods to be used" precludes this result. Moreover, I find it significant that the bond defeasement situation at issue here was foreseen. If the Secretary had the opportunity to include a section on advance refunding costs in the PRM, then she could have promulgated a regula- tion to that effect in compliance with the Administrative Pro- cedure Act, thereby giving the public a valuable opportunity to comment on the regulation's wisdom and those adversely affected the chance to challenge the ultimate rule in court. An agency is bound by the regulations it promulgates and may not attempt to circumvent the amendment process through substantive changes recorded in an informal policy 514us1$34J 05-27-98 14:27:40 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 87 (1995) 111 O'Connor, J., dissenting manual that are unsupported by the language of the regula- tion. Here, Congress expressed a clear policy in the Medi- care Act that the reimbursement principles selected by the Secretary-whatever they may be-must be adopted subject to the procedural protections of the Administrative Proce- dure Act. I would require the Secretary to comply with that statutory mandate. The PRM, of course, remains an important part of the Medicare reimbursement process, explaining in detail what the regulations lay out in general and providing those who must prepare and process claims with the agency's state- ments of policy concerning how those regulations should be applied in particular contexts. One role for the manual, therefore, is to assist the Secretary in her daunting task of overseeing the thousands of Medicare reimbursement deci- sions made each year. As the foreword to the PRM ex- plains, "[t]he procedures and methods set forth in this man- ual have been devised to accommodate program needs and the administrative needs of providers and their intermediar- ies and will assure that the reasonable cost regulations are uniformly applied nationally without regard to where cov- ered services are furnished." Indeed, large portions of the PRM are devoted to detailed examples, including step-by- step calculations, of how certain rules should be applied to particular facts. The manual also provides a forum for the promulgation of interpretive rules and general statements of policy, types of agency action that describe what the agency believes the statute and existing regulations require but that do not alter the substantive obligations created thereby. Such interpretive rules are exempt from the notice and com- ment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, see 5 U. S. C. § 553(b)(A), but they must explain existing law and not contradict what the regulations require. As a result, the policy considerations upon which the Court focuses, see ante, at 97­100, are largely beside the point. Like the Court of Appeals, I do not doubt that the 514us1$34J 05-27-98 14:27:40 PAGES OPINPGT 112 SHALALA v. GUERNSEY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL O'Connor, J., dissenting amortization approach embodied in PRM § 233 "squares with economic reality," 996 F. 2d, at 834, and would likely be up- held as a rational regulation were it properly promulgated. Nor do I doubt that amortization of advance refunding costs may have certain advantages for Medicare reimbursement purposes. It is certainly true that the Act prohibits the Medicare program from bearing more or less than its proper share of hospital costs, 42 U. S. C. § 1395x(v)(1)(A)(i), but im- mediate recognition of advance refunding losses does not vio- late this principle. While the Court, like the Secretary, as- sumes that advance refunding costs are properly attributed to health care services rendered over a number of years, it does not point to any evidence in the record substantiating that proposition. In fact, what testimony there is supports the view that it is appropriate to recognize advance refund- ing losses in the year of the transaction because the provider no longer carries the costs of the refunded debt on its books thereafter; the losses in question simply represent a one- time recognition of the difference between the net carrying costs of the old bonds and the price necessary to reacquire them. See, e. g., App. 14­15, 22. While reasonable people may debate the merits of the two options, the point is that both appear in the end to represent economically reasonable and permissible methods of determining what costs are prop- erly reimbursable and when. Given that neither approach is commanded by the statute, the cross-subsidization argument should not alter our reading of § 413.20. Finally, the Secretary argues that she was given a "broad and flexible mandate" to prescribe standards for Medicare reimbursement, and that, as a result, "it is exceedingly un- likely that the Secretary would have intended, in general regulations promulgated as part of the initial implementa- tion of the Medicare Act, to abdicate to the accounting pro- fession (or to anyone else) ultimate responsibility for making particular cost reimbursement determinations." Brief for Petitioner 19. She points out that the purpose of Medicare 514us1$34J 05-27-98 14:27:40 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 87 (1995) 113 O'Connor, J., dissenting reimbursement, to provide payment of the necessary costs of efficient delivery of covered services to Medicare bene- ficiaries, may not be identical to the objective of financial accounting, which is "to provide useful information to man- agement, shareholders, creditors, and others properly inter- ested" and "has as its foundation the principle of [financial] conservatism." Thor Power Tool Co. v. Commissioner, 439 U. S. 522, 542 (1979) (rejecting taxpayer's assertion that an accounting principle that conforms to GAAP must be pre- sumed to be permissible for tax purposes). The Court makes this argument as well. See ante, at 100­101. Reading the regulations to employ GAAP, even though it is possible that the relevant reimbursement standard will change over time as the position of the accounting profession evolves, does not imply an abdication of statutory authority but a necessary invocation of an established body of account- ing principles to apply where specific regulations have not provided otherwise. The Secretary is, of course, not bound by GAAP in such a situation and, indeed, has promulgated reimbursement regulations that depart from the GAAP default rule in specific situations. Compare, e. g., § 413.134 (f)(2) (limited recognition of gain or loss on involuntary con- version of depreciable asset) with R. Kay & D. Searfoss, Handbook of Accounting and Auditing, ch. 15, p. 14 (2d ed. 1989 and 1994 Supp.) (gains or losses are recognized under GAAP in the period of disposal of a depreciable asset, even if reinvested in a similar asset). The Secretary would also be free to devise a reimbursement scheme that does not in- volve GAAP as a background principle at all if she believes, as the Court argues, that use of GAAP binds her to a cost allocation methodology ill suited to Medicare reimbursement, see ante, at 101. Our task is simply to review the regula- tions the Secretary has in fact adopted, and I conclude that the Secretary has incorporated GAAP as the reimbursement default rule. 514us1$34J 05-27-98 14:27:40 PAGES OPINPGT 114 SHALALA v. GUERNSEY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL O'Connor, J., dissenting III Contrary to the Court's conclusion, I do not believe that the Administrator's reimbursement decision can be defended as a rational application of the statute and the existing regu- lations. The Hospital sought reimbursement for its advance refunding costs in accordance with GAAP and in compliance with the Secretary's published regulations. The Adminis- trator applied PRM § 233, which calls for a departure from GAAP in this instance, to deny the Hospital's request; that decision contradicted the agency's own regulations and therefore resulted in a reimbursement decision that was "not in accordance with law" within the meaning of the Adminis- trative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. § 706(2)(A). I agree with the court below that "[t]he `nexus' that exists in the regula- tions between cost reporting and cost reimbursement is too strong . . . to be broken by a rule not adopted in accordance with the rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act." 996 F. 2d, at 836. Because the Court holds otherwise, I respectfully dissent. 514US1$35z 02-06-97 10:31:42 PAGES OPINPGT OCTOBER TERM, 1994 115 Per Curiam GOEKE, SUPERINTENDENT, RENZ CORRECTIONAL CENTER v. BRANCH on petition for writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit No. 94­898. Decided March 20, 1995 Before a Missouri trial court could hold a hearing to consider respondent's motion for a new trial and to sentence her for the murder of her hus- band, respondent took flight. She was recaptured and sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole. The State Court of Ap- peals dismissed her timely notice of appeal on direct review and an ap- peal of the trial court's denial of her motion for postconviction relief, finding that, under Missouri's well-established fugitive dismissal rule, a defendant who attempts to escape justice after conviction forfeits her right to appeal. Subsequently, the Federal District Court rejected her procedural due process argument and denied her petition for habeas relief. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit found that dismissal of respond- ent's appeal where her preappeal flight had no adverse effect on the appellate process violated substantive due process. The court also con- cluded that the State had waived its argument that application of the court's ruling constituted a new rule that could not be announced in a case on collateral review under Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288. Held: The State did not waive the Teague issue, and application of the Eighth Circuit's novel rule violates Teague's holding. The record sup- ports the State's position that it raised the Teague claim in the District Court and the Eighth Circuit. Thus, it must be considered now, and it is dispositive. See Caspari v. Bohlen, 510 U. S. 383, 389. The Eighth Circuit's fugitive dismissal rule was neither dictated nor compelled by existing precedent when respondent's conviction became final. Nor does the rule fall into Teague's exception for watershed rules of criminal procedure implicating the fundamental fairness and accuracy of the criminal proceeding. Certiorari granted; 37 F. 3d 371, reversed. Per Curiam. In this case, the Eighth Circuit granted habeas relief on the ground that it is a violation of Fourteenth Amendment due process for a state appellate court to dismiss the appeal of a recaptured fugitive where there is no demonstrated ad- 514US1$35z 02-06-97 10:31:42 PAGES OPINPGT 116 GOEKE v. BRANCH Per Curiam verse effect on the appellate process. The court declined to consider whether application of its ruling in respondent's case would violate the principle of Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288 (1989) (plurality opinion), concluding the State had waived that argument. The State raised the Teague bar, and application of the Eighth Circuit's novel rule violates Teague's holding. For this reason, certiorari is granted and the judgment is reversed. In 1986, a Missouri jury convicted Lynda Branch of the first-degree murder of her husband. On retrial after the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed her conviction because of an error in the admission of evidence, the jury again con- victed her. Branch moved for a new trial, and the trial court scheduled a hearing for April 3, 1989, to consider this motion and to sentence her. Before the hearing, however, Branch, who was free on bail, took flight to a neighboring county. She was recaptured on April 6, 1989, and sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole. Branch filed a timely notice of appeal on direct review and an appeal of the trial court's denial of her motion for post- conviction relief. In 1991, the Missouri Court of Appeals consolidated and dismissed the appeals under Missouri's well-established fugitive dismissal rule, which provides that a defendant who attempts to escape justice after conviction forfeits her right to appeal. State v. Branch, 811 S. W. 2d 11, 12 (Mo. App. 1991) (citing State v. Carter, 98 Mo. 431, 11 S. W. 979 (1889)). "[E]ven in the absence of prejudice to the state," the court explained, "the dismissal was justified by a more fundamental principle: preservation of public respect for our system of law." 811 S. W. 2d, at 12. Branch did not seek review in this Court. On petition for federal habeas relief under 28 U. S. C. § 2254, Branch alleged that the dismissal of her consolidated appeal violated due process. The District Court undertook what it termed a procedural due process analysis under the framework set forth in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319, 514US1$35z 02-06-97 10:31:42 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 115 (1995) 117 Per Curiam 335 (1976), and denied relief. App. to Pet. for Cert. 17, 22­ 24. Branch appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, arguing she had stated a procedural due process vio- lation. For the first time, at oral argument, the Eighth Cir- cuit panel suggested the claim was a substantive, not a proce- dural, due process claim. Id., at 137. Branch's counsel, of course, welcomed the suggestion. On that ground, a divided panel held that dismissal of an appeal where preappeal flight had no adverse effect on the appellate process violated the defendant's substantive rights under the Fourteenth Amend- ment. After the Eighth Circuit denied the State's motion for rehearing en banc, the majority modified its opinion to explain that it would not confront the applicability of Teague because the State had waived the point. Branch v. Turner, 37 F. 3d 371, 374­375 (1994). The application of Teague is a threshold question in a fed- eral habeas case. Caspari v. Bohlen, 510 U. S. 383, 388­390 (1994). Although a court need not entertain the defense if the State has not raised it, see Schiro v. Farley, 510 U. S. 222, 229 (1994); Godinez v. Moran, 509 U. S. 389, 397, n. 8 (1993), a court must apply it if it was raised by the State, Caspari, supra, at 389. The State's Teague argument was preserved on this record and in the record before the Court of Appeals. In the Dis- trict Court, the State argued that respondent's due process claim "is barred from litigation in federal habeas corpus un- less the Court could say, as a threshold matter, that it would make its new rule of law retroactive. Teague v. Lane." App. to Pet. for Cert. 99 (citation omitted). In its brief on appeal, the State pointed out that it had raised the Teague issue before the District Court, see Branch, supra, at 374, and argued that if the court were to decide that a constitu- tional rule prohibited dismissal, "such a conclusion could not be enforced in this collateral-attack proceeding consistently with the principles set forth in Teague v. Lane, and its prog- eny," App. to Pet. for Cert. 129, n. 5 (citation omitted). Con- 514US1$35z 02-06-97 10:31:42 PAGES OPINPGT 118 GOEKE v. BRANCH Per Curiam fronted for the first time at oral argument with a substantive due process claim, the State reasserted that "the prohibition of Teague against Lane on the enforcement of new rules of constitutional law for the first time in a collateral attack pro- ceeding in federal court applies with full force to this case." Id., at 152. The next five pages of the record are devoted to the court's questions and the State's responses regarding the Teague issue. App. to Pet. for Cert. 153­157. This record supports the State's position that it raised the Teague claim. The State's efforts to alert the Eighth Circuit to the Teague problem provided that court with ample oppor- tunity to make a reasoned judgment on the issue. Cf. Webb v. Webb, 451 U. S. 493, 501 (1981) (federal claim properly raised where there is "no doubt from the record that [the claim] was presented in the state courts and that those courts were apprised of the nature or substance of the fed- eral claim"). The State did not waive the Teague issue; it must be considered now; and it is dispositive. See Caspari, supra, at 389; Gilmore v. Taylor, 508 U. S. 333, 338­339 (1993). A new rule for Teague purposes is one where " `the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the de- fendant's conviction became final.' " Caspari, supra, at 390 (quoting Teague, 489 U. S., at 301) (emphasis deleted); Gil- more, supra, at 339­340; Graham v. Collins, 506 U. S. 461, 466­467 (1993). The question is " `whether a state court considering [the defendant's] claim at the time his conviction became final would have felt compelled by existing precedent to conclude that the rule [he] seeks was required by the Con- stitution.' " Caspari, supra, at 390 (quoting Saffle v. Parks, 494 U. S. 484, 488 (1990)). Neither respondent nor the Eighth Circuit identifies exist- ing precedent for the proposition that there is no substantial basis for appellate dismissal when a defendant fails to appear at sentencing, becomes a fugitive, demonstrates contempt for the legal system, and imposes significant cost and expense 514US1$35z 02-06-97 10:31:42 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 115 (1995) 119 Per Curiam on the State to secure her recapture. The Eighth Circuit opined that a substantive due process violation arose from conduct that was "arbitrary," "conscience-shocking," "op- pressive in a constitutional sense," or "interferes with funda- mental rights," and that dismissal of Branch's appeal fell within that category. Branch, supra, at 375. These argu- ments are not based upon existing or well-settled authority. Respondent and the Court of Appeals rely for the most part on Ortega-Rodriguez v. United States, 507 U. S. 234, 248­249 (1993). There, the Court held, as a matter of its supervisory power to administer the federal court system, that absent some adverse effect of preappeal flight on the appellate process, "the defendant's former fugitive status may well lack the kind of connection to the appellate proc- ess that would justify an appellate sanction of dismissal." Id., at 251. The case was decided almost two years after Branch's conviction became final. The rationale of the opin- ion, moreover, was limited to supervisory powers; it did not suggest that dismissal of a fugitive's appeal implicated con- stitutional principles. Nor was that suggestion made in any of our earlier cases discussing the fugitive dismissal rule in the federal or state courts. See Estelle v. Dorrough, 420 U. S. 534 (1975); Molinaro v. New Jersey, 396 U. S. 365 (1970); Allen v. Georgia, 166 U. S. 138 (1897); Bohanan v. Nebraska, 125 U. S. 692 (1887); Smith v. United States, 94 U. S. 97 (1876). The Ortega-Rodriguez dissent reinforced this point: "There can be no argument that the fugitive dismissal rule . . . violates the Constitution because a convicted criminal has no constitutional right to an appeal." 507 U. S., at 253 (Rehnquist, C. J., dissenting) (citation omitted). The Eighth Circuit did rely on Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U. S. 387 (1985), where the Court held that the Due Process Clause, guaranteeing a defendant effective assistance of counsel on his first appeal as of right, did not permit the dismissal of an appeal where the failure to comply with ap- pellate procedure was the result of ineffective assistance of 514US1$35z 02-06-97 10:31:42 PAGES OPINPGT 120 GOEKE v. BRANCH Per Curiam counsel. The Court did not hold, as respondent argues and the Eighth Circuit seemed to conclude, that due process re- quires state courts to provide for appellate review where the would-be appellant has not satisfied reasonable preconditions on her right to appeal as a result of her own conduct. Evitts turned on the right to effective assistance of counsel; it left intact "the States' ability to conduct appeals in accordance with reasonable procedural rules." Id., at 398­399. Branch argues that even if Teague does apply, the rule announced by the Eighth Circuit falls into Teague's exception for " `watershed rules of criminal procedure' implicating the fundamental fairness and accuracy of the criminal proceed- ing." Saffle v. Parks, supra, at 495 (citing Teague, supra, at 311). The new rule here is not among the "small core of rules requiring observance of those procedures that . . . are `implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.' " Graham, supra, at 478 (some internal quotation marks omitted; ci- tations omitted). Because due process does not require a State to provide appellate process at all, Evitts, supra, at 393; McKane v. Durston, 153 U. S. 684, 687 (1894), a former fugitive's right to appeal cannot be said to " `be so central to an accurate determination of innocence or guilt,' " Graham, supra, at 478 (quoting Teague, supra, at 313), as to fall within this exception to the Teague bar. As we explained in Allen v. Georgia, supra, at 140, where the Court upheld against constitutional attack the dismissal of the petition of a fugitive whose appeal was pending, "if the Supreme Court of a State has acted in consonance with the constitutional laws of a State and its own procedure, it could only be in very exceptional circumstances that this court would feel justified in saying that there had been a failure of due legal process. We might ourselves have pur- sued a different course in this case, but that is not the test." The Eighth Circuit converted a rule for the administration of the federal courts into a constitutional one. We do not (and we may not, in the face of the State's invocation of 514US1$35z 02-06-97 10:31:42 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 115 (1995) 121 Per Curiam Teague) reach the merits of that contention. The result reached by the Court of Appeals was neither dictated nor compelled by existing precedent when Branch's conviction became final, and Teague prevents its application to her case. The petition for certiorari is granted, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed. It is so ordered. 514us1$36z 05-27-98 14:36:58 PAGES OPINPGT 122 OCTOBER TERM, 1994 Syllabus DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR v. NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING & DRY DOCK CO. et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fourth circuit No. 93­1783. Argued January 9, 1995-Decided March 21, 1995 The Director of the Labor Department's Office of Workers' Compensation Programs petitioned the Court of Appeals for review of a Benefits Review Board decision that, inter alia, denied Jackie Harcum full- disability compensation under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA). Harcum did not seek review and, while not opposing the Director's pursuit of the action, expressly declined to intervene on his own behalf in response to an inquiry by the court. Acting sua sponte, the court concluded that the Director lacked stand- ing to appeal the benefits denial because she was not "adversely affected or aggrieved" thereby within the meaning of § 21(c) of the Act, 33 U. S. C. § 921(c). Held: The Director is not "adversely affected or aggrieved" under § 921(c). Pp. 125­136. (a) Section 921(c) does not apply to an agency acting as a regulator or administrator under the statute. This is strongly suggested by the fact that, despite long use of the phrase "adversely affected or ag- grieved" as a term of art to designate those who have standing to appeal a federal agency decision, no case has held that an agency, without bene- fit of specific authorization to appeal, falls within that designation; by the fact that the United States Code's general judicial review provision, 5 U. S. C. § 702, which employs the phrase "adversely affected or ag- grieved," specifically excludes agencies from the category of persons covered, § 551(2); and by the clear evidence in the Code that when an agency in its governmental capacity is meant to have standing, Con- gress says so, see, e. g., 29 U. S. C. §§ 660(a) and (b). While the text of a particular statute could make clear that "adversely affected or ag- grieved" is being used in a peculiar sense, the Director points to no such text in the LHWCA. Pp. 125­130. (b) Neither of the categories of interest asserted by the Director demonstrates that "adversely affected or aggrieved" in this statute must have an extraordinary meaning. The Director's interest in ensuring adequate payments to claimants is insufficient. Agencies do not auto- matically have standing to sue for actions that frustrate the purposes 514us1$36z 05-27-98 14:36:59 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 122 (1995) 123 Opinion of the Court of their statutes; absent some clear and distinctive responsibility con- ferred upon the agency, an "adversely affected or aggrieved" judicial review provision leaves private interests (even those favored by public policy) to be vindicated by private parties. Heckman v. United States, 224 U. S. 413; Moe v. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of Flat- head Reservation, 425 U. S. 463; Pasadena City Bd. of Ed. v. Spangler, 427 U. S. 424; and General Telephone Co. of Northwest v. EEOC, 446 U. S. 318, distinguished. Also insufficient is the Director's asserted in- terest in fulfilling important administrative and enforcement responsi- bilities. She fails to identify any specific statutory duties that an erro- neous Board ruling interferes with, reciting instead conjectural harms to abstract and remote concerns. Pp. 130­136. 8 F. 3d 175, affirmed. Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Ginsburg, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 136. Beth S. Brinkmann argued the cause for petitioner. With her on the briefs were Solicitor General Days, Deputy Solicitor General Wallace, Allen H. Feldman, Steven J. Mandel, and Mark S. Flynn. Lawrence P. Postol argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief was James M. Mesnard.* Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. The question before us in this case is whether the Director of the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs in the United States Department of Labor has standing under § 21(c) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA or Act), 44 Stat. 1424, as amended, 33 U. S. C. § 901 et seq., to seek judicial review of decisions by the Bene- fits Review Board that in the Director's view deny claimants compensation to which they are entitled. *Charles T. Carroll, Jr., Thomas D. Wilcox, and Dennis J. Lindsay filed a brief for the National Association of Waterfront Employers et al. as amici curiae urging affirmance. 514us1$36K 05-27-98 14:36:59 PAGES OPINPGT 124 DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS v. NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING & DRY DOCK CO. Opinion of the Court I On October 24, 1984, Jackie Harcum, an employee of re- spondent Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co., was working in the bilge of a steam barge when a piece of metal grating fell and struck him in the lower back. His injury required surgery to remove a herniated disc, and caused prolonged disability. Respondent paid Harcum bene- fits under the LHWCA until he returned to light-duty work in April 1987. In November 1987, Harcum returned to his regular department under medical restrictions. He proved unable to perform essential tasks, however, and the company terminated his employment in May 1988. Harcum ulti- mately found work elsewhere, and started his new job in February 1989. Harcum filed a claim for further benefits under the LHWCA. Respondent contested the claim, and the dispute was referred to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). One of the issues was whether Harcum was entitled to benefits for total disability, or instead only for partial disability, from the date he stopped work for respondent until he began his new job. "Disability" under the LHWCA means "incapacity because of injury to earn the wages which the employee was receiving at the time of injury in the same or any other em- ployment." 33 U. S. C. § 902(10). After a hearing on October 20, 1989, the ALJ determined that Harcum was partially, rather than totally, disabled when he left respondent's employ, and that he was therefore owed only partial-disability benefits for the interval of his unem- ployment. On appeal, the Benefits Review Board affirmed the ALJ's judgment, and also ruled that under 33 U. S. C. § 908(f), the company was entitled to cease payments to Har- cum after 104 weeks, after which time the LHWCA special fund would be liable for disbursements pursuant to § 944. The Director petitioned the United States Court of Ap- peals for the Fourth Circuit for review of both aspects of the Board's ruling. Harcum did not seek review and, while not 514us1$36K 05-27-98 14:36:59 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 122 (1995) 125 Opinion of the Court opposing the Director's pursuit of the action, expressly de- clined to intervene on his own behalf in response to an in- quiry by the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals sua sponte raised the question whether the Director had stand- ing to appeal the Board's order. 8 F. 3d 175 (1993). It con- cluded that she did not have standing with regard to that aspect of the order denying Harcum's claim for full-disability compensation, since she was not "adversely affected or ag- grieved" by that decision within the meaning of § 21(c) of the Act, 33 U. S. C. § 921(c).1 We granted the Director's petition for certiorari. 512 U. S. 1287 (1994). II The LHWCA provides for compensation of workers in- jured or killed while employed on the navigable waters or adjoining, shipping-related land areas of the United States. 33 U. S. C. § 903. With the exception of those duties im- posed by §§ 919(d), 921(b), and 941, the Secretary of Labor has delegated all responsibilities of the Department with respect to administration of the LHWCA to the Director of the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP). 20 CFR §§ 701.201 and 701.202 (1994); 52 Fed. Reg. 48466 (1987). For ease of exposition, the Director will hereinafter be re- ferred to as the statutory recipient of those responsibilities. A worker seeking compensation under the Act must file a claim with an OWCP district director. 33 U. S. C. § 919(a); 20 CFR §§ 701.301(a) and 702.105 (1994). If the district di- rector cannot resolve the claim informally, 20 CFR § 702.311, it is referred to an ALJ authorized to issue a compensation order, § 702.316; 33 U. S. C. § 919(d). The ALJ's decision is reviewable by the Benefits Review Board, whose members are appointed by the Secretary. § 921(b)(1). The Board's 1 The court found that, as administrator of the § 944 special fund, the Director did have standing to appeal the Board's decision to grant re- spondent relief under § 908(f). That ruling is not before us, and we ex- press no view upon it. 514us1$36K 05-27-98 14:36:59 PAGES OPINPGT 126 DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS v. NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING & DRY DOCK CO. Opinion of the Court decision is in turn appealable to a United States court of appeals, at the instance of "[a]ny person adversely affected or aggrieved by" the Board's order. § 921(c). With regard to claims that proceed to ALJ hearings, the Act does not by its terms make the Director a party to the proceedings, or grant her authority to prosecute appeals to the Board, or thence to the federal courts of appeals. The Director argues that she nonetheless had standing to peti- tion the Fourth Circuit for review of the Board's order, be- cause she is a "person adversely affected or aggrieved" under § 921(c). Specifically, she contends the Board's decision in- jures her because it impairs her ability to achieve the Act's purposes and to perform the administrative duties the Act prescribes. The phrase "person adversely affected or aggrieved" is a term of art used in many statutes to designate those who have standing to challenge or appeal an agency decision, within the agency or before the courts. See, e. g., federal Communications Act of 1934, 47 U. S. C. § 402(b)(6); Occupa- tional Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U. S. C. § 660(a); Fed- eral Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U. S. C. § 816. The terms "adversely affected" and "aggrieved," alone or in combination, have a long history in federal administrative law, dating back at least to the federal Communications Act of 1934, § 402(b)(2) (codified, as amended, 47 U. S. C. § 402(b)(6)). They were already familiar terms in 1946, when they were embodied within the judicial review provi- sion of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U. S. C. § 702, which entitles "[a] person . . . adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute" to judicial review. In that provision, the qualifica- tion "within the meaning of a relevant statute" is not an addi- tion to what "adversely affected or aggrieved" alone conveys; but is rather an acknowledgment of the fact that what con- stitutes adverse effect or aggrievement varies from statute to statute. As the United States Department of Justice, At- 514us1$36K 05-27-98 14:36:59 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 122 (1995) 127 Opinion of the Court torney General's Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act (1947) put it, "The determination of who is `adversely affected or aggrieved . . . within the meaning of any relevant statute' has `been marked out largely by the gradual judicial process of inclusion and exclusion, aided at times by the courts' judgment as to the probable legislative intent derived from the spirit of the statutory scheme.' " Id., at 96 (citation omitted). We have thus interpreted § 702 as requiring a liti- gant to show, at the outset of the case, that he is injured in fact by agency action and that the interest he seeks to vindi- cate is arguably within the "zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the statute" in question. Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp, 397 U. S. 150, 153 (1970); see also Clarke v. Securities Industry Assn., 479 U. S. 388, 395­396 (1987). Given the long lineage of the text in question, it is signifi- cant that counsel have cited to us no case, neither in this Court nor in the courts of appeals, neither under the APA nor under individual statutory-review provisions such as the present one, which holds that, without benefit of specific au- thorization to appeal, an agency, in its regulatory or policy- making capacity, is "adversely affected" or "aggrieved." Cf. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs v. Pe- rini North River Associates, 459 U. S. 297, 302­305 (1983) (noting the issue of whether the Director has standing under § 921(c), but finding it unnecessary to reach the question).2 2 In addition to not reaching the § 921(c) question, Perini also took as a given (because it had been conceded below) the answer to another ques- tion: whether the Director (rather than the Benefits Review Board) is the proper party respondent to an appeal from the Board's determination. See 459 U. S., at 304, n. 13. Obviously, an agency's entitlement to party respondent status does not necessarily imply that agency's standing to appeal: The National Labor Relations Board, for example, is always the party respondent to an employer or employee appeal, but cannot initiate an appeal from its own determination. 29 U. S. C. §§ 152(1), 160(f). Indeed, it can be argued, as amici in this case have done, that if the Director is the proper party respondent in the court of appeals (as her 514us1$36K 05-27-98 14:36:59 PAGES OPINPGT 128 DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS v. NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING & DRY DOCK CO. Opinion of the Court There are cases in which an agency has been held to be ad- versely affected or aggrieved in what might be called its non- governmental capacity-that is, in its capacity as a member of the market group that the statute was meant to protect. For example, in United States v. ICC, 337 U. S. 426 (1949), we held that the United States had standing to sue the Inter- state Commerce Commission (ICC) in federal court to over- turn a Commission order that denied the Government recov- ery of damages for an allegedly unlawful railroad rate. The Government, we said, "is not less entitled than any other shipper to invoke administrative and judicial protection." Id., at 430.3 But the status of the Government as a statu- tory beneficiary or market participant must be sharply dis- tinguished from the status of the Government as regulator or administrator. The latter status would be at issue if-to use an example that continues the ICC analogy-the Environmental Protec- regulations assert, see 20 CFR § 802.410 (1994)), in initiating an appeal she would end up on both sides of the case. See Brief for National Associ- ation of Waterfront Employers et al. as Amici Curiae 17, n. 14. Our opinion today intimates no view on the party-respondent question. 3 United States v. ICC accorded the United States standing despite the facts that (1) the Interstate Commerce Act contained no specific judicial review provision, and (2) the APA's general judicial review provision ("per- son adversely affected or aggrieved") excludes agencies from the definition of "person." See infra, at 129. It would thus appear that an agency suing in what might be termed a nongovernmental capacity escapes that definitional limitation. The LHWCA likewise contains a definition of "person" that does not specifically include agencies. 33 U. S. C. § 902(1). We chose not to rely upon that provision in this opinion because it seemed more likely to sweep in the question of the Director's authority to appeal Board rulings that are adverse to the § 944 special fund, which deserves separate attention. It is possible that the Director's status as manager of the privately financed fund removes her from the "person" limitation, just as it may remove her from the more general limitation that agencies qua agencies are not "adversely affected or aggrieved." We leave those issues to be resolved in a case where the Director's relationship to the fund is immediately before us. 514us1$36K 05-27-98 14:36:59 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 122 (1995) 129 Opinion of the Court tion Agency sued to overturn an ICC order establishing high tariffs for the transportation of recyclable materials. Cf. United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP), 412 U. S. 669 (1973). Or if the De- partment of Transportation, to further a policy of encourag- ing so-called "telecommuting" in order to reduce traffic con- gestion, sued as a "party aggrieved" under 28 U. S. C. § 2344, to reverse the Federal Communications Commission's ap- proval of rate increases on second phone lines used for mo- dems. We are aware of no case in which such a "policy in- terest" by an agency has sufficed to confer standing under an "adversely affected or aggrieved" statute or any other general review provision. To acknowledge the general ade- quacy of such an interest would put the federal courts into the regular business of deciding intrabranch and intraagency policy disputes-a role that would be most inappropriate. That an agency in its governmental capacity is not "ad- versely affected or aggrieved" is strongly suggested, as well, by two aspects of the United States Code: First, the fact that the Code's general judicial review provision, contained in the APA, does not include agencies within the category of "per- son adversely affected or aggrieved." See 5 U. S. C. § 551(2) (excepting agencies from the definition of "person"). Since, as we suggested in United States v. ICC, the APA provision reflects "the general legislative pattern of administrative and judicial relationships," 337 U. S., at 433­434, it indi- cates that even under specific "adversely affected or ag- grieved" statutes (there were a number extant when the APA was adopted) agencies as such normally do not have standing. And second, the United States Code displays throughout that when an agency in its governmental ca- pacity is meant to have standing, Congress says so. The LHWCA's silence regarding the Secretary's ability to take an appeal is significant when laid beside other provisions of law. See, e. g., Black Lung Benefits Act (BLBA), 30 U. S. C. § 932(k) ("The Secretary shall be a party in any proceeding 514us1$36K 05-27-98 14:36:59 PAGES OPINPGT 130 DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS v. NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING & DRY DOCK CO. Opinion of the Court relative to [a] claim for benefits"); Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e­5(f)(1) (authoriz- ing the Attorney General to initiate civil actions against pri- vate employers) and § 2000e­4(g)(6) (authorizing the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission to "intervene in a civil action brought . . . by an aggrieved party . . ."); Em- ployee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U. S. C. § 1132(a)(2) (granting Secretary power to initiate various civil actions under the Act). It is particularly illuminating to compare the LHWCA with the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA), 29 U. S. C. § 651 et seq. Section 660(a) of OSHA is virtually identical to § 921(c): It allows "[a]ny person adversely affected or aggrieved" by an order of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (a body distinct from the Secretary, as the Benefits Review Board is) to petition for review in the courts of appeals. OSHA, however, further contains a § 660(b), which expressly grants such petitioning authority to the Secretary-suggest- ing, of course, that the Secretary would not be considered "adversely affected or aggrieved" under § 660(a), and should not be considered so under § 921(c). All of the foregoing indicates that the phrase "person ad- versely affected or aggrieved" does not refer to an agency acting in its governmental capacity. Of course the text of a particular statute could make clear that the phrase is being used in a peculiar sense. But the Director points to no such text in the LHWCA, and relies solely upon the mere exist- ence and impairment of her governmental interest. If that alone could ever suffice to contradict the normal meaning of the phrase (which is doubtful), it would have to be an interest of an extraordinary nature, extraordinarily impaired. As we proceed to discuss, that is not present here. III The LHWCA assigns four broad areas of responsibility to the Director: (1) supervising, administering, and making 514us1$36K 05-27-98 14:36:59 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 122 (1995) 131 Opinion of the Court rules and regulations for calculation of benefits and process- ing of claims, 33 U. S. C. §§ 906, 908­910, 914, 919, 930, and 939; (2) supervising, administering, and making rules and regulations for provision of medical care to covered workers, § 907; (3) assisting claimants with processing claims and re- ceiving medical and vocational rehabilitation, § 939(c); and (4) enforcing compensation orders and administering payments to and disbursements from the special fund established by the Act for the payment of certain benefits, §§ 921(d) and 944. The Director does not assert that the Board's decision hampers her performance of these express statutory respon- sibilities. She claims only two categories of interest that are affected, neither of which remotely suggests that she has authority to appeal Board determinations. First, the Director claims that because the LHWCA "has many of the elements of social insurance, and as such is de- signed to promote the public interest," Brief for Petitioner 17, she has standing to "advance in federal court the public interest in ensuring adequate compensation payments to claimants," id., at 18. It is doubtful, to begin with, that the goal of the LHWCA is simply the support of disabled work- ers. In fact, we have said that, because "the LHWCA rep- resents a compromise between the competing interests of disabled laborers and their employers," it "is not correct to interpret the Act as guaranteeing a completely adequate remedy for all covered disabilities." Potomac Elec. Power Co. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, 449 U. S. 268, 282 (1980). The LHWCA is a scheme for fair and efficient resolution of a class of private disputes, man- aged and arbitered by the Government. It represents a "quid pro quo between employer and employee. Employers relinquish certain legal rights which the law affords to them and so, in turn, do the employees." 1 M. Norris, The Law of Maritime Personal Injuries § 4.1, p. 106 (4th ed. 1990) (em- phasis added). 514us1$36K 05-27-98 14:36:59 PAGES OPINPGT 132 DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS v. NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING & DRY DOCK CO. Opinion of the Court But even assuming the single-minded, compensate-the- employee goal that the Director posits, there is nothing to suggest that the Director has been given authority to pursue that goal in the courts. Agencies do not automatically have standing to sue for actions that frustrate the purposes of their statutes. The Interior Department, being charged with the duty to "protect persons and property within areas of the National Park System," 16 U. S. C. § 1a­6(a), does not thereby have authority to intervene in suits for assault brought by campers; or (more precisely) to bring a suit for assault when the camper declines to do so. What the Di- rector must establish here is such a clear and distinctive re- sponsibility for employee compensation as to overcome the universal assumption that "person adversely affected or aggrieved" leaves private interests (even those favored by public policy) to be litigated by private parties. That we are unable to find. The Director is not the designated cham- pion of employees within this statutory scheme. To the con- trary, one of her principal roles is to serve as the broker of informal settlements between employers and employees. 33 U. S. C. § 914(h). She is charged, moreover, with providing "information and assistance" regarding the program to all persons covered by the Act, including employers. §§ 902(1), 939(c). To be sure, she has discretion under § 939(c) to pro- vide "legal assistance in processing a claim" if it is requested (a provision that is perhaps of little consequence, since the Act provides attorney's fees to successful claimants, see § 928); but that authority, which is discretionary with her and contingent upon a request by the claimant, does not evidence the duty and power, when the claimant is satisfied with his award, to contest the award on her own. The Director argues that her standing to pursue the pub- lic's interest in adequate compensation of claimants is sup- ported by our decisions in Heckman v. United States, 224 U. S. 413 (1912), Moe v. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of Flathead Reservation, 425 U. S. 463 (1976), Pasa- 514us1$36K 05-27-98 14:36:59 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 122 (1995) 133 Opinion of the Court dena City Bd. of Ed. v. Spangler, 427 U. S. 424 (1976), and General Telephone Co. of Northwest v. EEOC, 446 U. S. 318 (1980). Brief for Petitioner 18. None of those cases is ap- posite. Heckman and Moe pertain to the United States' standing to represent the interests of Indians; the former holds, see 224 U. S., at 437, and the latter indicates in dictum, see 425 U. S., at 474, n. 13, that the Government's status as guardian confers standing. The third case, Spangler, supra, at 427, based standing of the United States upon an explicit provision of Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 authoriz- ing suit, 42 U. S. C. § 2000h­2, and the last, General Tele- phone Co., supra, at 325, based standing of the Equal Em- ployment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) upon a specific provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 author- izing suit, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e­5(f)(1). Those two cases cer- tainly establish that Congress could have conferred standing upon the Director without infringing Article III of the Con- stitution; but they do not at all establish that Congress did so. In fact, General Telephone Co. suggests just the oppo- site, since it describes how, prior to the 1972 amendment specifically giving the EEOC authority to sue, only the "ag- grieved person" could bring suit, even though the EEOC was authorized to use " `informal methods of conference, concilia- tion, and persuasion' " to eliminate unlawful employment practices, 446 U. S., at 325-an authority similar to the Di- rector's informal settlement authority here. The second category of interest claimed to be affected by erroneous Board rulings is the Director's ability to fulfill "important administrative and enforcement responsibilities." Brief for Petitioner 18. The Director fails, however, to iden- tify any specific statutory duties that an erroneous Board ruling interferes with, reciting instead conjectural harms to abstract and remote concerns. She contends, for example, that "incorrect claim determinations by the Board frustrate [her] duty to administer and enforce the statutory scheme in a uniform manner." Id., at 18­19. But it is impossible to 514us1$36K 05-27-98 14:36:59 PAGES OPINPGT 134 DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS v. NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING & DRY DOCK CO. Opinion of the Court understand how a duty of uniform administration and en- forcement by the Director (presumably arising out of the prohibition of arbitrary action reflected in 5 U. S. C. § 706) hinges upon correct adjudication by someone else. The Di- rector does not (and we think cannot) explain, for example, how an erroneous decision by the Board affects her ability to process the underlying claim, § 919, provide information and assistance regarding coverage, compensation, and proce- dures, § 939(c), enforce the final award, § 921(d), or perform any other required task in a "uniform" manner. If the correctness of adjudications were essential to the Director's performance of her assigned duties, Congress would presumably have done what it has done with many other agencies: made adjudication her responsibility. In fact, however, it has taken pains to remove adjudication from her realm. The LHWCA Amendments of 1972, 86 Stat. 1251, assigned administration to the Director, 33 U. S. C. § 939(a); assigned initial adjudication to ALJ's, § 919(d); and created the Board to consider appeals from ALJ decisions, § 921. The assertion that proper adjudication is essential to proper performance of the Director's functions is quite simply con- trary to the whole structure of the Act. To make an implau- sible argument even worse, the Director must acknowledge that her lack of control over the adjudicative process does not even deprive her of the power to resolve legal ambiguities in the statute. She retains the rulemaking power, see § 939(a), which means that if her problem with the present decision of the Board is that it has established an erroneous rule of law, see Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837 (1984), she has full power to alter that rule. See Estate of Cowart v. Nicklos Drilling Co., 505 U. S. 469, 476 (1992) ("[T]he [Board] is not entitled to any special deference"). Her only possible complaint, then, is that she does not agree with the outcome of this particular case. The Director also claims that precluding her from seeking review of erroneous Board rulings "would reduce 514us1$36K 05-27-98 14:36:59 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 122 (1995) 135 Opinion of the Court the incentive for employers to view the Director's informal resolution efforts as authoritative, because the employer could proceed to a higher level of review from which the Director could not appeal." Brief for Petitioner 19. This argument assumes that her informal resolution efforts are supposed to be "authoritative." We doubt that. The struc- ture of the statute suggests that they are supposed to be facilitative-a service to both parties, rather than an imposi- tion upon either of them. But even if the opposite were true, we doubt that the unlikely prospect that the Director will appeal when the claimant does not will have much of an impact upon whether the employer chooses to spurn the Director's settlement proposal and roll the dice before the Board. The statutory requirement of adverse effect or ag- grievement must be based upon "something more than an ingenious academic exercise in the conceivable." United States v. SCRAP, 412 U. S., at 688. The Director seeks to derive support for her position from Congress' later enactment of the BLBA in 1978, but it seems to us that the BLBA militates precisely against her position. The BLBA expressly provides that "[t]he Secretary shall be a party in any proceeding relative to a claim for benefits under this part." 30 U. S. C. § 932(k). The Director argues that since the Secretary is explicitly made a party under the BLBA, she must be meant to be a party under the LHWCA as well. That is not a form of reasoning we are familiar with. The normal conclusion one would derive from putting these statutes side by side is this: When, in a legislative scheme of this sort, Congress wants the Secretary to have standing, it says so. Finally, the Director retreats to that last redoubt of losing causes, the proposition that the statute at hand should be liberally construed to achieve its purposes, see, e. g., North- east Marine Terminal Co. v. Caputo, 432 U. S. 249, 268 (1977). That principle may be invoked, in case of ambiguity, to find present rather than absent elements that are essential 514us1$36K 05-27-98 14:36:59 PAGES OPINPGT 136 DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS v. NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING & DRY DOCK CO. Ginsburg, J., concurring in judgment to operation of a legislative scheme; but it does not add fea- tures that will achieve the statutory "purposes" more effec- tively. Every statute purposes, not only to achieve certain ends, but also to achieve them by particular means-and there is often a considerable legislative battle over what those means ought to be. The withholding of agency author- ity is as significant as the granting of it, and we have no right to play favorites between the two. Construing the LHWCA as liberally as can be, we cannot find that the Director is "adversely affected or aggrieved" within the meaning of § 921(c). * * * For these reasons, the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is affirmed. So ordered. Justice Ginsburg, concurring in the judgment. The Court holds that the Director of the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs of the United States Department of Labor (OWCP) lacks standing under § 21(c) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA or Act), 44 Stat. 1424, as amended, 33 U. S. C. § 901 et seq., to seek judicial review of LHWCA claim determinations. Before amendment of the LHWCA in 1972, the Act's administrator had authority to seek review of LHWCA claim determina- tions in the courts of appeals. The Court reads the 1972 amendments as divesting the Act's administrator of access to federal appellate tribunals formerly open to the administra- tor's petitions. The practical effect of the Court's ruling is to order a disparity between two compensatory schemes- the LHWCA and the Black Lung Benefits Act (BLBA), 83 Stat. 792, as amended, 30 U. S. C. § 901 et seq.-measures that Congress intended to work in essentially the same way. Significantly, however, the Court observes that our prece- dent "certainly establish[es] that Congress could have con- 514us1$36p 05-27-98 14:36:59 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 122 (1995) 137 Ginsburg, J., concurring in judgment ferred standing upon the [OWCP] Director without infring- ing Article III of the Constitution." Ante, at 133 (emphasis in original).1 While I do not challenge the Court's conclu- sion that the Director lacks standing under the amended Act, I write separately because I am convinced that Congress did not advert to the change-the withdrawal of the LHWCA administrator's access to judicial review-wrought by the 1972 LHWCA amendments. Since no Article III impedi- ment stands in its way, Congress may speak the final word by determining whether and how to correct its apparent oversight. I Before the 1972 amendments to the LHWCA, the OWCP Director's predecessors as administrators of the Act, officials called OWCP deputy commissioners, adjudicated LHWCA claims in the first instance. 33 U. S. C. §§ 919, 923 (1970 ed.); see Kalaris v. Donovan, 697 F. 2d 376, 381­382 (CADC), cert. denied, 462 U. S. 1119 (1983). A deputy commissioner's claim determination could be challenged in federal district court in an injunctive action against the deputy commis- sioner. 33 U. S. C. § 921(b) (1970 ed.); see Parker v. Motor Boat Sales, Inc., 314 U. S. 244, 245 (1941). As a defending party in district courts, the deputy commissioner could ap- peal adverse rulings to the courts of appeals pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1291, even when no other party sought appeal. See Henderson v. Glens Falls Indemnity Co., 134 F. 2d 320, 322 (CA5 1943) ("There are numerous cases in which the dep- uty commissioner has appealed as the sole party, and his 1 In contrast, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit raised the standing issue in this case on its own motion because it feared that judicial review initiated by the Director would "strik[e] at the core of the constitu- tional limitations placed upon th[e] court by Article III of the Constitu- tion." 8 F. 3d 175, 180, n. 1 (1993); see also Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs v. Perini North River Associates, 459 U. S. 297, 302­305 (1983) (noting but not deciding Article III issue). 514us1$36p 05-27-98 14:36:59 PAGES OPINPGT 138 DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS v. NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING & DRY DOCK CO. Ginsburg, J., concurring in judgment right to appeal has never been questioned.") (citing, inter alia, Parker, supra). The 1972 LHWCA amendments shifted the deputy com- missioners' adjudicatory authority to Department of Labor administrative law judges (ALJ's). Although district direc- tors-as deputy commissioners are now called 2-are empow- ered to investigate LHWCA claims and attempt to resolve them informally, they must order a hearing before an ALJ upon a party's request. 33 U. S. C. § 919. The 1972 amend- ments also replaced district court injunctive actions with ap- peals to the newly created Benefits Review Board. Just as the deputy commissioners were parties before district courts prior to 1972, the Director-as the Secretary's delegate-is a party before the Benefits Review Board under the current scheme. 20 CFR § 801.2(a)(10) (1994). Either the Director or another party may invoke Board review of an ALJ's deci- sion. 33 U. S. C. § 921(b)(3); 20 CFR §§ 801.102, 801.2(a)(10) (1994). As before the amendments, further review is avail- able in the courts of appeals. 33 U. S. C. § 921(c). The Court holds that the LHWCA, as amended in 1972, does not entitle the Director to appeal Benefits Review Board decisions to the courts of appeals. Congress surely decided to transfer adjudicative functions from the deputy commissioners to ALJ's, and from the district courts to the Benefits Review Board. But there is scant reason to believe that Congress consciously decided to strip the Act's adminis- trator of authority that official once had to seek judicial re- view of claim determinations adverse to the administrator's position. In amending the LHWCA in 1972, Congress did not expressly address the standing of the Secretary of Labor or his delegate to petition for judicial review. Congress did use the standard phrase "person adversely affected or ag- grieved" to describe proper petitioners to the courts of ap- peals. See 33 U. S. C. § 921(c). But it is doubtful that Con- 2 20 CFR §§ 701.301(a)(7), 702.105 (1994). 514us1$36p 05-27-98 14:36:59 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 122 (1995) 139 Ginsburg, J., concurring in judgment gress comprehended the full impact of that phrase: Not only does it qualify employers and injured workers to seek judi- cial review but, as interpreted, it ordinarily disqualifies agen- cies acting in a governmental capacity from petitioning for court review.3 II Congress' 1978 revision of the BLBA reveals the judicial review design Congress ordered when it consciously at- tended to this matter. The 1978 BLBA amendments were adopted, in part, to keep adjudication of BLBA claims under the same procedural regime as the one Congress devised for LHWCA claims. In the 1978 BLBA prescriptions, Con- gress expressly provided for the party status of the OWCP Director. See 30 U. S. C. § 932(k) ("The Secretary [of Labor] shall be a party in any proceeding relative to a claim for [black lung] benefits."). Congress enacted the BLBA in 1969 to afford compensa- tion to coal miners and their survivors for death or disability caused by pneumoconiosis (black lung disease). See Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U. S. 1, 8 (1976). The BLBA generally adopts the claims adjudication scheme of the LHWCA. 30 U. S. C. § 932(a). Congress amended the BLBA in 1978 to clarify that the BLBA continuously incorporates LHWCA claim adjudication procedures. See § 7(a)(1), 92 Stat. 98 (amending BLBA to incorporate LHWCA "as it may be amended from time to time"); S. Rep. No. 95­209, p. 18 (1977) (BLBA amendment "makes clear that any and all amendments to the [LHWCA]" are incorpo- rated by the BLBA, including "the 1972 amendments relat- ing to the use of Administrative Law Judges in claims adjudication"). 3 The law-presentation role OWCP's Director seeks to play might be compared with the role of an advocate general or ministe re public in civil law proceedings. See generally M. Glendon, M. Gordon, & C. Osakwe, Comparative Legal Traditions 344 (2d ed. 1994); R. David, French Law 59 (1972). 514us1$36p 05-27-98 14:36:59 PAGES OPINPGT 140 DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS v. NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING & DRY DOCK CO. Ginsburg, J., concurring in judgment In the context of assuring automatic application of LHWCA procedures to black lung claims, see H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 95­864, pp. 22­23 (1978), Congress added to the BLBA the provision for the Secretary of Labor's party sta- tus "in any proceeding relative to a claim for [black lung] benefits." See § 7(k), 92 Stat. 99. According to the Report of the Senate Committee on Human Resources: "Some question has arisen as to whether the adjudi- cation procedures applicable to black lung claims incor- porating various sections of the amended [LHWCA] confe[r] standing upon the Secretary of Labor or his designee to appear, present evidence, file appeals or re- spond to appeals filed with respect to the litigation and appeal of claims. In establishing the [LHWCA] proce- dures it was the intent of this Committee to afford the Secretary the right to advance his views in the formal claims litigation context whether or not the Secretary had a direct financial interest in the outcome of the case. The Secretary's interest as the officer charged with the responsibility for carrying forth the intent of Congress with respect to the [BLBA] should be deemed sufficient to confer standing on the Secretary or such designee of the Secretary who has the responsibility for the enforcement of the [BLBA], to actively participate in the adjudication of claims before the Administrative Law Judge, Benefits Review Board, and appropriate United States Courts." S. Rep. No. 95­209, supra, at 21­22 (emphasis added). Even if this passage cannot force an uncommon reading of the LHWCA words "person adversely affected or ag- grieved," see ante, at 130, it strongly indicates that Congress considered vital to sound administration of the Act the ad- ministrator's access to court review. 514us1$36p 05-27-98 14:36:59 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 122 (1995) 141 Ginsburg, J., concurring in judgment The Director has been a party before this Court in nine argued cases involving the LHWCA.4 In two of these cases,5 the Director was a petitioner in the Court of Appeals. As this string of cases indicates, the impact of the 1972 amendments on the Director's statutory standing generally escaped this Court's attention just as it apparently slipped from Congress' grasp. III In addition to the BLBA, four other Federal Acts incorpo- rate the LHWCA's claim adjudication procedures. See De- fense Base Act, 42 U. S. C. § 1651; District of Columbia Work- men's Compensation Act, 36 D. C. Code Ann. § 501 (1973); 6 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 43 U. S. C. § 1333(b); Em- ployees of Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities Statute, 5 U. S. C. § 8171. Claims under the LHWCA, the BLBA, and these other Acts are handled by the same administrative 4 Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs v. Greenwich Collieries, 512 U. S. 267 (1994); Bath Iron Works Corp. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, 506 U. S. 153 (1993); Estate of Cowart v. Nicklos Drilling Co., 505 U. S. 469 (1992); Morrison-Knudsen Constr. Co. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, 461 U. S. 624 (1983); Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs v. Perini North River Associates, 459 U. S. 297 (1983); U. S. Industries/Fed. Sheet Metal, Inc. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, 455 U. S. 608 (1982); Potomac Elec. Power Co. v. Director, Office of Work- ers' Compensation Programs, 449 U. S. 268 (1980); Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs v. Rasmussen, 440 U. S. 29 (1979); Northeast Marine Terminal Co. v. Caputo, 432 U. S. 249 (1977). 5 Morrison-Knudsen Constr. Co. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compen- sation Programs, 461 U. S. 624 (1983); Director, Office of Workers' Com- pensation Programs v. Rasmussen, 440 U. S. 29 (1979). In neither of these cases did the Board's ruling affect the § 944 special fund. See ante, at 128, n. 3. 6 This law "applies to all claims for injuries or deaths based on employ- ment events that occurred prior to July 2[4], 1982, the effective date of the District of Columbia Workers' Compensation Act [36 D. C. Code Ann. § 36­301 et seq. (1981)]." 20 CFR § 701.101(b) (1994). 514us1$36p 05-27-98 14:36:59 PAGES OPINPGT 142 DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS v. NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING & DRY DOCK CO. Ginsburg, J., concurring in judgment actors: the OWCP Director, district directors, ALJ's, and the Benefits Review Board. Because the same procedures gen- erally apply in the administration of these benefits programs, common issues arise under the several programs. See, e. g., Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs v. Greenwich Collieries, 512 U. S. 267, 281 (1994) (invalidating "true doubt" burden of persuasion rule that Department of Labor ALJ's applied in both LHWCA and BLBA claim adjudications). Under the Court's holding, the Director can appeal the Benefits Review Board's resolution of a BLBA claim, but not the Board's resolution of an identical issue presented in a claim under the LHWCA or the other four Acts. I concur in the Court's judgment despite the disharmony it estab- lishes and my conviction that Congress did not intend to put the administration of the BLBA and the LHWCA out of sync. Correcting a scrivener's error is within this Court's competence, see, e. g., United States Nat. Bank of Ore. v. Independent Ins. Agents of America, Inc., 508 U. S. 439 (1993), but only Congress can correct larger oversights of the kind presented by the OWCP Director's petition. 514us1$37z 06-11-98 18:24:41 PAGES OPINPGT OCTOBER TERM, 1994 143 Syllabus ANDERSON, DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA DEPART- MENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, et al. v. EDWARDS, guardian ad litem for EDWARDS, et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 93­1883. Argued January 18, 1995-Decided March 22, 1995 The federal "family filing unit rule," 42 U. S. C. § 602(a)(38), requires that all cohabiting nuclear family members be grouped into a single "assist- ance unit" (AU) for purposes of eligibility and benefits determinations under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. California's "non-sibling filing unit rule" (California Rule) additionally groups into a single AU all needy children who live in the same house- hold, whether or not they are siblings, if there is only one adult caring for them. When application of the California Rule resulted in de- creases in the maximum per capita AFDC benefits due respondents, who include Verna Edwards and her cohabiting dependent minor grand- daughter and two grandnieces, they brought this action for declaratory and injunctive relief against petitioners, the state officials charged with administering California's AFDC program, claiming that the California Rule violates federal law. The District Court granted summary judg- ment for respondents, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Held: Federal law does not prohibit California from grouping into a single AU all needy children living in the same household under the care of one relative. Pp. 149­158. (a) The California Rule does not violate 45 CFR § 233.20(a)(2)(viii), an AFDC regulation prohibiting States from reducing the amount of assistance "solely because of the presence in the household of a non- legally responsible individual." Respondents are simply wrong when they contend that, e. g., it was solely the arrival in Mrs. Edwards' home of her grandnieces that triggered a decline in the per capita benefits that previously were paid to her granddaughter; rather, it was the grandnieces' presence plus their application for AFDC assistance through Mrs. Edwards. Had the grandnieces, after coming to live with Mrs. Edwards, either not applied for assistance or applied through a different caretaker relative living in the home, the California Rule would not have affected the granddaughter's benefits at all. P. 151. 514us1$37z 06-11-98 18:24:41 PAGES OPINPGT 144 ANDERSON v. EDWARDS Syllabus (b) Nor does the California Rule violate 45 CFR §§ 233.20(a)(2)(viii), 233.20(a)(3)(ii)(D), and 233.90(a)(1), which prohibit States from assuming that a cohabitant's income is available to a needy child absent a case- specific determination that it is actually or legally available. First, the California Rule does not necessarily reduce the benefits of all needy children when one of them receives outside income, for California may rationally assume that the caretaker will observe her duties to all of the AU's members and will take into account the receipt of any such income by one child when expending funds on behalf of the AU. Second, the California Rule simply authorizes the combination of incomes of all AU members in order to determine the amount of the AU's assistance pay- ment. This accords with the very definition of an AU as the group of individuals whose income and resources are considered "as a unit" in determining the amount of benefits, 45 CFR § 206.10(b)(5), and is author- ized by the AFDC statute itself, 42 U. S. C. § 602(a)(7)(A), which pro- vides that a state agency "shall, in determining need, take into consider- ation any . . . income and resources of any child or relative claiming [AFDC assistance]." In light of the great latitude that States have in administering their AFDC programs, see, e. g., Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 471, 478, that statute is reasonably construed to allow States, in determining a child's need (and therefore the amount of her assist- ance), to consider the income and resources of all cohabiting children and relatives also claiming assistance. The availability regulations are addressed to an entirely different problem: attempts by States to count income and resources controlled by persons outside the AU for the pur- pose of determining the amount of the AU's assistance. See 42 Fed. Reg. 6583­6584, and, e. g., King v. Smith, 392 U. S. 309. The California Rule has no such effect. Pp. 152­155. (c) Respondents' alternative arguments-(1) that the federal family filing unit rule occupies the field and thereby pre-empts California from adopting its Rule, and (2) that the California Rule violates 45 CFR §§ 233.10(a)(1) and 233.20(a)(1)(i), which require equitable treatment among AFDC recipients-lack merit. Pp. 156­158. 12 F. 3d 154, reversed and remanded. Thomas, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Dennis Paul Eckhart, Supervising Deputy Attorney Gen- eral of California, argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney Gen- eral, Charlton G. Holland III, Assistant Attorney General, and G. Mateo Mun oz, Deputy Attorney General. 514us1$37z 06-11-98 18:24:41 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 143 (1995) 145 Opinion of the Court Paul A. Engelmayer argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Days, Assistant Attorney Gen- eral Hunger, Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler, William Kanter, and Howard S. Scher. Katherine E. Meiss argued the cause for respondents. With her on the brief were Alice Bussiere, Patrice E. Mc- Elroy, Jodie Berger, and Paul Lee.* Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court. This case presents the question whether federal law gov- erning the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program prohibits States from grouping into a single AFDC *Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the State of Min- nesota et al. by Hubert H. Humphrey III, Attorney General of Minnesota, and LauraSue Schlatter, Assistant Attorney General, and by the Attor- neys General for their respective jurisdictions as follows: Richard Blu- menthal of Connecticut, Scott Harshbarger of Massachusetts, G. Oliver Koppell of New York, Michael F. Easley of North Carolina, Theodore R. Kulongoski of Oregon, Ernest D. Preate, Jr., of Pennsylvania, Jeffrey B. Pine of Rhode Island, Jeffrey L. Amestoy of Vermont, Rosalie Simmonds Ballentine of the Virgin Islands, and James S. Gilmore III of Virginia; for the State of Nevada et al. by Frankie Sue Del Papa, Attorney General of Nevada, and John Albrecht, Deputy Attorney General, Bruce M. Bo- telho, Attorney General of Alaska, Vanesa Ruiz, Corporation Counsel of the District of Columbia, Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General of Florida, Donald L. Paillette, Acting Attorney General of Guam, Robert A. Marks, Attorney General of Hawaii, Roland W. Burris, Attorney General of Illinois, Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General of Montana, Deborah T. Poritz, Attorney General of New Jersey, Susan B. Loving, Attorney Gen- eral of Oklahoma, Jeffrey B. Pine, Attorney General of Rhode Island, Mark W. Barnett, Attorney General of South Dakota, and Joseph B. Meyer, Attorney General of Wyoming; for the Council of State Govern- ments et al. by Richard Ruda and Lee Fennell; and for the Pacific Legal Foundation by Ronald A. Zumbrun and John H. Findley. Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the Alliance for Children's Rights et al. by Charles N. Freiberg and David B. Goodwin; and for the American Association of Retired Persons by Steven S. Zalez- nick and Michael Schuster. 514us1$37N 06-11-98 18:24:41 PAGES OPINPGT 146 ANDERSON v. EDWARDS Opinion of the Court "assistance unit" all needy children who live in the same household under the care of one relative. Such grouping allows States to grant equal assistance to equally sized needy households, regardless of whether the children in the household are all siblings. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded that federal law forbids States to equalize assistance in this manner. We disagree and accord- ingly reverse. I AFDC is a joint federal-state public assistance program authorized by Title IV­A of the Social Security Act, 49 Stat. 627, 42 U. S. C. § 601 et seq. (1988 ed. and Supp. V). As its name indicates, the AFDC program "is designed to provide financial assistance to needy dependent children and the par- ents or relatives who live with and care for them." Shea v. Vialpando, 416 U. S. 251, 253 (1974). The program "reim- burses each State which chooses to participate with a per- centage of the funds it expends," so long as the State "admin- ister[s] its assistance program pursuant to a state plan that conforms to applicable federal statutes and regulations." Heckler v. Turner, 470 U. S. 184, 189 (1985) (citing 42 U. S. C. §§ 602, 603). One applicable federal rule requires state plans to provide that all members of a nuclear family who live in the same household must apply for AFDC assistance if any one of them applies; in addition, the income of all of these applicants must be aggregated in determining their eligibility and the amount of their monthly benefits. See 42 U. S. C. § 602(a)(38) (1988 ed., Supp. V); 45 CFR § 206.10(a)(1)(vii) (1993). See generally Bowen v. Gilliard, 483 U. S. 587 (1987) (upholding rule against constitutional challenges). This "family filing unit rule" requires that all cohabiting nu- clear family members be grouped into a single AFDC "assist- ance unit" (AU), defined by federal law as "the group of indi- viduals whose income, resources and needs are considered as a unit for purposes of determining eligibility and the amount 514us1$37N 06-11-98 18:24:41 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 143 (1995) 147 Opinion of the Court of payment." 45 CFR § 206.10(b)(5) (1993). The regulation at issue in this case-California's "non-sibling filing unit rule" (California Rule)-goes even further in this regard. It provides: "Two or more AUs in the same home shall be combined into one AU when . . . [t]here is only one [adult] caretaker relative." Cal. Dept. of Social Servs., Manual of Policies & Procedures § 82­824.1.13, App. to Pet. for Cert. 52. In other words, the California Rule groups into a single AU all needy children who live in the same household, whether or not they are siblings, if there is only one adult caring for all of them. The consolidation of two or more AU's into a single AU pursuant to the California Rule results in a decrease in the maximum per capita AFDC benefits for which the affected individuals are eligible. This occurs because, while Califor- nia (like many States) increases the amount of assistance for each additional person added to an AU, the increase is not proportional. Thus, as the number of persons in the AU increases, the per capita payment to the AU decreases.1 1 Between July 1, 1989, and August 31, 1991, California adhered to the following schedule of maximum monthly AFDC payments: Number of Maximum aid Per capita persons in AU payment payment 1 $ 341 $341.00 2 560 280.00 3 694 231.33 4 824 206.00 5 940 188.00 6 1,057 176.17 7 1,160 165.71 8 1,265 158.13 9 1,366 151.78 10 or more 1,468 146.80 Joint Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment in No. CV­S 91 1473 (ED Cal.), p. 7 (Feb. 13, 1992). Cf. Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 471, 488 (1970) (reproduc- ing similar Maryland schedule.) The current schedule is set forth in 514us1$37N 06-11-98 18:24:41 PAGES OPINPGT 148 ANDERSON v. EDWARDS Opinion of the Court See, e. g., Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 471, 473­474 (1970) (sustaining a Maryland AFDC regulation under which "the standard of need increases with each additional person in the household, but the increments become proportion- ately smaller"). The situation of respondent Verna Edwards and her rela- tives illustrates the operation of these two rules. Initially, Mrs. Edwards received AFDC assistance on behalf of her granddaughter, for whom she is the sole caretaker.2 As a one-person AU, the granddaughter was eligible to receive a "maximum aid payment" of $341 per month prior to Septem- ber 1991. See n. 1, supra. Later, Mrs. Edwards began car- ing for her two grandnieces, who are siblings. Pursuant to the federal family filing unit rule, the grandnieces are grouped together in a two-person AU, which was eligible to receive $560 per month in benefits prior to September 1991. See ibid. Because none of these children received any out- side income, Mrs. Edwards received $901 per month in AFDC assistance on behalf of the three girls. In June 1991, however, Mrs. Edwards received notice that pursuant to the California Rule, her granddaughter and two grandnieces would be grouped together into a single three-person AU, which was eligible to receive only $694 per month. See ibid. The California Rule thus reduced AFDC payments to the Edwards household by $207 per month. On behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Mrs. Edwards, her three relatives, and other respondents brought this action against petitioners, the state officials charged with administering California's AFDC program, in the Dis- Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code Ann. § 11450(a)(1) (West Supp. 1994), as modified by §§ 11450.01(a), (b) and 11450.015(a). 2 Mrs. Edwards does not receive AFDC assistance for herself. As ex- plained in the text, the family filing unit rule requires parents to apply for assistance along with their children. But apart from this rule, caretaker relatives need not apply for assistance along with the needy children for whom they care, although they may do so. 514us1$37N 06-11-98 18:24:41 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 143 (1995) 149 Opinion of the Court trict Court for the Eastern District of California. Pursuant to Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, respondents sought a declaration that the California Rule violates federal law and an injunction prohibiting petitioners from enforcing it. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the District Court granted the requested relief. It found the California Rule indistinguishable in relevant respects from the Washington regulation invalidated in Beaton v. Thompson, 913 F. 2d 701 (CA9 1990). In a brief opinion, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Cir- cuit affirmed. It found the California Rule "virtually identi- cal" to the Washington regulation that Beaton had held to be "inconsistent with federal law and regulation." Edwards v. Healy, 12 F. 3d 154, 155 (1993). Since the Court of Ap- peals issued its decision, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)-which administers the AFDC pro- gram on the federal level-determined that its own AFDC regulations "do not conflict with the State policy option to consolidate assistance units in the same household." Trans- mittal No. ACF­AT­94­6 (Mar. 16, 1994), App. to Pet. for Cert. 37. Moreover, a number of Federal Courts of Appeals and state courts of last resort have recently issued rulings at odds with the decision below.3 We granted certiorari to resolve this conflict, 512 U. S. 1288 (1994), and we now reverse. II In Beaton, the Ninth Circuit ruled that grouping into the same AU all needy children (both siblings and non- siblings alike) who live in the same household is inconsistent with three different federal AFDC regulations, namely, 45 CFR §§ 233.20(a)(2)(viii), 233.20(a)(3)(ii)(D), and 233.90(a)(1) 3 See Bray v. Dowling, 25 F. 3d 135 (CA2 1994) (New York policy), cert. pending, No. 94­5845; Wilkes v. Gomez, 32 F. 3d 1324 (CA8 1994) (Minne- sota rule), cert. pending, No. 94­6929; MacInnes v. Commissioner of Pub- lic Welfare, 412 Mass. 790, 593 N. E. 2d 222 (1992); Morrell v. Flaherty, 338 N. C. 230, 449 S. E. 2d 175 (1994). 514us1$37N 06-11-98 18:24:41 PAGES OPINPGT 150 ANDERSON v. EDWARDS Opinion of the Court (1993).4 See Beaton, supra, at 704. Respondents rely prin- cipally on these three regulations in their submission here. As we examine the regulations, we keep in mind that in AFDC cases, "the starting point of the . . . analysis must be a recognition that . . . federal law gives each State great latitude in dispensing its available funds." Dandridge, supra, at 478. Accord, Shea, 416 U. S., at 253 (States "are given broad discretion in determining both the standard of need and the level of benefits"). In light of this cardinal 4 Section 233.20(a)(2)(viii) provides: "[T]he money amount of any need item included in the standard will not be prorated or otherwise reduced solely because of the presence in the household of a non-legally responsible individual; and the [state] agency will not assume any contribution from such individual for the support of the assistance unit . . . ." Section 233.20(a)(3)(ii) provides in part: "[I]n determining need and the amount of the assistance payment, . . . : . . . . . "(D) Income . . . and resources available for current use shall be consid- ered. To the extent not inconsistent with any other provision of this chapter, income and resources are considered available both when actually available and when the applicant or recipient has a legal interest in a liquidated sum and has the legal ability to make such sum available for support and maintenance." Section 233.90(a)(1) provides: "The determination whether a child has been deprived of parental sup- port or care by reason of the death, continued absence from the home, or physical or mental incapacity of a parent, or (if the State plan includes such cases) the unemployment of his or her parent who is the principal earner will be made only in relation to the child's natural or adoptive parent, or in relation to the child's stepparent who is married, under State law, to the child's natural or [adoptive] parent and is legally obligated to support the child under State law of general applicability which requires stepparents to support stepchildren to the same extent that natural or adoptive parents are required to support their children. Under this re- quirement, the inclusion in the family, or the presence in the home, of a `substitute parent' or `man-in-the-house' or any individual other than one described in this paragraph is not an acceptable basis for a finding of ineli- gibility or for assuming the availability of income by the State . . . ." 514us1$37N 06-11-98 18:24:41 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 143 (1995) 151 Opinion of the Court principle, we conclude that the federal regulations do not preclude the adoption of the California Rule. A According to § 233.20(a)(2)(viii), States may not reduce the amount of assistance for which AFDC applicants are eligible "solely because of the presence in the household of a non- legally responsible individual." Using the example of Mrs. Edwards and her relatives, respondents observe that, al- though the granddaughter received AFDC benefits of $341 per month before the two grandnieces came to live in Mrs. Edwards' household, she received only one-third of $694, or $231.33, per month after the grandnieces arrived and the California Rule took effect. See Brief for Respondents 6, 22. This reduction in the granddaughter's per capita bene- fits occurred, according to respondents, "solely because of the presence in the household of" the grandnieces, who are "non-legally responsible individual[s]" in relation to the granddaughter. Respondents are simply wrong. It was not solely the presence of the grandnieces that triggered the decline in per capita benefits paid to the granddaughter; rather, it was the grandnieces' presence plus their application for AFDC as- sistance through Mrs. Edwards. Had the two grandnieces, after coming to live in Mrs. Edwards' home, either not ap- plied for assistance or applied through a different caretaker relative living in that home, the California Rule would not have affected the granddaughter's benefits at all.5 5 Although needy children will receive less in per capita benefits under the California Rule, this reduction affects only children who share a house- hold. California is simply recognizing the economies of scale that inhere in such living arrangements. See, e. g., Bowen v. Gilliard, 483 U. S. 587, 599 (1987) (crediting " `the common sense proposition that individuals liv- ing with others usually have reduced per capita costs because many of their expenses are shared' " (quoting Termini v. Califano, 611 F. 2d 367, 370 (CA2 1979))). 514us1$37N 06-11-98 18:24:41 PAGES OPINPGT 152 ANDERSON v. EDWARDS Opinion of the Court B Respondents also argue that the California Rule violates the "availability" principle, which is implemented, in one form or another, by all three federal regulations. Section 233.90(a)(1) provides that "the inclusion in the family, or the presence in the home, of a `substitute parent' or `man-in-the- house' or any individual other than [the child's parent] is not an acceptable basis for . . . assuming the availability of in- come" to a needy child. Likewise, § 233.20(a)(2)(viii) pro- vides that States may "not assume any contribution from [a nonlegally responsible] individual for the support of the assistance unit." Finally, § 233.20(a)(3)(ii)(D) provides gen- erally that States shall, "in determining need and the amount of the assistance payment," count only "[i]ncome . . . and resources available for current use"; the regulation adds that "income and resources are considered available both when actually available and when [legally available]." According to respondents, the California Rule assumes that income from relatives is contributed to, or otherwise available to, a needy child without a determination that it is actually available. If Mrs. Edwards' granddaughter were to begin receiving $75 per month in outside income, for exam- ple, the AU of which she is a part would receive $75 less in monthly AFDC benefits, and the two grandnieces would each accordingly receive $25 less in per capita monthly benefits. Thus, the California Rule assertedly "assumes," in violation of all three federal regulations, that the granddaughter will contribute $25 per month of her outside income to each grandniece and also that such income will therefore be avail- able to each grandniece-without a case-specific determina- tion that such contribution will in fact occur. Respondents' argument fails for at least two reasons. First, its premise is questionable. Although in this example, the grandnieces each will nominally receive $25 less in per capita monthly benefits, they will actually receive less in benefits only if one assumes that Mrs. Edwards will expend 514us1$37N 06-11-98 18:24:41 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 143 (1995) 153 Opinion of the Court an equal amount of AFDC assistance on each of the three children-without regard to any other relevant circum- stances, such as whether one of them receives outside in- come. Not only would such assumption fail to reflect reality, see, e. g., Gilliard, 483 U. S., at 600, n. 14, it would also be inconsistent with the duty imposed on caretakers by federal law to spend AFDC payments "in the best interests of the child[ren]" for whom they care, 42 U. S. C. § 605, a duty spe- cifically implemented by California law, see, e. g., Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code Ann. §§ 11005.5, 11480 (West 1991). Thus, Cali- fornia may rationally assume that a caretaker will observe her duties to all the members of the AU and will take into account the receipt of any outside income by one child when expending funds on behalf of the AU. Second, respondents' argument misperceives the operation of the California Rule. In the foregoing example, California would simply add the monthly income of all members of the AU-$75 (granddaughter) plus $0 (first grandniece) plus $0 (second grandniece) for a total of $75-and reduce the monthly assistance payment to the Edwards family AU ac- cordingly. It should be clear from this example that the monthly payment to the AU is reduced not because the Cali- fornia Rule "assumes" that any income is available to the grandnieces, but because it places the two grandnieces into the same AU as the granddaughter (whose income is actually available to herself). What respondents are really attack- ing is the rule that the income of all members of the AU is combined in order to determine the amount of the assistance payment to the AU. This attack ignores the very definition of an AU: the group of individuals whose income and re- sources are considered "as a unit" for purposes of deter- mining the amount of the assistance payment. 45 CFR § 206.10(b)(5) (1993). Accord, Brief for Respondents 4 ("All of the income and resources of everyone in the assistance unit are taken into consideration in establishing the benefit payment"). 514us1$37N 06-11-98 18:24:41 PAGES OPINPGT 154 ANDERSON v. EDWARDS Opinion of the Court Perhaps respondents are arguing that the regulations sim- ply forbid California to combine the incomes of all needy chil- dren in a household-whether by grouping them into the same AU or otherwise. But whatever are the limits that federal law imposes on States' authority in this regard, the combination of incomes effected by the California Rule is authorized by the AFDC statute itself, which provides that a state agency "shall, in determining need, take into con- sideration any . . . income and resources of any child or rela- tive claiming [AFDC assistance]." 42 U. S. C. § 602(a)(7)(A) (1988 ed. and Supp. V). In light of the "great latitude," Dandridge, 397 U. S., at 478, and the "broad discretion," Shea, 416 U. S., at 253, that States have in administering their AFDC programs, this statute is reasonably construed to allow States, in determining a child's need (and therefore how much assistance she will receive), to take into consider- ation the income and resources of all cohabiting children and relatives also claiming AFDC assistance. The availability regulations are addressed to an entirely different problem, namely, the counting of income and re- sources controlled by persons outside the AU for the purpose of determining the amount of assistance to be provided to the AU. The regulations were adopted to implement our decisions in three AFDC cases. See 42 Fed. Reg. 6583­6584 (1977) (citing King v. Smith, 392 U. S. 309 (1968); Lewis v. Martin, 397 U. S. 552 (1970); Van Lare v. Hurley, 421 U. S. 338 (1975)). In all three cases, the State had counted as available to the AU income that was not actually or legally available because it was controlled by a person who was not a member of the AU and who was not applying for AFDC assistance. See King, supra, at 311 (a " `substitute father,' " defined as any able-bodied man who cohabited with the mother of the needy children in or outside her home); Lewis, supra, at 554 ("an adult male person assuming the role of spouse to the mother," such as a common-law husband, or a 514us1$37N 06-11-98 18:24:41 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 143 (1995) 155 Opinion of the Court nonadopting stepfather not legally obligated to support the children); Van Lare, supra, at 339, 340 (a "nonpaying lodge[r]," who was "a person not a recipient of AFDC"). Ac- cord, Bray v. Dowling, 25 F. 3d 135, 144 (CA2 1994) (the federal availability regulations "were established to address specific concerns regarding the imputation of income from non-AFDC sources"), cert. pending, No. 94­5845. The California Rule has no such effect. The combined in- come of the three-person AU comprising the granddaughter and two grandnieces of Mrs. Edwards is not calculated with reference to the income either of Mrs. Edwards herself or of anyone else inside or outside the Edwards household who is not a member of the AU and who is not applying for AFDC assistance. In sum, the California Rule does not violate any of the three federal regulations on which the Court of Ap- peals relied.6 6 We are aware that in certain situations in which a member of a consoli- dated AU begins to receive outside income (such as monthly child support payments, an inheritance, or even lottery winnings), the household would receive a larger AFDC monthly payment if the recipient (along with all members of her nuclear family, as required by the federal family filing unit rule) terminated her participation in the AFDC program. See, e. g., Gilliard, 483 U. S., at 591 (citing example from prior to federal rule's adop- tion). Were California law to forbid a person to "opt out" of the AFDC program in these situations, it might be said that the State had reduced AFDC assistance to the AU's remaining members based solely on the presence or the income of a person who is not applying for such assistance. We find it unnecessary to determine whether California law ever forbids a person who begins receiving outside income to opt out of the AFDC program. Certainly, nothing in the California Rule itself speaks to this issue. Furthermore, because respondents challenged the California Rule on its face by seeking to enjoin its enforcement altogether, see First Amended Complaint in No. CV­S 91 1473 (ED Cal.), pp. 16­17 (Jan. 10, 1992), they could not sustain their burden even if they showed that a possi- ble application of the rule (in concert with another statute or regulation) violated federal law. See United States v. Salerno, 481 U. S. 739, 745 (1987) (a facial challenge is "the most difficult challenge to mount success- fully, since the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances ex- 514us1$37N 06-11-98 18:24:41 PAGES OPINPGT 156 ANDERSON v. EDWARDS Opinion of the Court III Respondents offer two alternative grounds to support the judgment below. Neither has merit, and we may dispose of them quickly. First, respondents argue that the California Rule is an invalid expansion of the family filing unit rule, 42 U. S. C. § 602(a)(38). According to respondents, when Congress de- creed that all members of a nuclear family must be grouped together in a single AU, it intended to prevent States from including any additional persons in that AU (as does the Cali- fornia Rule). We reject the notion that Congress' directive regarding the composition of assistance units "occupied the field" and thereby pre-empted States from adopting any additional rules touching this area. What we said about "workfare" in New York State Dept. of Social Servs. v. Dub- lino, 413 U. S. 405, 414 (1973), applies here as well: "If Con- gress had intended to pre-empt state plans and efforts in such an important dimension of the AFDC program . . . , such intentions would in all likelihood have been expressed in direct and unambiguous language." The language of § 602(a)(38) requires States to embrace the family filing unit rule; it does not further limit States' discretion in a direct or unambiguous manner. Second, respondents argue that the California Rule violates two other federal regulations that require equit- able treatment among AFDC recipients. See 45 CFR § 233.10(a)(1) (1993) ("[T]he eligibility conditions imposed . . . must not result in inequitable treatment of individuals or groups"); § 233.20(a)(1)(i) ("[T]he determination of need and amount of assistance for all applicants [must] be made on an objective and equitable basis"). Assuming that these provi- sions even "creat[e] a `federal right' that is enforceable under ists under which the [rule] would be valid"). Though an as-applied chal- lenge that presented the opt-out issue in a concrete factual setting might require a court to decide it, such a challenge is not now before us. 514us1$37N 06-11-98 18:24:41 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 143 (1995) 157 Opinion of the Court [42 U. S. C.] § 1983," Wilder v. Virginia Hospital Assn., 496 U. S. 498, 509 (1990), we find that the California Rule affirm- atively fosters equitable treatment among AFDC recipients. For example, prior to September 1991 a caretaker relative responsible for three brothers having no outside income would have received AFDC benefits of $694 per month on their behalf. Yet before the California Rule was applied to her household, Mrs. Edwards received monthly benefits of $901 for the three girls for whom she cared. See supra, at 148. The $207 difference is due solely to the fact that in one household all of the children are siblings, while in the other they are not. The potential inequities in the absence of the California Rule are even greater. Six needy siblings living in the same household in California could have received up to $1,057 per month in benefits before September 1991. But prior to the California Rule's adoption, six needy nonsiblings who lived in the same household could have received as much as $2,046, or almost double. See n. 1, supra. The Califor- nia Rule sensibly and equitably eliminates these disparities by providing that equally sized and equally needy households will receive equal AFDC assistance. Thus, the rule does not violate the equitable treatment regulations.7 7 In its 1994 Transmittal, see supra, at 149, HHS examined all of the federal AFDC rules at issue in this case-the three availability regula- tions, the statutory family filing unit rule, and the equitable treatment regulations. The agency concluded: "Apart from complying with [the family filing unit rule and a related rule], States are authorized to set the State-wide policy, to be applied in all cases, whether and under what conditions two or more assistance units in the same household are to be consolidated or retained as separate units." App. to Pet. for Cert. 35. Because we have independently reached the same conclusion, we have no occasion to decide whether we must defer to the agency's position. Cf. Martin v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm'n, 499 U. S. 144, 150 (1991) ("It is well established `that an agency's construction of its own regulations is entitled to substantial deference' " (quoting Lyng v. Payne, 476 U. S. 926, 939 (1986))). 514us1$37N 06-11-98 18:24:41 PAGES OPINPGT 158 ANDERSON v. EDWARDS Opinion of the Court * * * For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the California Rule does not violate federal law. Accordingly, the judg- ment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is re- versed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. 514us1$38Z 05-27-98 14:52:04 PAGES OPINPGT OCTOBER TERM, 1994 159 Syllabus QUALITEX CO. v. JACOBSON PRODUCTS CO., INC. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 93­1577. Argued January 9, 1995-Decided March 28, 1995 Petitioner Qualitex Company has for years colored the dry cleaning press pads it manufactures with a special shade of green gold. After re- spondent Jacobson Products (a Qualitex rival) began to use a similar shade on its own press pads, Qualitex registered its color as a trademark and added a trademark infringement count to the suit it had previously filed challenging Jacobson's use of the green-gold color. Qualitex won in the District Court, but the Ninth Circuit set aside the judgment on the infringement claim because, in its view, the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act) does not permit registration of color alone as a trademark. Held: The Lanham Act permits the registration of a trademark that con- sists, purely and simply, of a color. Pp. 162­174. (a) That color alone can meet the basic legal requirements for use as a trademark is demonstrated both by the language of the Act, which describes the universe of things that can qualify as a trademark in the broadest of terms, 15 U. S. C. § 1127, and by the underlying principles of trademark law, including the requirements that the mark "identify and distinguish [the seller's] goods . . . from those manufactured or sold by others and to indicate [their] source," ibid., and that it not be "func- tional," see, e. g., Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U. S. 844, 850, n. 10. The District Court's findings (accepted by the Ninth Circuit and here undisputed) show Qualitex's green-gold color has met these requirements. It acts as a symbol. Because customers identify the color as Qualitex's, it has developed secondary meaning, see, e. g., id., at 851, n. 11, and thereby identifies the press pads' source. And, the color serves no other function. (Although it is important to use some color on press pads to avoid noticeable stains, the court found no competitive need in the industry for the green-gold color, since other colors are equally usable.) Accordingly, unless there is some special reason that convincingly militates against the use of color alone as a trademark, trademark law protects Qualitex's use of its green-gold color. Pp. 162­166. (b) Jacobson's various special reasons why the law should forbid the use of color alone as a trademark-that a contrary holding (1) will produce uncertainty and unresolvable court disputes about what shades of a color a competitor may lawfully use; (2) is unworkable in light of 514us1$38Z 05-27-98 14:52:04 PAGES OPINPGT 160 QUALITEX CO. v. JACOBSON PRODUCTS CO. Opinion of the Court the limited supply of colors that will soon be depleted by competitors; (3) is contradicted by many older cases, including decisions of this Court interpreting pre-Lanham Act trademark law; and (4) is unnecessary be- cause firms already may use color as part of a trademark and may rely on "trade dress" protection-are unpersuasive. Pp. 166­174. 13 F. 3d 1297, reversed. Breyer, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Donald G. Mulack argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Christopher A. Bloom, Edward J. Chalfie, Heather C. Steinmeyer, and Ava B. Campagna. Deputy Solicitor General Wallace argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Days, Assistant At- torneys General Hunger and Bingaman, Diane P. Wood, James A. Feldman, William Kanter, Marc Richman, Nancy J. Linck, Albin F. Drost, Nancy C. Slutter, and Linda Mon- cys Isacson. Laurence D. Strick argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.* Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court. The question in this case is whether the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act), 15 U. S. C. §§ 1051­1127 (1988 ed. and Supp. V), permits the registration of a trademark that con- *Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the Bar Associa- tion of the District of Columbia by Bruce T. Wieder, Sheldon H. Klein, and Linda S. Paine-Powell; for B. F. Goodrich Co. by Lawrence S. Robbins and Mary Ann Tucker; for the Crosby Group, Inc., by Robert D. Yeager; for Dr Pepper/Seven-Up Corp. by David C. Gryce; for the Hand Tools Institute et al. by James E. Siegel, Witold A. Ziarno, and Rosemarie Biondi-Tofano; for Intellectual Property Owners by George R. Powers, Neil A. Smith, and Herbert C. Wamsley; for the International Trademark Association by Christopher C. Larkin, Joan L. Dillon, and Morton David Goldberg; and for Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. by Michael W. Schwartz and Marc Wolinsky. Arthur M. Handler filed a brief for the Private Label Manufacturers Association as amicus curiae urging affirmance. 514us1$38Q 05-27-98 14:52:04 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 159 (1995) 161 Opinion of the Court sists, purely and simply, of a color. We conclude that, some- times, a color will meet ordinary legal trademark require- ments. And, when it does so, no special legal rule prevents color alone from serving as a trademark. I The case before us grows out of petitioner Qualitex Com- pany's use (since the 1950's) of a special shade of green-gold color on the pads that it makes and sells to dry cleaning firms for use on dry cleaning presses. In 1989, respondent Jacob- son Products (a Qualitex rival) began to sell its own press pads to dry cleaning firms; and it colored those pads a similar green gold. In 1991, Qualitex registered the special green- gold color on press pads with the Patent and Trademark Office as a trademark. Registration No. 1,633,711 (Feb. 5, 1991). Qualitex subsequently added a trademark infringe- ment count, 15 U. S. C. § 1114(1), to an unfair competition claim, § 1125(a), in a lawsuit it had already filed challenging Jacobson's use of the green-gold color. Qualitex won the lawsuit in the District Court. 21 U. S. P. Q. 2d 1457 (CD Cal. 1991). But, the Court of Ap- peals for the Ninth Circuit set aside the judgment in Quali- tex's favor on the trademark infringement claim because, in that Circuit's view, the Lanham Act does not permit Quali- tex, or anyone else, to register "color alone" as a trademark. 13 F. 3d 1297, 1300, 1302 (1994). The Courts of Appeals have differed as to whether or not the law recognizes the use of color alone as a trademark. Compare NutraSweet Co. v. Stadt Corp., 917 F. 2d 1024, 1028 (CA7 1990) (absolute prohibition against protection of color alone), with In re Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 774 F. 2d 1116, 1128 (CA Fed. 1985) (allowing registration of color pink for fiberglass insulation), and Master Distributors, Inc. v. Pako Corp., 986 F. 2d 219, 224 (CA8 1993) (declining to estab- lish per se prohibition against protecting color alone as a trademark). Therefore, this Court granted certiorari. 512 514us1$38Q 05-27-98 14:52:04 PAGES OPINPGT 162 QUALITEX CO. v. JACOBSON PRODUCTS CO. Opinion of the Court U. S. 1287 (1994). We now hold that there is no rule abso- lutely barring the use of color alone, and we reverse the judgment of the Ninth Circuit. II The Lanham Act gives a seller or producer the exclusive right to "register" a trademark, 15 U. S. C. § 1052 (1988 ed. and Supp. V), and to prevent his or her competitors from using that trademark, § 1114(1). Both the language of the Act and the basic underlying principles of trademark law would seem to include color within the universe of things that can qualify as a trademark. The language of the Lan- ham Act describes that universe in the broadest of terms. It says that trademarks "includ[e] any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof." § 1127. Since human beings might use as a "symbol" or "device" almost anything at all that is capable of carrying meaning, this lan- guage, read literally, is not restrictive. The courts and the Patent and Trademark Office have authorized for use as a mark a particular shape (of a Coca-Cola bottle), a particular sound (of NBC's three chimes), and even a particular scent (of plumeria blossoms on sewing thread). See, e. g., Regis- tration No. 696,147 (Apr. 12, 1960); Registration Nos. 523,616 (Apr. 4, 1950) and 916,522 (July 13, 1971); In re Clarke, 17 U. S. P. Q. 2d 1238, 1240 (TTAB 1990). If a shape, a sound, and a fragrance can act as symbols why, one might ask, can a color not do the same? A color is also capable of satisfying the more important part of the statutory definition of a trademark, which re- quires that a person "us[e]" or "inten[d] to use" the mark "to identify and distinguish his or her goods, including a unique product, from those manufactured or sold by others and to indicate the source of the goods, even if that source is unknown." 15 U. S. C. § 1127. True, a product's color is unlike "fanciful," "arbitrary," or "suggestive" words or designs, which almost automatically 514us1$38Q 05-27-98 14:52:04 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 159 (1995) 163 Opinion of the Court tell a customer that they refer to a brand. Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc., 537 F. 2d 4, 9­10 (CA2 1976) (Friendly, J.); see Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U. S. 763, 768 (1992). The imaginary word "Suntost," or the words "Suntost Marmalade," on a jar of orange jam immediately would signal a brand or a product "source"; the jam's orange color does not do so. But, over time, customers may come to treat a particular color on a product or its pack- aging (say, a color that in context seems unusual, such as pink on a firm's insulating material or red on the head of a large industrial bolt) as signifying a brand. And, if so, that color would have come to identify and distinguish the goods-i. e., "to indicate" their "source"-much in the way that descriptive words on a product (say, "Trim" on nail clip- pers or "Car-Freshner" on deodorizer) can come to indicate a product's origin. See, e. g., J. Wiss & Sons Co. v. W. E. Bassett Co., 59 C. C. P. A. 1269, 1271 (Pat.), 462 F. 2d 567, 569 (1972); Car-Freshner Corp. v. Turtle Wax, Inc., 268 F. Supp. 162, 164 (SDNY 1967). In this circumstance, trade- mark law says that the word (e. g., "Trim"), although not inherently distinctive, has developed "secondary meaning." See Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U. S. 844, 851, n. 11 (1982) ("[S]econdary meaning" is ac- quired when "in the minds of the public, the primary signifi- cance of a product feature . . . is to identify the source of the product rather than the product itself"). Again, one might ask, if trademark law permits a descriptive word with sec- ondary meaning to act as a mark, why would it not permit a color, under similar circumstances, to do the same? We cannot find in the basic objectives of trademark law any obvious theoretical objection to the use of color alone as a trademark, where that color has attained "secondary meaning" and therefore identifies and distinguishes a partic- ular brand (and thus indicates its "source"). In principle, trademark law, by preventing others from copying a source- identifying mark, "reduce[s] the customer's costs of shopping 514us1$38Q 05-27-98 14:52:04 PAGES OPINPGT 164 QUALITEX CO. v. JACOBSON PRODUCTS CO. Opinion of the Court and making purchasing decisions," 1 J. McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 2.01[2], p. 2­3 (3d ed. 1994) (hereinafter McCarthy), for it quickly and easily assures a potential customer that this item-the item with this mark-is made by the same producer as other similarly marked items that he or she liked (or disliked) in the past. At the same time, the law helps assure a producer that it (and not an imitating competitor) will reap the financial, reputation-related rewards associated with a desirable prod- uct. The law thereby "encourage[s] the production of qual- ity products," ibid., and simultaneously discourages those who hope to sell inferior products by capitalizing on a con- sumer's inability quickly to evaluate the quality of an item offered for sale. See, e. g., 3 L. Altman, Callmann on Unfair Competition, Trademarks and Monopolies § 17.03 (4th ed. 1983); Landes & Posner, The Economics of Trademark Law, 78 T. M. Rep. 267, 271­272 (1988); Park 'N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc., 469 U. S. 189, 198 (1985); S. Rep. No. 100­ 515, p. 4 (1988). It is the source-distinguishing ability of a mark-not its ontological status as color, shape, fragrance, word, or sign-that permits it to serve these basic purposes. See Landes & Posner, Trademark Law: An Economic Per- spective, 30 J. Law & Econ. 265, 290 (1987). And, for that reason, it is difficult to find, in basic trademark objectives, a reason to disqualify absolutely the use of a color as a mark. Neither can we find a principled objection to the use of color as a mark in the important "functionality" doctrine of trademark law. The functionality doctrine prevents trade- mark law, which seeks to promote competition by protecting a firm's reputation, from instead inhibiting legitimate compe- tition by allowing a producer to control a useful product fea- ture. It is the province of patent law, not trademark law, to encourage invention by granting inventors a monopoly over new product designs or functions for a limited time, 35 U. S. C. §§ 154, 173, after which competitors are free to use the innovation. If a product's functional features could be 514us1$38Q 05-27-98 14:52:04 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 159 (1995) 165 Opinion of the Court used as trademarks, however, a monopoly over such features could be obtained without regard to whether they qualify as patents and could be extended forever (because trademarks may be renewed in perpetuity). See Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co., 305 U. S. 111, 119­120 (1938) (Brandeis, J.); In- wood Laboratories, Inc., supra, at 863 (White, J., concurring in result) ("A functional characteristic is `an important ingre- dient in the commercial success of the product,' and, after expiration of a patent, it is no more the property of the origi- nator than the product itself") (citation omitted). Function- ality doctrine therefore would require, to take an imaginary example, that even if customers have come to identify the special illumination-enhancing shape of a new patented light bulb with a particular manufacturer, the manufacturer may not use that shape as a trademark, for doing so, after the patent had expired, would impede competition-not by pro- tecting the reputation of the original bulb maker, but by frustrating competitors' legitimate efforts to produce an equivalent illumination-enhancing bulb. See, e. g., Kellogg Co., supra, at 119­120 (trademark law cannot be used to ex- tend monopoly over "pillow" shape of shredded wheat biscuit after the patent for that shape had expired). This Court consequently has explained that, "[i]n general terms, a prod- uct feature is functional," and cannot serve as a trademark, "if it is essential to the use or purpose of the article or if it affects the cost or quality of the article," that is, if exclu- sive use of the feature would put competitors at a signifi- cant non-reputation-related disadvantage. Inwood Labora- tories, Inc., supra, at 850, n. 10. Although sometimes color plays an important role (unrelated to source identification) in making a product more desirable, sometimes it does not. And, this latter fact-the fact that sometimes color is not essential to a product's use or purpose and does not affect cost or quality-indicates that the doctrine of "functionality" does not create an absolute bar to the use of color alone as a mark. See Owens-Corning, 774 F. 2d, at 1123 (pink color of insulation in wall "performs no non-trademark function"). 514us1$38Q 05-27-98 14:52:04 PAGES OPINPGT 166 QUALITEX CO. v. JACOBSON PRODUCTS CO. Opinion of the Court It would seem, then, that color alone, at least sometimes, can meet the basic legal requirements for use as a trademark. It can act as a symbol that distinguishes a firm's goods and identifies their source, without serving any other significant function. See U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Patent and Trade- mark Office, Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure § 1202.04(e), p. 1202­13 (2d ed. May, 1993) (hereinafter PTO Manual) (approving trademark registration of color alone where it "has become distinctive of the applicant's goods in commerce," provided that "there is [no] competitive need for colors to remain available in the industry" and the color is not "functional"); see also 1 McCarthy §§ 3.01[1], 7.26, pp. 3­2, 7­113 ("requirements for qualification of a word or symbol as a trademark" are that it be (1) a "symbol," (2) "use[d] . . . as a mark," (3) "to identify and distinguish the seller's goods from goods made or sold by others," but that it not be "functional"). Indeed, the District Court, in this case, entered findings (accepted by the Ninth Circuit) that show Qualitex's green-gold press pad color has met these requirements. The green-gold color acts as a symbol. Having developed secondary meaning (for customers identi- fied the green-gold color as Qualitex's), it identifies the press pads' source. And, the green-gold color serves no other function. (Although it is important to use some color on press pads to avoid noticeable stains, the court found "no competitive need in the press pad industry for the green-gold color, since other colors are equally usable." 21 U. S. P. Q. 2d, at 1460.) Accordingly, unless there is some special rea- son that convincingly militates against the use of color alone as a trademark, trademark law would protect Qualitex's use of the green-gold color on its press pads. III Respondent Jacobson Products says that there are four special reasons why the law should forbid the use of color 514us1$38Q 05-27-98 14:52:04 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 159 (1995) 167 Opinion of the Court alone as a trademark. We shall explain, in turn, why we, ultimately, find them unpersuasive. First, Jacobson says that, if the law permits the use of color as a trademark, it will produce uncertainty and unre- solvable court disputes about what shades of a color a com- petitor may lawfully use. Because lighting (morning sun, twilight mist) will affect perceptions of protected color, com- petitors and courts will suffer from "shade confusion" as they try to decide whether use of a similar color on a similar prod- uct does, or does not, confuse customers and thereby infringe a trademark. Jacobson adds that the "shade confusion" problem is "more difficult" and "far different from" the "de- termination of the similarity of words or symbols." Brief for Respondent 22. We do not believe, however, that color, in this respect, is special. Courts traditionally decide quite difficult questions about whether two words or phrases or symbols are suffi- ciently similar, in context, to confuse buyers. They have had to compare, for example, such words as "Bonamine" and "Dramamine" (motion-sickness remedies); "Huggies" and "Dougies" (diapers); "Cheracol" and "Syrocol" (cough syrup); "Cyclone" and "Tornado" (wire fences); and "Mattres" and "1­800­Mattres" (mattress franchisor telephone numbers). See, e. g., G. D. Searle & Co. v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., 265 F. 2d 385, 389 (CA7 1959); Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. H. Douglas Enterprises, Ltd., 774 F. 2d 1144, 1146­1147 (CA Fed. 1985); Upjohn Co. v. Schwartz, 246 F. 2d 254, 262 (CA2 1957); Han- cock v. American Steel & Wire Co. of N. J., 40 C. C. P. A. (Pat.) 931, 935, 203 F. 2d 737, 740­741 (1953); Dial-A- Mattress Franchise Corp. v. Page, 880 F. 2d 675, 678 (CA2 1989). Legal standards exist to guide courts in making such comparisons. See, e. g., 2 McCarthy § 15.08; 1 McCarthy §§ 11.24­11.25 ("[S]trong" marks, with greater secondary meaning, receive broader protection than "weak" marks). We do not see why courts could not apply those standards to a color, replicating, if necessary, lighting conditions under 514us1$38Q 05-27-98 14:52:04 PAGES OPINPGT 168 QUALITEX CO. v. JACOBSON PRODUCTS CO. Opinion of the Court which a colored product is normally sold. See Ebert, Trade- mark Protection in Color: Do It By the Numbers!, 84 T. M. Rep. 379, 405 (1994). Indeed, courts already have done so in cases where a trademark consists of a color plus a design, i. e., a colored symbol such as a gold stripe (around a sewer pipe), a yellow strand of wire rope, or a "brilliant yellow" band (on ampules). See, e. g., Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Tallman Conduit Co., 149 U. S. P. Q. 656, 657 (TTAB 1966); Amstead Industries, Inc. v. West Coast Wire Rope & Rig- ging Inc., 2 U. S. P. Q. 2d 1755, 1760 (TTAB 1987); In re Hodes-Lange Corp., 167 U. S. P. Q. 255, 256 (TTAB 1970). Second, Jacobson argues, as have others, that colors are in limited supply. See, e. g., NutraSweet Co., 917 F. 2d, at 1028; Campbell Soup Co. v. Armour & Co., 175 F. 2d 795, 798 (CA3 1949). Jacobson claims that, if one of many competitors can appropriate a particular color for use as a trademark, and each competitor then tries to do the same, the supply of col- ors will soon be depleted. Put in its strongest form, this argument would concede that "[h]undreds of color pigments are manufactured and thousands of colors can be obtained by mixing." L. Cheskin, Colors: What They Can Do For You 47 (1947). But, it would add that, in the context of a particular product, only some colors are usable. By the time one dis- cards colors that, say, for reasons of customer appeal, are not usable, and adds the shades that competitors cannot use lest they risk infringing a similar, registered shade, then one is left with only a handful of possible colors. And, under these circumstances, to permit one, or a few, producers to use col- ors as trademarks will "deplete" the supply of usable colors to the point where a competitor's inability to find a suitable color will put that competitor at a significant disadvantage. This argument is unpersuasive, however, largely because it relies on an occasional problem to justify a blanket prohibi- tion. When a color serves as a mark, normally alternative colors will likely be available for similar use by others. See, e. g., Owens-Corning, 774 F. 2d, at 1121 (pink insulation). 514us1$38Q 05-27-98 14:52:04 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 159 (1995) 169 Opinion of the Court Moreover, if that is not so-if a "color depletion" or "color scarcity" problem does arise-the trademark doctrine of "functionality" normally would seem available to prevent the anticompetitive consequences that Jacobson's argument pos- its, thereby minimizing that argument's practical force. The functionality doctrine, as we have said, forbids the use of a product's feature as a trademark where doing so will put a competitor at a significant disadvantage because the fea- ture is "essential to the use or purpose of the article" or "affects [its] cost or quality." Inwood Laboratories, Inc., 456 U. S., at 850, n. 10. The functionality doctrine thus pro- tects competitors against a disadvantage (unrelated to recog- nition or reputation) that trademark protection might other- wise impose, namely, their inability reasonably to replicate important non-reputation-related product features. For ex- ample, this Court has written that competitors might be free to copy the color of a medical pill where that color serves to identify the kind of medication (e. g., a type of blood medi- cine) in addition to its source. See id., at 853, 858, n. 20 ("[S]ome patients commingle medications in a container and rely on color to differentiate one from another"); see also J. Ginsburg, D. Goldberg, & A. Greenbaum, Trademark and Un- fair Competition Law 194­195 (1991) (noting that drug color cases "have more to do with public health policy" regarding generic drug substitution "than with trademark law"). And, the federal courts have demonstrated that they can apply this doctrine in a careful and reasoned manner, with sensitivity to the effect on competition. Although we need not comment on the merits of specific cases, we note that lower courts have permitted competitors to copy the green color of farm machinery (because customers wanted their farm equipment to match) and have barred the use of black as a trademark on outboard boat motors (because black has the special functional attributes of decreasing the apparent size of the motor and ensuring compatibility with many dif- ferent boat colors). See Deere & Co. v. Farmhand, Inc., 560 514us1$38Q 05-27-98 14:52:04 PAGES OPINPGT 170 QUALITEX CO. v. JACOBSON PRODUCTS CO. Opinion of the Court F. Supp. 85, 98 (SD Iowa 1982), aff'd, 721 F. 2d 253 (CA8 1983); Brunswick Corp. v. British Seagull Ltd., 35 F. 3d 1527, 1532 (CA Fed. 1994), cert. pending, No. 94­1075; see also Nor-Am Chemical v. O. M. Scott & Sons Co., 4 U. S. P. Q. 2d 1316, 1320 (ED Pa. 1987) (blue color of fertilizer held func- tional because it indicated the presence of nitrogen). The Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition adds that, if a design's "aesthetic value" lies in its ability to "confe[r] a sig- nificant benefit that cannot practically be duplicated by the use of alternative designs," then the design is "functional." Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition § 17, Comment c, pp. 175­176 (1993). The "ultimate test of aesthetic function- ality," it explains, "is whether the recognition of trademark rights would significantly hinder competition." Id., at 176. The upshot is that, where a color serves a significant non- trademark function-whether to distinguish a heart pill from a digestive medicine or to satisfy the "noble instinct for giv- ing the right touch of beauty to common and necessary things," G. Chesterton, Simplicity and Tolstoy 61 (1912)- courts will examine whether its use as a mark would permit one competitor (or a group) to interfere with legitimate (nontrademark-related) competition through actual or poten- tial exclusive use of an important product ingredient. That examination should not discourage firms from creating es- thetically pleasing mark designs, for it is open to their com- petitors to do the same. See, e. g., W. T. Rogers Co. v. Keene, 778 F. 2d 334, 343 (CA7 1985) (Posner, J.). But, ordinarily, it should prevent the anticompetitive consequences of Jacob- son's hypothetical "color depletion" argument, when, and if, the circumstances of a particular case threaten "color depletion." Third, Jacobson points to many older cases-including Su- preme Court cases-in support of its position. In 1878, this Court described the common-law definition of trademark rather broadly to "consist of a name, symbol, figure, letter, form, or device, if adopted and used by a manufacturer or 514us1$38Q 05-27-98 14:52:04 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 159 (1995) 171 Opinion of the Court merchant in order to designate the goods he manufactures or sells to distinguish the same from those manufactured or sold by another." McLean v. Fleming, 96 U. S. 245, 254. Yet, in interpreting the Trademark Acts of 1881 and 1905, 21 Stat. 502, 33 Stat. 724, which retained that common-law definition, the Court questioned "[w]hether mere color can constitute a valid trade-mark," A. Leschen & Sons Rope Co. v. Broderick & Bascom Rope Co., 201 U. S. 166, 171 (1906), and suggested that the "product including the coloring mat- ter is free to all who make it," Coca-Cola Co. v. Koke Co. of America, 254 U. S. 143, 147 (1920). Even though these statements amounted to dicta, lower courts interpreted them as forbidding protection for color alone. See, e. g., Campbell Soup Co., 175 F. 2d, at 798, and n. 9; Life Savers Corp. v. Curtiss Candy Co., 182 F. 2d 4, 9 (CA7 1950) (quoting Camp- bell Soup, supra, at 798). These Supreme Court cases, however, interpreted trade- mark law as it existed before 1946, when Congress enacted the Lanham Act. The Lanham Act significantly changed and liberalized the common law to "dispense with mere tech- nical prohibitions," S. Rep. No. 1333, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., 3 (1946), most notably, by permitting trademark registration of descriptive words (say, "U-Build-It" model airplanes) where they had acquired "secondary meaning." See Aber- crombie & Fitch Co., 537 F. 2d, at 9 (Friendly, J.). The Lan- ham Act extended protection to descriptive marks by mak- ing clear that (with certain explicit exceptions not relevant here) "nothing . . . shall prevent the registration of a mark used by the applicant which has become distinctive of the applicant's goods in commerce." 15 U. S. C. § 1052(f) (1988 ed., Supp. V). This language permits an ordinary word, normally used for a nontrademark purpose (e. g., description), to act as a trade- mark where it has gained "secondary meaning." Its logic 514us1$38Q 05-27-98 14:52:04 PAGES OPINPGT 172 QUALITEX CO. v. JACOBSON PRODUCTS CO. Opinion of the Court would appear to apply to color as well. Indeed, in 1985, the Federal Circuit considered the significance of the Lanham Act's changes as they related to color and held that trade- mark protection for color was consistent with the "jurisprudence under the Lanham Act developed in ac- cordance with the statutory principle that if a mark is capable of being or becoming distinctive of [the] appli- cant's goods in commerce, then it is capable of serving as a trademark." Owens-Corning, 774 F. 2d, at 1120. In 1988, Congress amended the Lanham Act, revising por- tions of the definitional language, but left unchanged the lan- guage here relevant. § 134, 102 Stat. 3946, 15 U. S. C. § 1127. It enacted these amendments against the following back- ground: (1) the Federal Circuit had decided Owens-Corning; (2) the Patent and Trademark Office had adopted a clear policy (which it still maintains) permitting registration of color as a trademark, see PTO Manual § 1202.04(e) (at p. 1200­12 of the January 1986 edition and p. 1202­13 of the May 1993 edition); and (3) the Trademark Commission had written a report, which recommended that "the terms `sym- bol, or device' . . . not be deleted or narrowed to preclude registration of such things as a color, shape, smell, sound, or configuration which functions as a mark," The United States Trademark Association Trademark Review Commission Re- port and Recommendations to USTA President and Board of Directors, 77 T. M. Rep. 375, 421 (1987); see also 133 Cong. Rec. 32812 (1987) (statement of Sen. DeConcini) ("The bill I am introducing today is based on the Commission's report and recommendations"). This background strongly sug- gests that the language "any word, name, symbol, or device," 15 U. S. C. § 1127, had come to include color. And, when it amended the statute, Congress retained these terms. In- deed, the Senate Report accompanying the Lanham Act revi- sion explicitly referred to this background understanding, in saying that the "revised definition intentionally retains . . . 514us1$38Q 05-27-98 14:52:04 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 159 (1995) 173 Opinion of the Court the words `symbol or device' so as not to preclude the regis- tration of colors, shapes, sounds or configurations where they function as trademarks." S. Rep. No. 100­515, at 44. (In addition, the statute retained language providing that "[n]o trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distin- guished from the goods of others shall be refused registra- tion . . . on account of its nature" (except for certain specified reasons not relevant here). 15 U. S. C. § 1052 (1988 ed., Supp. V).) This history undercuts the authority of the precedent on which Jacobson relies. Much of the pre-1985 case law rested on statements in Supreme Court opinions that interpreted pre-Lanham Act trademark law and were not directly re- lated to the holdings in those cases. Moreover, we believe the Federal Circuit was right in 1985 when it found that the 1946 Lanham Act embodied crucial legal changes that liber- alized the law to permit the use of color alone as a trademark (under appropriate circumstances). At a minimum, the Lan- ham Act's changes left the courts free to reevaluate the pre- existing legal precedent which had absolutely forbidden the use of color alone as a trademark. Finally, when Congress reenacted the terms "word, name, symbol, or device" in 1988, it did so against a legal background in which those terms had come to include color, and its statutory revision embraced that understanding. Fourth, Jacobson argues that there is no need to permit color alone to function as a trademark because a firm already may use color as part of a trademark, say, as a colored circle or colored letter or colored word, and may rely upon "trade dress" protection, under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, if a com- petitor copies its color and thereby causes consumer confu- sion regarding the overall appearance of the competing prod- ucts or their packaging, see 15 U. S. C. § 1125(a) (1988 ed., Supp. V). The first part of this argument begs the question. One can understand why a firm might find it difficult to place a usable symbol or word on a product (say, a large industrial 514us1$38Q 05-27-98 14:52:04 PAGES OPINPGT 174 QUALITEX CO. v. JACOBSON PRODUCTS CO. Opinion of the Court bolt that customers normally see from a distance); and, in such instances, a firm might want to use color, pure and sim- ple, instead of color as part of a design. Neither is the sec- ond portion of the argument convincing. Trademark law helps the holder of a mark in many ways that "trade dress" protection does not. See 15 U. S. C. § 1124 (ability to pre- vent importation of confusingly similar goods); § 1072 (con- structive notice of ownership); § 1065 (incontestible status); § 1057(b) (prima facie evidence of validity and ownership). Thus, one can easily find reasons why the law might provide trademark protection in addition to trade dress protection. IV Having determined that a color may sometimes meet the basic legal requirements for use as a trademark and that re- spondent Jacobson's arguments do not justify a special legal rule preventing color alone from serving as a trademark (and, in light of the District Court's here undisputed findings that Qualitex's use of the green-gold color on its press pads meets the basic trademark requirements), we conclude that the Ninth Circuit erred in barring Qualitex's use of color as a trademark. For these reasons, the judgment of the Ninth Circuit is Reversed. 514us1$39Z 06-11-98 18:17:15 PAGES OPINPGT OCTOBER TERM, 1994 175 Syllabus OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION v. JEFFERSON LINES, INC. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit No. 93­1677. Argued November 28, 1994-Decided April 3, 1995 Respondent Jefferson Lines, Inc., a common carrier, did not collect or remit to Oklahoma the state sales tax on bus tickets sold in Oklahoma for interstate travel originating there, although it did so for tickets sold for intrastate travel. After Jefferson filed for bankruptcy, petitioner, Oklahoma Tax Commission, filed proof of claims for the uncollected taxes, but the Bankruptcy Court found that the tax was inconsistent with the Commerce Clause in that it imposed an undue burden on inter- state commerce and presented a danger of multiple taxation. The Dis- trict Court affirmed. The Court of Appeals also affirmed, holding that the tax was not fairly apportioned. Rejecting the Commission's posi- tion that a bus ticket sale is a wholly local transaction justifying a State's sales tax on the ticket's full value, the court reasoned that such a tax is indistinguishable from New York's unapportioned tax on an interstate bus line's gross receipts struck down by this Court in Central Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Mealey, 334 U. S. 653. Held: Oklahoma's tax on the sale of transportation services is consistent with the Commerce Clause. Pp. 179­200. (a) Under Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430 U. S. 274, Okla- homa's tax is valid if it is applied to an activity with a substantial nexus with the State, is fairly apportioned, does not discriminate against inter- state commerce, and is fairly related to the services provided by the State. The activity here clearly has a nexus with Oklahoma, the State where the ticket is purchased and the service originates. Pp. 179­184. (b) The purpose of the second prong of Complete Auto's test is to ensure that each State taxes only its fair share of an interstate transac- tion. A properly apportioned tax must be both internally and exter- nally consistent. Internal consistency looks to whether a tax's identical application by every State would place interstate commerce at a disad- vantage as compared with intrastate commerce. There is no failure of such consistency in this case, for if every State were to impose a tax identical to Oklahoma's-i. e., a tax on ticket sales within the State for travel originating there-no sale would be subject to more than one State's tax. External consistency, on the other hand, looks to the eco- nomic justification for the State's claim upon the value taxed, to discover 514us1$39Z 06-11-98 18:17:15 PAGES OPINPGT 176 OKLAHOMA TAX COMM'N v. JEFFERSON LINES, INC. Syllabus whether the tax reaches beyond the portion of value that is fairly attrib- utable to economic activity within the taxing State. Pp. 184­185. (c) Where taxation of income from interstate business is in issue, ap- portionment disputes have often focused on slicing a taxable pie among several States in which the taxpayer's activities contributed to taxable income. When examining the taxation of a sale of goods, however, the sale is most readily viewed as a discrete event facilitated by the laws and amenities of the place of sale, and the transaction itself does not readily reveal the extent to which interstate activity affects the value on which a buyer is taxed. Thus, taxation of sales has been consistently approved without any division of the tax base among different States and has been found properly measurable by the gross charge for the purchase, regardless of any activity outside the taxing jurisdiction that might have preceded the sale or might occur in the future. Therefore, an internally consistent, conventional sales tax has long been held to be externally consistent as well. Pp. 186­188. (d) A sale of services can ordinarily be treated as a local state event just as readily as a sale of tangible goods can be located solely within the State of delivery. Sales of services with performance wholly in the taxing State justify that State's taxation of the transaction's entire gross receipts in the hands of the seller. Even where interstate activity con- tributes to the value of the service performed, sales with performance in the taxing State justify that State's taxation of the seller's entire gross receipts. See, e. g., Western Live Stock v. Bureau of Revenue, 303 U. S. 250. In this case, although the service is performed only par- tially within the taxing State, the buyer is no more subject to double taxation on the sale of services than the buyer of goods would be. The taxable event here comprises agreement, payment, and delivery of some of the services in the taxing State. No other State can claim to be the site of the same combination, and these combined events are commonly understood to suffice for a sale. Central Greyhound, supra, distin- guished. Pp. 188­191. (e) Jefferson offers no convincing reasons to reconsider whether this internally consistent tax on sales of services could fail the external con- sistency test for lack of further apportionment. It has raised no specter of successive taxation so closely related to the transaction as to indicate potential unfairness of Oklahoma's tax on the sale's full amount. Nor is the fact that Oklahoma could feasibly apportion its tax on the basis of mileage, as New York was required to do in Central Greyhound, supra, a sufficient reason to conclude that the tax exceeds Oklahoma's fair share. Pp. 191­196. (f) The tax also meets the remaining two prongs of Complete Auto's test. No argument has been made that Oklahoma discriminates against 514us1$39Z 06-11-98 18:17:15 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 175 (1995) 177 Opinion of the Court out-of-state enterprises, and there is no merit in the argument that the tax discriminates against interstate activity, American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. Scheiner, 483 U. S. 266, distinguished. The tax is also fairly related to the taxpayer's presence or activities in the State. It falls on a sale that takes place wholly inside Oklahoma and is measured by the value of the service purchased. Pp. 197­200. 15 F. 3d 90, reversed and remanded. Souter, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Stevens, Kennedy, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Thomas, J., joined, post, p. 200. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which O'Connor, J., joined, post, p. 201. Stanley P. Johnston argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner. Steven D. DeRuyter argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Loren A. Unterseher.* Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court. This case raises the question whether Oklahoma's sales tax on the full price of a ticket for bus travel from Oklahoma to another State is consistent with the Commerce Clause, U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 3. We hold that it is. I Oklahoma taxes sales in the State of certain goods and services, including transportation for hire. Okla. Stat., Tit. 68, § 1354(1)(C) (Supp. 1988).1 The buyers of the taxable *Richard Ruda and Lee Fennell filed a brief for the National Conference of State Legislatures et al. as amici curiae urging reversal. Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the American Bus Association by Richard A. Allen; and for Greyhound Lines, Inc., by John B. Turner, Rebecca M. Fowler, Oscar R. Cantu, and Debra A. Dandeneau. 1 At the time relevant to the taxes at issue here, § 1354 provided as follows: "There is hereby levied upon all sales . . . an excise tax of four percent (4%) of the gross receipts or gross proceeds of each sale of the following . . . (C) Transportation for hire to persons by common carriers, 514us1$39M 06-11-98 18:17:15 PAGES OPINPGT 178 OKLAHOMA TAX COMM'N v. JEFFERSON LINES, INC. Opinion of the Court goods and services pay the taxes, which must be collected and remitted to the State by sellers. § 1361. Respondent Jefferson Lines, Inc., is a Minnesota corpora- tion that provided bus services as a common carrier in Okla- homa from 1988 to 1990. Jefferson did not collect or remit the sales taxes for tickets it had sold in Oklahoma for bus travel from Oklahoma to other States, although it did collect and remit the taxes for all tickets it had sold in Oklahoma for travel that originated and terminated within that State. After Jefferson filed for bankruptcy protection on October 27, 1989, petitioner, Oklahoma Tax Commission, filed proof of claims in Bankruptcy Court for the uncollected taxes for tickets for interstate travel sold by Jefferson.2 Jefferson cited the Commerce Clause in objecting to the claims, and argued that the tax imposes an undue burden on interstate commerce by permitting Oklahoma to collect a percentage of the full purchase price of all tickets for interstate bus travel, even though some of that value derives from bus travel through other States. The tax also presents the danger of multiple taxation, Jefferson claimed, because any other State through which a bus travels while providing the services sold in Oklahoma will be able to impose taxes of their own upon Jefferson or its passengers for use of the roads. The Bankruptcy Court agreed with Jefferson, the District Court affirmed, and so did the United States Court of Ap- peals for the Eighth Circuit. In re Jefferson Lines, Inc., 15 including railroads both steam and electric, motor transportation compa- nies, taxicab companies, pullman car companies, airlines, and other means of transportation for hire." As a result of recent amendments, the statute presently provides for a 41/2 percent tax rate. 2 The parties have stipulated that the dispute concerns only those taxes for Jefferson's in-state sales of tickets for travel starting in Oklahoma and ending in another State. App. 5; Tr. of Oral Arg. 3­4. The Commission does not seek to recover any taxes for tickets sold in Oklahoma for travel wholly outside of the State or for travel on routes originating in other States and terminating in Oklahoma. Accordingly, the validity of such taxes is not before us. 514us1$39M 06-11-98 18:17:15 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 175 (1995) 179 Opinion of the Court F. 3d 90 (1994). The Court of Appeals held that Oklahoma's tax was not fairly apportioned, as required under the estab- lished test for the constitutionality of a state tax on inter- state commerce. See Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430 U. S. 274, 279 (1977). The Court of Appeals understood its holding to be compelled by our decision in Central Grey- hound Lines, Inc. v. Mealey, 334 U. S. 653 (1948), which held unconstitutional an unapportioned state tax on the gross re- ceipts 3 of a company that sold tickets for interstate bus travel. The Court of Appeals rejected the Commission's po- sition that the sale of a bus ticket is a wholly local transaction justifying a sales tax on the ticket's full value in the State where it is sold, reasoning that such a tax is indistinguishable from the unapportioned tax on gross receipts from interstate travel struck down in Central Greyhound. 15 F. 3d, at 92­ 93. We granted certiorari, 512 U. S. 1204 (1994), and now reverse. II Despite the express grant to Congress of the power to "regulate Commerce . . . among the several States," U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 3, we have consistently held this lan- guage to contain a further, negative command, known as the dormant Commerce Clause, prohibiting certain state taxa- tion even when Congress has failed to legislate on the sub- ject. Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U. S. 298, 309 (1992); Northwestern States Portland Cement Co. v. Minnesota, 358 U. S. 450, 458 (1959); H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Du Mond, 336 U. S. 525, 534­535 (1949); cf. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 209 (1824) (Marshall, C. J.) (dictum). We have understood this construction to serve the Commerce Clause's purpose of 3 We follow standard usage, under which gross receipts taxes are on the gross receipts from sales payable by the seller, in contrast to sales taxes, which are also levied on the gross receipts from sales but are payable by the buyer (although they are collected by the seller and remitted to the taxing entity). P. Hartman, Federal Limitations on State and Local Taxa- tion §§ 8:1, 10:1 (1981). 514us1$39M 06-11-98 18:17:15 PAGES OPINPGT 180 OKLAHOMA TAX COMM'N v. JEFFERSON LINES, INC. Opinion of the Court preventing a State from retreating into economic isolation or jeopardizing the welfare of the Nation as a whole, as it would do if it were free to place burdens on the flow of commerce across its borders that commerce wholly within those bor- ders would not bear. The provision thus " `reflect[s] a cen- tral concern of the Framers that was an immediate reason for calling the Constitutional Convention: the conviction that in order to succeed, the new Union would have to avoid the tendencies toward economic Balkanization that had plagued relations among the Colonies and later among the States under the Articles of Confederation.' " Wardair Canada Inc. v. Florida Dept. of Revenue, 477 U. S. 1, 7 (1986), quot- ing Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U. S. 322, 325­326 (1979); see also The Federalist Nos. 42 (J. Madison), 7 (A. Hamilton), 11 (A. Hamilton). The command has been stated more easily than its object has been attained, however, and the Court's understanding of the dormant Commerce Clause has taken some turns. In its early stages, see 1 J. Hellerstein & W. Hellerstein, State Taxation ¶¶ 4.05­4.08 (2d ed. 1993) (hereinafter Heller- stein & Hellerstein); Hartman, supra n. 3, §§ 2:9­2:16, the Court held the view that interstate commerce was wholly immune from state taxation "in any form," Leloup v. Port of Mobile, 127 U. S. 640, 648 (1888), "even though the same amount of tax should be laid on [intrastate] commerce," Rob- bins v. Shelby County Taxing Dist., 120 U. S. 489, 497 (1887); see also Cooley v. Board of Wardens of Port of Philadelphia ex rel. Soc. for Relief of Distressed Pilots, 12 How. 299 (1852); Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419 (1827). This po- sition gave way in time to a less uncompromising but formal approach, according to which, for example, the Court would invalidate a state tax levied on gross receipts from interstate commerce, New Jersey Bell Telephone Co. v. State Bd. of Taxes and Assessments of N. J., 280 U. S. 338 (1930); Meyer v. Wells, Fargo & Co., 223 U. S. 298 (1912), or upon the "freight carried" in interstate commerce, Case of the State 514us1$39M 06-11-98 18:17:15 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 175 (1995) 181 Opinion of the Court Freight Tax, 15 Wall. 232, 278 (1873), but would allow a tax merely measured by gross receipts from interstate com- merce as long as the tax was formally imposed upon fran- chises, Maine v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 142 U. S. 217 (1891), or " `in lieu of all taxes upon [the taxpayer's] property,' " United States Express Co. v. Minnesota, 223 U. S. 335, 346 (1912).4 See generally Lockhart, Gross Receipts Taxes on Interstate Transportation and Communication, 57 Harv. L. Rev. 40, 43­66 (1943) (hereinafter Lockhart). Dissenting from this formal approach in 1927, Justice Stone remarked that it was "too mechanical, too uncertain in its application, and too re- mote from actualities, to be of value." Di Santo v. Pennsyl- vania, 273 U. S. 34, 44 (1927) (dissenting opinion). In 1938, the old formalism began to give way with Justice Stone's opinion in Western Live Stock v. Bureau of Revenue, 303 U. S. 250, which examined New Mexico's franchise tax, measured by gross receipts, as applied to receipts from out- of-state advertisers in a journal produced by taxpayers in New Mexico but circulated both inside and outside the State. Although the assessment could have been sustained solely on prior precedent, see id., at 258; Lockhart 66, and n. 122, Justice Stone added a dash of the pragmatism that, with a brief interlude, has since become our aspiration in this quar- ter of the law. The Court had no trouble rejecting the claim that the "mere formation of the contract between persons in different states" insulated the receipts from taxation, West- ern Live Stock, 303 U. S., at 253, and it saw the business of "preparing, printing and publishing magazine advertising [as] peculiarly local" and therefore subject to taxation by the 4 The Court had indeed temporarily adhered to an additional distinction between taxes upon interstate commerce such as that struck down in the Case of State Freight Tax, and taxes upon gross receipts from such com- merce, which were upheld that same Term in State Tax on Railway Gross Receipts, 15 Wall. 284 (1873). This nice distinction was abandoned prior to the New Jersey Bell case in Philadelphia & Southern S. S. Co. v. Penn- sylvania, 122 U. S. 326 (1887). 514us1$39M 06-11-98 18:17:15 PAGES OPINPGT 182 OKLAHOMA TAX COMM'N v. JEFFERSON LINES, INC. Opinion of the Court State within which the business operated. Id., at 258. The more "vexed question," however, was one that today we would call a question of apportionment: whether the inter- state circulation of the journal barred taxation of receipts from advertisements enhanced in value by the journal's wide dissemination. Id., at 254. After rebuffing any such chal- lenge on the ground that the burden on interstate commerce was "too remote and too attenuated" in the light of analogous taxation of railroad property, id., at 259, Justice Stone pro- vided an "added reason" for sustaining the tax: "So far as the value contributed to appellants' New Mex- ico business by circulation of the magazine interstate is taxed, it cannot again be taxed elsewhere any more than the value of railroad property taxed locally. The tax is not one which in form or substance can be repeated by other states in such manner as to lay an added burden on the interstate distribution of the magazine." Id., at 260. The Court explained that "[i]t was not the purpose of the commerce clause to relieve those engaged in interstate com- merce from their just share of state tax burden even though it increases the cost of doing the business." Id., at 254. Soon after Western Live Stock, the Court expressly rested the invalidation of an unapportioned gross receipts tax on the ground that it violated the prohibition against multiple taxation: "The vice of the statute as applied to receipts from interstate sales is that the tax includes in its measure, without apportionment, receipts derived from activities in interstate commerce; and that the exaction is of such a character that if lawful it may in substance be laid to the fullest extent by States in which the goods are sold as well as those in which they are manufactured." J. D. Adams Mfg. Co. v. Storen, 304 U. S. 307, 311 (1938). 514us1$39M 06-11-98 18:17:15 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 175 (1995) 183 Opinion of the Court See also Gwin, White & Prince, Inc. v. Henneford, 305 U. S. 434, 438­439 (1939). After a brief resurgence of the old absolutism that pro- scribed all taxation formally levied upon interstate com- merce, see Freeman v. Hewit, 329 U. S. 249 (1946); Spector Motor Service, Inc. v. O'Connor, 340 U. S. 602 (1951), the Court returned to Western Live Stock's multiple taxation rule in Northwestern States Portland Cement Co. v. Minne- sota, 358 U. S. 450 (1959), and we categorically abandoned the latter-day formalism when Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430 U. S. 274 (1977), overruled Spector and Free- man. In Complete Auto, a business engaged in transport- ing cars manufactured outside the taxing State to dealers within it challenged a franchise tax assessed equally on all gross income derived from transportation for hire within the State. The taxpayer's challenge resting solely on the fact that the State had taxed the privilege of engaging in an in- terstate commercial activity was turned back, and in sustain- ing the tax, we explicitly returned to our prior decisions that "considered not the formal language of the tax statute but rather its practical effect, and have sustained a tax against Commerce Clause challenge when the tax is ap- plied to an activity with a substantial nexus with the taxing State, is fairly apportioned, does not discriminate against interstate commerce, and is fairly related to the services provided by the State." 430 U. S., at 279. Since then, we have often applied, and somewhat refined, what has come to be known as Complete Auto's four-part test. See, e. g., Goldberg v. Sweet, 488 U. S. 252 (1989) (tax on telephone calls); D. H. Holmes Co. v. McNamara, 486 U. S. 24 (1988) (use tax); Container Corp. of America v. Franchise Tax Bd., 463 U. S. 159 (1983) (franchise tax); Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana, 453 U. S. 609 (1981) (severance tax). We apply its criteria to the tax before us today. 514us1$39M 06-11-98 18:17:15 PAGES OPINPGT 184 OKLAHOMA TAX COMM'N v. JEFFERSON LINES, INC. Opinion of the Court III A It has long been settled that a sale of tangible goods has a sufficient nexus to the State in which the sale is consum- mated to be treated as a local transaction taxable by that State. McGoldrick v. Berwind-White Coal Mining Co., 309 U. S. 33 (1940) (upholding tax on sale of coal shipped into taxing State by seller). So, too, in addressing the interstate provision of services, we recently held that a State in which an interstate telephone call originates or terminates has the requisite Commerce Clause nexus to tax a customer's pur- chase of that call as long as the call is billed or charged to a service address, or paid by an addressee, within the taxing State. Goldberg, supra, at 263. Oklahoma's tax falls com- fortably within these rules. Oklahoma is where the ticket is purchased, and the service originates there. These facts are enough for concluding that "[t]here is `nexus' aplenty here." See D. H. Holmes, supra, at 33. Indeed, the tax- payer does not deny Oklahoma's substantial nexus to the in- state portion of the bus service, but rather argues that nexus to the State is insufficient as to the portion of travel outside its borders. This point, however, goes to the second prong of Complete Auto, to which we turn. B The difficult question in this case is whether the tax is properly apportioned within the meaning of the second prong of Complete Auto's test, "the central purpose [of which] is to ensure that each State taxes only its fair share of an interstate transaction." Goldberg, supra, at 260­261. This principle of fair share is the lineal descendant of West- ern Live Stock's prohibition of multiple taxation, which is threatened whenever one State's act of overreaching com- bines with the possibility that another State will claim its fair share of the value taxed: the portion of value by which 514us1$39M 06-11-98 18:17:15 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 175 (1995) 185 Opinion of the Court one State exceeded its fair share would be taxed again by a State properly laying claim to it. For over a decade now, we have assessed any threat of malapportionment by asking whether the tax is "internally consistent" and, if so, whether it is "externally consistent" as well. See Goldberg, supra, at 261; Container Corp., supra, at 169. Internal consistency is preserved when the imposi- tion of a tax identical to the one in question by every other State would add no burden to interstate commerce that in- trastate commerce would not also bear. This test asks noth- ing about the degree of economic reality reflected by the tax, but simply looks to the structure of the tax at issue to see whether its identical application by every State in the Union would place interstate commerce at a disadvantage as com- pared with commerce intrastate. A failure of internal con- sistency shows as a matter of law that a State is attempting to take more than its fair share of taxes from the interstate transaction, since allowing such a tax in one State would place interstate commerce at the mercy of those remaining States that might impose an identical tax. See Gwin, White & Prince, 305 U. S., at 439. There is no failure of it in this case, however. If every State were to impose a tax identical to Oklahoma's, that is, a tax on ticket sales within the State for travel originating there, no sale would be sub- ject to more than one State's tax. External consistency, on the other hand, looks not to the logical consequences of cloning, but to the economic justifi- cation for the State's claim upon the value taxed, to discover whether a State's tax reaches beyond that portion of value that is fairly attributable to economic activity within the tax- ing State. See Goldberg, supra, at 262; Container Corp., supra, at 169­170. Here, the threat of real multiple taxation (though not by literally identical statutes) may indicate a State's impermissible overreaching. It is to this less tidy world of real taxation that we turn now, and at length. 514us1$39M 06-11-98 18:17:15 PAGES OPINPGT 186 OKLAHOMA TAX COMM'N v. JEFFERSON LINES, INC. Opinion of the Court 1 The very term "apportionment" tends to conjure up alloca- tion by percentages, and where taxation of income from in- terstate business is in issue, apportionment disputes have often centered around specific formulas for slicing a taxable pie among several States in which the taxpayer's activities contributed to taxable value. In Moorman Mfg. Co. v. Bair, 437 U. S. 267 (1978), for example, we considered whether Iowa could measure an interstate corporation's taxable in- come by attributing income to business within the State " `in that proportion which the gross sales made within the state bear to the total gross sales.' " Id., at 270. We held that it could. In Container Corp., we decided whether California could constitutionally compute taxable income assignable to a multijurisdictional enterprise's in-state activity by appor- tioning its combined business income according to a formula "based, in equal parts, on the proportion of [such] business' total payroll, property, and sales which are located in the taxing State." 463 U. S., at 170. Again, we held that it could. Finally, in Central Greyhound, we held that New York's taxation of an interstate bus line's gross receipts was constitutionally limited to that portion reflecting miles trav- eled within the taxing jurisdiction. 334 U. S., at 663. In reviewing sales taxes for fair share, however, we have had to set a different course. A sale of goods is most readily viewed as a discrete event facilitated by the laws and ameni- ties of the place of sale, and the transaction itself does not readily reveal the extent to which completed or anticipated interstate activity affects the value on which a buyer is taxed. We have therefore consistently approved taxation of sales without any division of the tax base among different States, and have instead held such taxes properly measura- ble by the gross charge for the purchase, regardless of any activity outside the taxing jurisdiction that might have pre- ceded the sale or might occur in the future. See, e. g., Mc- Goldrick v. Berwind-White Coal Mining Co., supra. 514us1$39M 06-11-98 18:17:15 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 175 (1995) 187 Opinion of the Court Such has been the rule even when the parties to a sales contract specifically contemplated interstate movement of the goods either immediately before, or after, the transfer of ownership. See, e. g., Wardair Canada Inc. v. Florida Dept. of Revenue, 477 U. S. 1 (1986) (upholding sales tax on air- plane fuel); State Tax Comm'n of Utah v. Pacific States Cast Iron Pipe Co., 372 U. S. 605 (1963) (per curiam) (upholding tax on sale that contemplated purchaser's interstate ship- ment of goods immediately after sale). The sale, we held, was "an activity which . . . is subject to the state taxing power" so long as taxation did not "discriminat[e]" against or "obstruc[t]" interstate commerce, Berwind-White, 309 U. S., at 58, and we found a sufficient safeguard against the risk of impermissible multiple taxation of a sale in the fact that it was consummated in only one State. As we put it in Berwind-White, a necessary condition for imposing the tax was the occurrence of "a local activity, delivery of goods within the State upon their purchase for consumption." Ibid. So conceived, a sales tax on coal, for example, could not be repeated by other States, for the same coal was not imagined ever to be delivered in two States at once. Con- versely, we held that a sales tax could not validly be imposed if the purchaser already had obtained title to the goods as they were shipped from outside the taxing State into the taxing State by common carrier. McLeod v. J. E. Dilworth Co., 322 U. S. 327 (1944). The out-of-state seller in that case "was through selling" outside the taxing State. Id., at 330. In other words, the very conception of the common sales tax on goods, operating on the transfer of ownership and posses- sion at a particular time and place, insulated the buyer from any threat of further taxation of the transaction. In deriving this rule covering taxation to a buyer on sales of goods we were not, of course, oblivious to the possibility of successive taxation of related events up and down the stream of commerce, and our cases are implicit with the un- derstanding that the Commerce Clause does not forbid the 514us1$39M 06-11-98 18:17:15 PAGES OPINPGT 188 OKLAHOMA TAX COMM'N v. JEFFERSON LINES, INC. Opinion of the Court actual assessment of a succession of taxes by different States on distinct events as the same tangible object flows along. Thus, it is a truism that a sales tax to the buyer does not preclude a tax to the seller upon the income earned from a sale, and there is no constitutional trouble inherent in the imposition of a sales tax in the State of delivery to the cus- tomer, even though the State of origin of the thing sold may have assessed a property or severance tax on it. See Berwind-White, 309 U. S., at 53; cf. Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana, 453 U. S. 609 (1981) (upholding severance tax on coal mined within the taxing State). In light of this settled treatment of taxes on sales of goods and other succes- sive taxes related through the stream of commerce, it is fair to say that because the taxable event of the consummated sale of goods has been found to be properly treated as unique, an internally consistent, conventional sales tax has long been held to be externally consistent as well. 2 A sale of services can ordinarily be treated as a local state event just as readily as a sale of tangible goods can be lo- cated solely within the State of delivery. Cf. Goldberg v. Sweet, 488 U. S. 252 (1989). Although our decisional law on sales of services is less developed than on sales of goods, one category of cases dealing with taxation of gross sales re- ceipts in the hands of a seller of services supports the view that the taxable event is wholly local. Thus we have held that the entire gross receipts derived from sales of services to be performed wholly in one State are taxable by that State, notwithstanding that the contract for performance of the services has been entered into across state lines with customers who reside outside the taxing State. Western Live Stock v. Bureau of Revenue, 303 U. S. 250 (1938). So, too, as we have already noted, even where interstate circula- tion contributes to the value of magazine advertising pur- chased by the customer, we have held that the Commerce Clause does not preclude a tax on its full value by the State 514us1$39M 06-11-98 18:17:15 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 175 (1995) 189 Opinion of the Court of publication. Id., at 254, 258­259. And where the serv- ices are performed upon tangible items retrieved from and delivered to out-of-state customers, the business performing the services may be taxed on the full gross receipts from the services, because they were performed wholly within the taxing State. Department of Treasury of Ind. v. Ingram- Richardson Mfg. Co. of Ind., 313 U. S. 252 (1941). Interstate activity may be essential to a substantial portion of the value of the services in the first case and essential to performance of the services in the second, but sales with at least partial performance in the taxing State justify that State's taxation of the transaction's entire gross receipts in the hands of the seller. On the analogy sometimes drawn between sales and gross receipts taxes, see International Harvester Co. v. De- partment of Treasury, 322 U. S. 340, 347­348 (1944); but see Norton Co. v. Department of Revenue of Ill., 340 U. S. 534, 537 (1951), there would be no reason to suppose that a differ- ent apportionment would be feasible or required when the tax falls not on the seller but on the buyer. Cases on gross receipts from sales of services include one falling into quite a different category, however, and it is on this decision that the taxpayer relies for an analogy said to control the resolution of the case before us. In 1948, the Court decided Central Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Mealey, 334 U. S. 653, striking down New York's gross receipts tax on transportation services imposed without further apportion- ment on the total receipts from New York sales of bus serv- ices, almost half of which were actually provided by carriage through neighboring New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The Court held the statute fatally flawed by the failure to ap- portion taxable receipts in the same proportions that miles traveled through the various States bore to the total. The similarity of Central Greyhound to this case is, of course, striking, and on the assumption that the economic signifi- cance of a gross receipts tax is indistinguishable from a tax on sales the Court of Appeals held that a similar mileage 514us1$39M 06-11-98 18:17:15 PAGES OPINPGT 190 OKLAHOMA TAX COMM'N v. JEFFERSON LINES, INC. Opinion of the Court apportionment is required here, see 15 F. 3d, at 92­93, as the taxpayer now argues. We, however, think that Central Greyhound provides the wrong analogy for answering the sales tax apportionment question here. To be sure, the two cases involve the identi- cal services, and apportionment by mileage per State is equally feasible in each. But the two diverge crucially in the identity of the taxpayers and the consequent opportuni- ties that are understood to exist for multiple taxation of the same taxpayer. Central Greyhound did not rest simply on the mathematical and administrative feasibility of a mileage apportionment, but on the Court's express understanding that the seller-taxpayer was exposed to taxation by New Jer- sey and Pennsylvania on portions of the same receipts that New York was taxing in their entirety. The Court thus un- derstood the gross receipts tax to be simply a variety of tax on income, which was required to be apportioned to reflect the location of the various interstate activities by which it was earned. This understanding is presumably the reason that the Central Greyhound Court said nothing about the arguably local character of the levy on the sales transac- tion.5 Instead, the Court heeded Berwind-White's warn- ing about "[p]rivilege taxes requiring a percentage of the gross receipts from interstate transportation," which "if sus- tained, could be imposed wherever the interstate activity occurs . . . ." 309 U. S., at 45­46, n. 2. Here, in contrast, the tax falls on the buyer of the services, who is no more subject to double taxation on the sale of these services than the buyer of goods would be. The taxable event comprises agreement, payment, and delivery of some of the services in the taxing State; no other State can claim to be the site of the same combination. The economic activ- ity represented by the receipt of the ticket for "consumption" in the form of commencement and partial provision of the 5 Although New York's tax reached the gross receipts only from ticket sales within New York State, 334 U. S., at 664, 666 (Murphy, J., dissenting), the majority makes no mention of this fact. 514us1$39M 06-11-98 18:17:15 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 175 (1995) 191 Opinion of the Court transportation thus closely resembles Berwind-White's "de- livery of goods within the State upon their purchase for con- sumption," id., at 58, especially given that full "consumption" or "use" of the purchased goods within the taxing State has never been a condition for taxing a sale of those goods. Al- though the taxpayer seeks to discount these resemblances by arguing that sale does not occur until delivery is made, nothing in our case law supports the view that when delivery is made by services provided over time and through space a separate sale occurs at each moment of delivery, or when each State's segment of transportation State by State is com- plete. The analysis should not lose touch with the common understanding of a sale, see Goldberg, 488 U. S., at 262; the combined events of payment for a ticket and its delivery for present commencement of a trip are commonly understood to suffice for a sale. In sum, the sales taxation here is not open to the double taxation analysis on which Central Greyhound turned, and that decision does not control. Before we classify the Okla- homa tax with standard taxes on sales of goods, and with the taxes on less complicated sales of services, however, two questions may helpfully be considered. 3 Although the sale with partial delivery cannot be dupli- cated as a taxable event in any other State, and multiple taxation under an identical tax is thus precluded, is there a possibility of successive taxation so closely related to the transaction as to indicate potential unfairness of Oklahoma's tax on the full amount of sale? And if the answer to that question is no, is the very possibility of apportioning by mile- age a sufficient reason to conclude that the tax exceeds the fair share of the State of sale? a The taxpayer argues that anything but a Central Grey- hound mileage apportionment by State will expose it to the 514us1$39M 06-11-98 18:17:16 PAGES OPINPGT 192 OKLAHOMA TAX COMM'N v. JEFFERSON LINES, INC. Opinion of the Court same threat of multiple taxation assumed to exist in that case: further taxation, that is, of some portion of the value already taxed, though not under a statute in every respect identical to Oklahoma's. But the claim does not hold up. The taxpayer has failed to raise any specter of successive taxes that might require us to reconsider whether an inter- nally consistent tax on sales of services could fail the ex- ternal consistency test for lack of further apportionment (a result that no sales tax has ever suffered under our cases). If, for example, in the face of Oklahoma's sales tax, Texas were to levy a sustainable, apportioned gross receipts tax on the Texas portion of travel from Oklahoma City to Dallas, interstate travel would not be exposed to multiple taxation in any sense different from coal for which the producer may be taxed first at point of severance by Montana and the cus- tomer may later be taxed upon its purchase in New York. The multiple taxation placed upon interstate commerce by such a confluence of taxes is not a structural evil that flows from either tax individually, but it is rather the "accidental incident of interstate commerce being subject to two differ- ent taxing jurisdictions." Lockhart 75; See Moorman Mfg. Co., 437 U. S., at 277.6 6 Any additional gross receipts tax imposed upon the interstate bus line would, of course, itself have to respect well-understood constitutional strictures. Thus, for example, Texas could not tax the bus company on the full value of the bus service from Oklahoma City to Dallas when the ticket is sold in Oklahoma, because that tax would, among other things, be internally inconsistent. And if Texas were to impose a tax upon the bus company measured by the portion of gross receipts reflecting in-state travel, it would have to impose taxes on intrastate and interstate journeys alike. In the event Texas chose to limit the burden of successive taxes attributable to the same transaction by combining an apportioned gross receipts tax with a credit for sales taxes paid to Texas, for example, it would have to give equal treatment to service into Texas purchased sub- ject to a sales tax in another State, which it could do by granting a credit for sales taxes paid to any State. See, e. g., Henneford v. Silas Mason Co., 300 U. S. 577, 583­584 (1937) (upholding use tax which provided credit for sales taxes paid to any State); Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. 514us1$39M 06-11-98 18:17:16 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 175 (1995) 193 Opinion of the Court Nor has the taxpayer made out a case that Oklahoma's sales tax exposes any buyer of a ticket in Oklahoma for travel into another State to multiple taxation from taxes im- posed upon passengers by other States of passage. Since a use tax, or some equivalent on the consumption of services, is generally levied to compensate the taxing State for its Reily, 373 U. S. 64, 70 (1963) ("[E]qual treatment for in-state and out-of- state taxpayers similarly situated is the condition precedent for a valid use tax on goods imported from out-of-state"); Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U. S. 725, 759 (1981) (striking down Louisiana's "first use" tax on im- ported gas because "the pattern of credits and exemptions allowed under the . . . statute undeniably violates this principle of equality"); Tyler Pipe Industries, Inc. v. Washington State Dept. of Revenue, 483 U. S. 232, 240­ 248 (1987) (striking down Washington's gross receipts wholesaling tax ex- empting in-state, but not out-of-state, manufacturers); see also Boston Stock Exchange v. State Tax Comm'n, 429 U. S. 318, 331­332 (1977). Although we have not held that a State imposing an apportioned gross receipts tax that grants a credit for sales taxes paid in state must also extend such a credit to sales taxes paid out of state, see, e. g., Halliburton, supra, at 77 (Brennan, J., concurring); Silas Mason, supra, at 587; see also Williams v. Vermont, 472 U. S. 14, 21­22 (1985), we have noted that equal- ity of treatment of interstate and intrastate activity has been the common theme among the paired (or "compensating") tax schemes that have passed constitutional muster, see, e. g., Boston Stock Exchange, supra, at 331­332. We have indeed never upheld a tax in the face of a substanti- ated charge that it provided credits for the taxpayer's payment of in-state taxes but failed to extend such credit to payment of equivalent out-of-state taxes. To the contrary, in upholding tax schemes providing credits for taxes paid in state and occasioned by the same transaction, we have often pointed to the concomitant credit provisions for taxes paid out of state as supporting our conclusion that a particular tax passed muster because it treated out-of-state and in-state taxpayers alike. See, e. g., Itel Contain- ers Int'l Corp. v. Huddleston, 507 U. S. 60, 74 (1993); D. H. Holmes Co. v. McNamara, 486 U. S. 24, 31 (1988) ("The . . . taxing scheme is fairly appor- tioned, for it provides a credit against its use tax for sales taxes that have been paid in other States"); General Trading Co. v. State Tax Comm'n of Iowa, 322 U. S. 335 (1944); Silas Mason, supra, at 584. A general require- ment of equal treatment is thus amply clear from our precedent. We ex- press no opinion on the need for equal treatment when a credit is allowed for payment of in- or out-of-state taxes by a third party. See Darnell v. Indiana, 226 U. S. 390 (1912). 514us1$39M 06-11-98 18:17:16 PAGES OPINPGT 194 OKLAHOMA TAX COMM'N v. JEFFERSON LINES, INC. Opinion of the Court incapacity to reach the corresponding sale, it is commonly paired with a sales tax, see, e. g., D. H. Holmes, 486 U. S., at 31; Boston Stock Exchange v. State Tax Comm'n, 429 U. S. 318, 331­332 (1977); Henneford v. Silas Mason Co., 300 U. S. 577 (1937), being applicable only when no sales tax has been paid or subject to a credit for any such tax paid. Since any use tax would have to comply with Commerce Clause re- quirements, the tax scheme could not apply differently to goods and services purchased out of state from those pur- chased domestically. Presumably, then, it would not apply when another State's sales tax had previously been paid, or would apply subject to credit for such payment. In either event, the Oklahoma ticket purchaser would be free from multiple taxation. True, it is not Oklahoma that has offered to provide a credit for related taxes paid elsewhere, but in taxing sales Oklahoma may rely upon use-taxing States to do so. This is merely a practical consequence of the structure of use taxes as generally based upon the primacy of taxes on sales, in that use of goods is taxed only to the extent that their prior sale has escaped taxation. Indeed the District of Columbia and 44 of the 45 States that impose sales and use taxes permit such a credit or exemption for similar taxes paid to other States. See 2 Hellerstein & Hellerstein ¶ 18.08, p. 18­48; 1 All States Tax Guide ¶ 256 (1994). As one state court summarized the provisions in force: "These credit provisions create a national system under which the first state of purchase or use imposes the tax. Thereafter, no other state taxes the transaction unless there has been no prior tax imposed . . . or if the tax rate of the prior taxing state is less, in which case the subsequent taxing state imposes a tax measured only by the differential rate." KSS Transportation Corp. v. Baldwin, 9 N. J. Tax 273, 285 (1987). 514us1$39M 06-11-98 18:17:16 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 175 (1995) 195 Opinion of the Court The case of threatened multiple taxation where a sales tax is followed by a use tax is thus distinguishable from the case of simultaneous sales taxes considered in Goldberg, where we were reassured to some degree by the provision of a credit in the disputed tax itself for similar taxes placed upon the taxpayer by other States. See Goldberg, 488 U. S., at 264 ("To the extent that other States' telecommunications taxes pose a risk of multiple taxation, the credit provision contained in the [t]ax [a]ct operates to avoid actual multiple taxation"). In that case, unlike the sales and use schemes posited for the sake of argument here, each of the competing sales taxes would presumably have laid an equal claim on the taxpayer's purse. b Finally, Jefferson points to the fact that in this case, unlike the telephone communication tax at issue in Goldberg, Okla- homa could feasibly apportion its sales tax on the basis of mileage as we required New York's gross receipts tax to do in Central Greyhound. Although Goldberg indeed noted that "[a]n apportionment formula based on mileage or some other geographic division of individual telephone calls would produce insurmountable administrative and technological barriers," 488 U. S., at 264­265, and although we agree that no comparable barriers exist here, we nonetheless reject the idea that a particular apportionment formula must be used simply because it would be possible to use it. We have never required that any particular apportionment formula or method be used, and when a State has chosen one, an object- ing taxpayer has the burden to demonstrate by " `clear and cogent evidence,' " that " `the income attributed to the State is in fact out of all appropriate proportions to the business transacted . . . in that State, or has led to a grossly distorted result.' " Container Corp., 463 U. S., at 170, quoting Moor- man Mfg. Co., 437 U. S., at 274 (internal quotation marks omitted; citations omitted). That is too much for Jefferson 514us1$39M 06-11-98 18:17:16 PAGES OPINPGT 196 OKLAHOMA TAX COMM'N v. JEFFERSON LINES, INC. Opinion of the Court to bear in this case. It fails to show that Oklahoma's tax on the sale of transportation imputes economic activity to the State of sale in any way substantially different from that imputed by the garden-variety sales tax, which we have pe- rennially sustained, even though levied on goods that have traveled in interstate commerce to the point of sale or that will move across state lines thereafter. See, e. g., Wardair Canada Inc. v. Florida Dept. of Revenue, 477 U. S. 1 (1986); McGoldrick v. Berwind-White Coal Mining Co., 309 U. S. 33 (1940); State Tax Comm'n of Utah v. Pacific States Cast Iron Pipe Co., 372 U. S. 605 (1963); see also Western Live Stock, 303 U. S., at 259 (upholding tax where measure of the tax "include[s] the augmentation attributable to the [interstate] commerce in which [the object of the tax] is employed"); Goldberg, 488 U. S., at 262 (upholding tax upon the purchase of an interstate telephone call which had "many of the char- acteristics of a sales tax . . . [e]ven though such a retail pur- chase is not a purely local event since it triggers simultane- ous activity in several States"). Nor does Oklahoma's tax raise any greater threat of multiple taxation than those sales taxes that have passed muster time and again. There is thus no reason to leave the line of longstanding precedent and lose the simplicity of our general rule sustaining sales taxes measured by full value, simply to carve out an excep- tion for the subcategory of sales of interstate transportation services. We accordingly conclude that Oklahoma's tax on ticket sales for travel originating in Oklahoma is externally consistent, as reaching only the activity taking place within the taxing State, that is, the sale of the service. Cf. id., at 261­262; Container Corp., supra, at 169­170.7 7 Justice Breyer would reject review of the tax under general sales tax principles in favor of an analogy between sales and gross receipts taxes which, in the dissent's view, are without "practical difference," post, at 204. Although his dissenting opinion rightly counsels against the adop- tion of purely formal distinctions, economic equivalence alone has similarly not been (and should not be) the touchstone of Commerce Clause jurispru- 514us1$39M 06-11-98 18:17:16 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 175 (1995) 197 Opinion of the Court C We now turn to the remaining two portions of Complete Auto's test, which require that the tax must "not discrimi- nate against interstate commerce," and must be "fairly re- lated to the services provided by the State." 430 U. S., at 279. Oklahoma's tax meets these demands. A State may not "impose a tax which discriminates against interstate commerce . . . by providing a direct commercial advantage to local business." Northwestern States Port- land Cement Co. v. Minnesota, 358 U. S., at 458; see also American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. Scheiner, 483 U. S. 266, 269 (1987). Thus, States are barred from discriminating against foreign enterprises competing with local businesses, see, e. g., id., at 286, and from discriminating against commer- cial activity occurring outside the taxing State, see, e. g., Bos- ton Stock Exchange v. State Tax Comm'n, 429 U. S. 318 (1977). No argument has been made that Oklahoma dis- dence. Our decisions cannot be reconciled with the view that two taxes must inevitably be equated for purposes of constitutional analysis by vir- tue of the fact that both will ultimately be "pass[ed] . . . along to the customer" or calculated in a similar fashion, ibid. Indeed, were that to be the case, we could not, for example, dismiss successive taxation of the extraction, sale, and income from the sale of coal as consistent with the Commerce Clause's prohibition against multiple taxation. Justice Breyer's opinion illuminates the difference between his view and our own in its suggestion, post, at 206, that our disagreement turns on differing assessments of the force of competing analogies. His analogy to Central Greyhound derives strength from characterizing the tax as falling on "interstate travel," post, at 207, or "transportation," post, at 202. Our analogy to prior cases on taxing sales of goods and services derives force from identifying the taxpayer in categorizing the tax and from the value of a uniform rule governing taxation on the occasion of what is generally understood as a sales transaction. The significance of the tax- payer's identity is, indeed, central to the Court's longstanding recognition of structural differences that permit successive taxation as an incident of multiple taxing jurisdictions. The decision today is only the latest exam- ple of such a recognition and brings us as close to simplicity as the concep- tual distinction between sales and income taxation is likely to allow. 514us1$39M 06-11-98 18:17:16 PAGES OPINPGT 198 OKLAHOMA TAX COMM'N v. JEFFERSON LINES, INC. Opinion of the Court criminates against out-of-state enterprises, and there is no merit in the argument that the tax discriminates against in- terstate activity. The argument proffered by Jefferson and amicus Grey- hound Lines is largely a rewriting of the apportionment chal- lenge rejected above, and our response needs no reiteration here. See Brief for Respondent 40; Brief for Greyhound Lines, Inc., as Amicus Curiae 20­27. Jefferson takes the additional position, however, that Oklahoma discriminates against out-of-state travel by taxing a ticket "at the full 4% rate" regardless of whether the ticket relates to "a route entirely within Oklahoma" or to travel "only 10 percent within Oklahoma." Brief for Respondent 40. In making the same point, amicus Greyhound invokes our decision in Scheiner, which struck down Pennsylvania's flat tax on all trucks traveling in and through the State as "plainly discrim- inatory." 483 U. S., at 286. But that case is not on point. In Scheiner, we held that a flat tax on trucks for the privi- lege of using Pennsylvania's roads discriminated against in- terstate travel, by imposing a cost per mile upon out-of-state trucks far exceeding the cost per mile borne by local trucks that generally traveled more miles on Pennsylvania roads. Ibid. The tax here differs from the one in Scheiner, how- ever, by being imposed not upon the use of the State's roads, but upon "the freedom of purchase." McLeod v. J. E. Dil- worth Co., 322 U. S., at 330. However complementary the goals of sales and use taxes may be, the taxable event for one is the sale of the service, not the buyer's enjoyment or the privilege of using Oklahoma's roads. Since Oklahoma facilitates purchases of the services equally for intrastate and interstate travelers, all buyers pay tax at the same rate on the value of their purchases. See D. H. Holmes, 486 U. S., at 32; cf. Scheiner, supra, at 291 ("[T]he amount of Pennsylvania's . . . taxes owed by a trucker does not vary directly . . . with some . . . proxy for value obtained from the State"). Thus, even if dividing Oklahoma sales taxes by 514us1$39M 06-11-98 18:17:16 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 175 (1995) 199 Opinion of the Court in-state miles to be traveled produces on average a higher figure when interstate trips are sold than when the sale is of a wholly domestic journey, there is no discrimination against interstate travel; miles traveled within the State simply are not a relevant proxy for the benefit conferred upon the par- ties to a sales transaction. As with a tax on the sale of tangible goods, the potential for interstate movement after the sale has no bearing on the reason for the sales tax. See, e. g., Wardair Canada Inc. v. Florida Dept. of Revenue, 477 U. S. 1 (1986) (upholding sales tax on airplane fuel); cf. Com- monwealth Edison Co., 453 U. S., at 617­619 (same for sever- ance tax). Only Oklahoma can tax a sale of transportation to begin in that State, and it imposes the same duty on equally valued purchases regardless of whether the purchase prompts interstate or only intrastate movement. There is no discrimination against interstate commerce. D Finally, the Commerce Clause demands a fair relation between a tax and the benefits conferred upon the taxpayer by the State. See Goldberg, 488 U. S., at 266­267; D. H. Holmes, supra, at 32­34; Commonwealth Edison, supra, at 621­629. The taxpayer argues that the tax fails this final prong because the buyer's only benefits from the taxing State occur during the portion of the journey that takes place in Oklahoma. The taxpayer misunderstands the im- port of this last requirement. The fair relation prong of Complete Auto requires no de- tailed accounting of the services provided to the taxpayer on account of the activity being taxed, nor, indeed, is a State limited to offsetting the public costs created by the taxed activity. If the event is taxable, the proceeds from the tax may ordinarily be used for purposes unrelated to the taxable event. Interstate commerce may thus be made to pay its fair share of state expenses and " `contribute to the cost of providing all governmental services, including those serv- 514us1$39M 06-11-98 18:17:16 PAGES OPINPGT 200 OKLAHOMA TAX COMM'N v. JEFFERSON LINES, INC. Scalia, J., concurring in judgment ices from which it arguably receives no direct "benefit." ' " Goldberg, supra, at 267, quoting Commonwealth Edison, supra, at 627, n. 16 (emphasis in original). The bus terminal may not catch fire during the sale, and no robbery there may be foiled while the buyer is getting his ticket, but police and fire protection, along with the usual and usually forgotten advantages conferred by the State's maintenance of a civi- lized society, are justifications enough for the imposition of a tax. See Goldberg, supra, at 267. Complete Auto's fourth criterion asks only that the measure of the tax be reasonably related to the taxpayer's presence or activities in the State. See Commonwealth Edison, supra, at 626, 629. What we have already said shows that demand to be satisfied here. The tax falls on the sale that takes place wholly inside Okla- homa and is measured by the value of the service purchased. IV Oklahoma's tax on the sale of transportation services does not contravene the Commerce Clause. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, accordingly, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. Justice Scalia, with whom Justice Thomas joins, concurring in the judgment. I agree with the Court's conclusion that Oklahoma's sales tax does not facially discriminate against interstate com- merce. See ante, at 198­199. That seems to me the most we can demand to certify compliance with the "negative Commerce Clause"-which is "negative" not only because it negates state regulation of commerce, but also because it does not appear in the Constitution. See Amerada Hess Corp. v. Director, Div. of Taxation, N. J. Dept. of Treasury, 490 U. S. 66, 80 (1989) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment); Tyler Pipe Industries, Inc. v. Washington State Dept. of 514us1$39K 06-11-98 18:17:16 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 175 (1995) 201 Breyer, J., dissenting Revenue, 483 U. S. 232, 254, 259­265 (1987) (Scalia, J., con- curring in part and dissenting in part). I would not apply the remainder of the eminently unhelp- ful, so-called "four-part test" of Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430 U. S. 274, 279 (1977). Under the real Com- merce Clause ("The Congress shall have Power . . . To regu- late Commerce . . . among the several States," U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8), it is for Congress to make the judgment that interstate commerce must be immunized from certain sorts of nondiscriminatory state action-a judgment that may em- brace (as ours ought not) such imponderables as how much "value [is] fairly attributable to economic activity within the taxing State," and what constitutes "fair relation between a tax and the benefits conferred upon the taxpayer by the State." Ante, at 185, 199 (emphases added). See Tyler Pipe, supra, at 259. I look forward to the day when Com- plete Auto will take its rightful place in Part II of the Court's opinion, among the other useless and discarded tools of our negative Commerce Clause jurisprudence. Justice Breyer, with whom Justice O'Connor joins, dissenting. Despite the Court's lucid and thorough discussion of the relevant law, I am unable to join its conclusion for one simple reason. Like the judges of the Court of Appeals, I believe the tax at issue here and the tax that this Court held uncon- stitutional in Central Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Mealey, 334 U. S. 653 (1948), are, for all relevant purposes, identical. Both cases involve taxes imposed upon interstate bus trans- portation. In neither case did the State apportion the tax to avoid taxing that portion of the interstate activity per- formed in other States. And, I find no other distinguishing features. Hence, I would hold that the tax before us vio- lates the Constitution for the reasons this Court set forth in Central Greyhound. 514us1$39Q 06-11-98 18:17:16 PAGES OPINPGT 202 OKLAHOMA TAX COMM'N v. JEFFERSON LINES, INC. Breyer, J., dissenting Central Greyhound considered a tax imposed by the State of New York on utilities doing business in New York-a tax called " `[e]mergency tax on the furnishing of utility serv- ices.' " Id., at 664 (Murphy, J., dissenting) (quoting New York Tax Law § 186­a). That tax was equal to "two per centum" of "gross income," defined to include "receipts re- ceived . . . by reason of any sale . . . made" in New York. 334 U. S., at 664. The New York taxing authorities had ap- plied the tax to gross receipts from sales (in New York) of bus transportation between New York City and cities in up- state New York over routes that cut across New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Id., at 654. The out-of-state portion of the trips accounted for just over 40 percent of total mileage. Id., at 660. Justice Frankfurter wrote for the Central Greyhound Court that "it is interstate commerce which the State is seeking to reach," id., at 661; that the "real question [is] whether what the State is exacting is a constitutionally fair demand . . . for that aspect of the interstate commerce to which the State bears a special relation," ibid.; and that by "its very nature an unapportioned gross receipts tax makes interstate transportation bear more than `a fair share of the cost of the local government whose protection it enjoys,' " id., at 663 (quoting Freeman v. Hewit, 329 U. S. 249, 253 (1946)). The Court noted: "If New Jersey and Pennsylvania could claim their right to make appropriately apportioned claims against that substantial part of the business of appellant to which they afford protection, we do not see how on principle and in precedent such a claim could be denied. This being so, to allow New York to impose a tax on the gross receipts for the entire mileage-on the 57.47% within New York as well as the 42.53% without-would subject interstate commerce to the unfair burden of being taxed as to portions of its revenue by States which give pro- 514us1$39Q 06-11-98 18:17:16 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 175 (1995) 203 Breyer, J., dissenting tection to those portions, as well as to a State which does not." 334 U. S., at 662. The Court essentially held that the tax lacked what it would later describe as "external consistency." Container Corp. of America v. Franchise Tax Bd., 463 U. S. 159, 169 (1983). That is to say, the New York law violated the Com- merce Clause because it tried to tax significantly more than "that portion of the revenues from the interstate activity which reasonably reflects the in-state component of the ac- tivity being taxed." Goldberg v. Sweet, 488 U. S. 252, 262 (1989). The tax before us bears an uncanny resemblance to the New York tax. The Oklahoma statute (as applied to "[t]ransportation . . . by common carriers") imposes an "excise tax" of 4% on "the gross receipts or gross proceeds of each sale" made in Oklahoma. Okla. Stat., Tit. 68, § 1354(1)(C) (Supp. 1988) (emphasis added). The New York statute imposed a 2% tax on the "receipts received . . . by reason of any sale . . . made" in New York. See supra, at 202 (emphasis added). Oklahoma imposes its tax on the total value of trips of which a large portion may take place in other States. New York imposed its tax on the total value of trips of which a large portion took place in other States. New York made no effort to apportion the tax to reflect the comparative cost or value of the in-state and out-of-state portions of the trips. Neither does Oklahoma. Where, then, can one find a critical difference? Not in the language of the two statutes, which differs only slightly. Oklahoma calls its statute an "excise tax" and "lev- ie[s]" the tax "upon all sales" of transportation. New York called its tax an "[e]mergency tax on . . . services" and levied the tax on " `gross income,' " defined to include " `receipts . . . of any sale.' " This linguistic difference, however, is not sig- nificant. As the majority properly recognizes, purely formal differences in terminology should not make a constitutional difference. Ante, at 183. In both instances, the State im- 514us1$39Q 06-11-98 18:17:16 PAGES OPINPGT 204 OKLAHOMA TAX COMM'N v. JEFFERSON LINES, INC. Breyer, J., dissenting poses the tax on gross receipts as measured by sales. Both taxes, then, would seem to have the same practical effect on the, inherently interstate, bus transportation activity. If the Central Greyhound Court was willing to look through New York's formal labels ("[e]mergency tax on . . . services"; "gross income" tax) to the substance (a tax on gross receipts from sales), why should this Court not do the same? The majority sees a number of reasons why the result here should be different from that in Central Greyhound, but I do not think any is persuasive. First, the majority points out that the New York law required a seller, the bus com- pany, to pay the tax, whereas the Oklahoma law says that the "tax . . . shall be paid by the consumer or user to the vendor." Okla. Stat., Tit. 68, § 1361(A) (Supp. 1988). This difference leads the majority to characterize the former as a "gross receipts" tax and the latter as a constitutionally dis- tinguishable "sales tax." This difference, however, seems more a formal, than a practical difference. The Oklahoma law makes the bus company ("the vendor") and "each princi- pal officer . . . personally liable" for the tax, whether or not they collect it from the customer. Ibid. Oklahoma (as far as I can tell) has never tried to collect the tax directly from a customer. And, in any event, the statute tells the cus- tomer to pay the tax, not to the State, but "to the vendor." Ibid. The upshot is that, as a practical matter, in respect to both taxes, the State will calculate the tax bill by multiply- ing the rate times gross receipts from sales; the bus company will pay the tax bill; and, the company will pass the tax along to the customer. Second, the majority believes that this case presents a sig- nificantly smaller likelihood than did Central Greyhound that the out-of-state portions of a bus trip will be taxed both "by States which give protection to those portions, as well as [by] . . . a State which does not." Central Greyhound, 334 U. S., at 662. There is at least a hint in the Court's opinion that this is so because the "taxable event" to which the Okla- 514us1$39Q 06-11-98 18:17:16 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 175 (1995) 205 Breyer, J., dissenting homa tax attaches is not the interstate transportation of pas- sengers but the sale of a bus ticket (combined, perhaps, with transportation to the state line). See ante, at 190 ("The tax- able event comprises agreement, payment, and delivery of some of the services in the taxing State . . ."). Thus, the majority suggests that a tax on transportation (as opposed to the sale of a bus ticket) by a different State might be "successive," ante, at 192, but is not "double taxation" in a constitutionally relevant way, ante, at 191; see ante, at 190 ("[N]o other State can claim to be the site of the same combi- nation"). I concede that Oklahoma could have a tax of the kind envisioned, namely, one that would tax the bus company for the privilege of selling tickets. But, whether or not such a tax would pass constitutional muster should depend upon its practical effects. To suggest that the tax here is consti- tutional simply because it lends itself to recharacterizing the taxable event as a "sale" is to ignore economic reality. Be- cause the sales tax is framed as a percentage of the ticket price, it seems clear that the activity Oklahoma intends to tax is the transportation of passengers-not some other kind of conduct (like selling tickets). In any event, the majority itself does not seem to believe that Oklahoma is taxing something other than bus transpor- tation; it seems to acknowledge the risk of multiple taxation. The Court creates an ingenious set of constitutionally based taxing rules in footnote 6-designed to show that any other State that imposes, say, a gross receipts tax on its share of bus ticket sales would likely have to grant a credit for the Oklahoma sales tax (unless it forced its own citizens to pay both a sales tax and a gross receipts tax). But, one might have said the same in Central Greyhound. Instead of en- forcing its apportionment requirement, the Court could have simply said that once one State, like New York, imposes a gross receipts tax on "receipts received . . . by reason of any sale . . . made" in that State, any other State, trying to tax the gross receipts of its share of bus ticket sales, might have 514us1$39Q 06-11-98 18:17:16 PAGES OPINPGT 206 OKLAHOMA TAX COMM'N v. JEFFERSON LINES, INC. Breyer, J., dissenting to give some kind of credit. The difficulties with this ap- proach lie in its complexity and our own inability to foresee all the ways in which other States might effectively tax their own portion of the journey now (also) taxed by Oklahoma. Under the Court's footnote rules, is not a traveler who buys a ticket in Oklahoma still threatened with a duplicative tax by a State that does not impose a sales tax on transportation (and thus, would not have to offer a credit for the sales tax paid in Oklahoma)? Even if that were not so, the constitu- tional problem would remain, namely, that Oklahoma is im- posing an unapportioned tax on the portion of travel outside the State, just as did New York. Finally, the majority finds support in Goldberg v. Sweet, 488 U. S. 252 (1989), a case in which this Court permitted Illinois to tax interstate telephone calls that originated, or terminated, in that State. However, the Goldberg Court was careful to distinguish "cases [dealing] with the move- ment of large physical objects over identifiable routes, where it was practicable to keep track of the distance actually trav- eled within the taxing State," id., at 264, and listed Central Greyhound as one of those cases, 488 U. S., at 264. Tele- phone service, the Goldberg Court said, differed from move- ment of the kind at issue in Central Greyhound, in that, at least arguably, the service itself is consumed wholly within one State, or possibly two-those in which the call is charged to a service address or paid by an addressee. 488 U. S., at 263. Regardless of whether telephones and buses are more alike than different, the Goldberg Court did not purport to modify Central Greyhound, nor does the majority. In any event, the Goldberg Court said, the tax at issue credited tax- payers for similar taxes assessed by other States. 488 U. S., at 264. Ultimately, I may differ with the majority simply because I assess differently the comparative force of two competing analogies. The majority finds determinative this Court's case law concerning sales taxes applied to the sale of goods, 514us1$39Q 06-11-98 18:17:16 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 175 (1995) 207 Breyer, J., dissenting which cases, for example, permit one State to impose a sever- ance tax and another a sales tax on the same physical item (say, coal). In my view, however, the analogy to sales taxes is not as strong as the analogy to the tax at issue in Central Greyhound. After all, the tax before us is not a tax imposed upon a product that was made in a different State or was consumed in a different State or is made up of ingredients that come from a different State or has itself moved in inter- state commerce. Rather, it is a tax imposed upon interstate travel itself-the very essence of interstate commerce. And, it is a fairly obvious effort to tax more than "that por- tion" of the "interstate activity['s]" revenue "which reason- ably reflects the in-state component." Goldberg v. Sweet, supra, at 262. I would reaffirm the Central Greyhound principle, even if doing so requires different treatment for the inherently interstate service of interstate transportation, and denies the possibility of having a single, formal consti- tutional rule for all self-described "sales taxes." The Court of Appeals wrote that this "is a classic instance of an unap- portioned tax" upon interstate commerce. In re Jefferson Lines, Inc., 15 F. 3d 90, 93 (CA8 1994). In my view, that is right. I respectfully dissent. 514us1$40Z 06-11-98 18:18:52 PAGES OPINPGT 208 OCTOBER TERM, 1994 Per Curiam WHITAKER v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY (MERRILL REESE, INC., REAL PARTY IN INTEREST) on motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis No. 94­7743. Decided April 17, 1995 Since 1987, pro se petitioner Whitaker has filed 24 claims for relief, in- cluding 18 petitions for certiorari, all of which have been denied with- out recorded dissent. Earlier this Term, this Court directed the Clerk of the Court not to accept further petitions for extraordinary writs from Whitaker in noncriminal matters unless he pays the required docket- ing fee and submits his petitions in compliance with Rule 33, In re Whitaker, 513 U. S. 1, 2, and warned Whitaker about his frequent filing patterns with respect to petitions for writ of certiorari, ibid. Held: Pursuant to this Court's Rule 39.8, Whitaker is denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis in the instant case, and the Clerk is in- structed not to accept any further petitions for certiorari from him in noncriminal matters unless he pays the required docketing fee and submits his petitions in compliance with Rule 33. Like other similar orders this Court has issued, see, e. g., In re Sassower, 510 U. S. 4, this order will allow the Court to devote its limited resources to the claims of petitioners who have not abused the Court's process. Motion denied. Per Curiam. Pro se petitioner Fred Whitaker has filed a petition for writ of certiorari and requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis under Rule 39 of this Court. Pursuant to Rule 39.8, we deny petitioner's request to proceed in forma pau- peris.* Petitioner is allowed until May 8, 1995, to pay the docketing fees required by Rule 38 and to submit his petition in compliance with this Court's Rule 33. For the reasons explained below, we also direct the Clerk of the Court not to *Rule 39.8 provides: "If satisfied that a petition for a writ of certiorari, jurisdictional statement, or petition for an extraordinary writ, as the case may be, is frivolous or malicious, the Court may deny a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis." 514us1$40H 06-11-98 18:18:53 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 208 (1995) 209 Per Curiam accept any further petitions for certiorari from petitioner in noncriminal matters unless he pays the docketing fees re- quired by Rule 38 and submits his petition in compliance with Rule 33. Petitioner is a prolific filer in this Court. Since 1987, he has filed 24 petitions for relief, including 6 petitions for extraordinary relief and 18 petitions for certiorari. Fifteen of the twenty-four petitions have been filed in the last four Terms, and we have denied all 24 petitions without recorded dissent. We also have denied petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to Rule 39.8 of this Court for the last three petitions in which he has sought extraordinary relief. See In re Whitaker, 513 U. S. 1 (1994); In re Whi- taker, 511 U. S. 1105 (1994); In re Whitaker, 506 U. S. 983 (1992). And earlier this Term, we directed the Clerk of the Court "not to accept any further petitions for extraordi- nary writs from petitioner in noncriminal matters unless he pays the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and submits his petition in compliance with Rule 33." 513 U. S., at 2. Though we warned petitioner at that time about his "fre- quent filing patterns with respect to petitions for writ of certiorari," ibid., we limited our sanction to petitions for ex- traordinary writs. We now find it necessary to extend that sanction to peti- tions for certiorari filed by petitioner. In what appears to be an attempt to circumvent this Court's prior order, peti- tioner has labeled his instant petition a "petition for writ of certiorari" even though it would seem to be more aptly termed a "petition for an extraordinary writ": He argues that the California Supreme Court erred in denying his pe- tition for review of a California Court of Appeals order which denied his petition for writ of mandate/prohibition seeking to compel a California trial judge to make a particu- lar ruling in a civil action filed by petitioner. And the legal arguments petitioner makes in his instant "petition for writ of certiorari" are, just as those made in his previous 18 pe- 514us1$40H 06-11-98 18:18:53 PAGES OPINPGT 210 WHITAKER v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CAL., SAN FRANCISCO CTY. Stevens, J., dissenting titions for certiorari, frivolous. As we told petitioner ear- lier this Term, "[t]he goal of fairly dispensing justice . . . is compromised when the Court is forced to devote its lim- ited resources to the processing of repetitious and frivolous requests." Ibid. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Petitioner's abuse of petitions for certiorari has occurred only in noncriminal cases, and we limit our sanction accord- ingly. This order therefore will not prevent petitioner from filing a petition for certiorari to challenge criminal sanctions that might be imposed upon him. But like other similar or- ders we have issued, see In re Sassower, 510 U. S. 4 (1993); Day v. Day, 510 U. S. 1 (1993); Demos v. Storrie, 507 U. S. 290 (1993); Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992), this order will allow the Court to devote its limited resources to the claims of petitioners who have not abused our process. It is so ordered. Justice Stevens, dissenting. A simple denial would adequately serve the laudable goal of conserving the Court's "limited resources." Ante this page. See generally In re Whitaker, 513 U. S. 1, 3 (1994) (Stevens, J., dissenting). I respectfully dissent. 514us1$41z 05-27-98 15:19:40 PAGES OPINPGT OCTOBER TERM, 1994 211 Syllabus PLAUT et al. v. SPENDTHRIFT FARM, INC., et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit No. 93­1121. Argued November 30, 1994-Decided April 18, 1995 In a 1987 civil action, petitioners alleged that in 1983 and 1984 respondents committed fraud and deceit in the sale of stock in violation of § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b­5 of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The District Court dismissed the action with prejudice following this Court's decision in Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson, 501 U. S. 350, 364, which required that suits such as petitioners' be commenced within one year after the discovery of the facts constituting the violation and within three years after such violation. After the judgment became final, Congress en- acted § 27A(b) of the 1934 Act, which provides for reinstatement on mo- tion of any action commenced pre-Lampf but dismissed thereafter as time barred, if the action would have been timely filed under applicable pre-Lampf state law. Although finding that the statute's terms re- quired that petitioners' ensuing § 27A(b) motion be granted, the District Court denied the motion on the ground that § 27A(b) is unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Held: Section 27A(b) contravenes the Constitution's separation of powers to the extent that it requires federal courts to reopen final judgments entered before its enactment. Pp. 215­240. (a) Despite respondents' arguments to the contrary, there is no rea- sonable construction on which § 27A(b) does not require federal courts to reopen final judgments in suits dismissed with prejudice by virtue of Lampf. Pp. 215­217. (b) Article III establishes a "judicial department" with the "province and duty . . . to say what the law is" in particular cases and controver- sies. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177. The Framers crafted this charter with an expressed understanding that it gives the Federal Judiciary the power, not merely to rule on cases, but to decide them conclusively, subject to review only by superior courts in the Article III hierarchy. Thus, the Constitution forbids the Legislature to interfere with courts' final judgments. Pp. 219­225. (c) Section 27A(b) effects a clear violation of the foregoing principle by retroactively commanding the federal courts to reopen final judg- ments. This Court's decisions have uniformly provided fair warning that retroactive legislation such as § 27A(b) exceeds congressional pow- 514us1$41z 05-27-98 15:19:40 PAGES OPINPGT 212 PLAUT v. SPENDTHRIFT FARM, INC. Syllabus ers. See, e. g., Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman S. S. Corp., 333 U. S. 103, 113. Petitioners are correct that when a new law makes clear that it is retroactive, an appellate court must apply it in reviewing judgments still on appeal, and must alter the outcome accord- ingly. However, once a judgment has achieved finality in the highest court in the hierarchy, the decision becomes the last word of the judicial department with regard to the particular case or controversy, and Con- gress may not declare by retroactive legislation that the law applicable to that case was in fact something other than it was. It is irrelevant that § 27A(b) reopens (or directs the reopening of) final judgments in a whole class of cases rather than in a particular suit, and that the final judgments so reopened rested on the bar of a statute of limitations rather than on some other ground. Pp. 225­230. (d) Apart from § 27A(b), the Court knows of no instance in which Congress has attempted to set aside the final judgment of an Article III court by retroactive legislation. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 60(b), 20 U. S. C. § 1415(e)(4), 28 U. S. C. § 2255, 50 U. S. C. App. § 520(4), and, e. g., the statutes at issue in United States v. Sioux Nation, 448 U. S. 371, 391­ 392, Sampeyreac v. United States, 7 Pet. 222, 238, Paramino Lumber Co. v. Marshall, 309 U. S. 370, and Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Bel- mont Bridge Co., 18 How. 421, distinguished. Congress's prolonged ret- icence would be amazing if such interference were not understood to be constitutionally proscribed by the Constitution's separation of powers. The Court rejects the suggestion that § 27A(b) might be constitutional if it exhibited prospectivity or a greater degree of general applicabil- ity. Pp. 230­240. 1 F. 3d 1487, affirmed. Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, and Thomas, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 240. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg, J., joined, post, p. 246. William W. Allen argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs was J. Montjoy Trimble. Michael R. Dreeben argued the cause for the United States urging reversal. With him on the brief were Solici- tor General Days, Assistant Attorney General Hunger, Dep- uty Solicitor General Kneedler, Barbara C. Biddle, Simon M. Lorne, Paul Gonson, and Jacob H. Stillman. 514us1$41z 05-27-98 15:19:40 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 211 (1995) 213 Opinion of the Court Theodore B. Olson argued the cause for respondents. With him on the briefs were Larry L. Simms, Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., John K. Bush, D. Jarrett Arp, Barbara B. Edelman, Barry Friedman, James E. Burns, Jr., Kevin Muck, William E. Johnson, Robert M. Watt III, Robert S. Miller, and L. Clifford Craig.* Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. The question presented in this case is whether § 27A(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, to the extent that it requires federal courts to reopen final judgments in private civil actions under § 10(b) of the Act, contravenes the Consti- tution's separation of powers or the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. I In 1987, petitioners brought a civil action against respond- ents in the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Kentucky. The complaint alleged that in 1983 and 1984 respondents had committed fraud and deceit in the sale of stock in violation of § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b­5 of the Securities and Exchange Com- mission. The case was mired in pretrial proceedings in the District Court until June 20, 1991, when we decided Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson, 501 U. S. 350. Lampf held that "[l]itigation instituted pursuant to § 10(b) and Rule 10b­5 . . . must be commenced within one year after the discovery of the facts constituting the viola- tion and within three years after such violation." Id., at *Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the National Asso- ciation of Securities and Commercial Law Attorneys by James M. Finberg and Paul J. Mishkin; for the Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co. by Richard G. Taranto, H. Bartow Farr III, and Stewart M. Weltman; and for Michael B. Dashjian, pro se. Joseph E. Schmitz, Zachary D. Fasman, Judith Richards Hope, Charles A. Shanor, Daniel J. Popeo, and Paul D. Kamenar filed a brief for the Washington Legal Foundation as amicus curiae urging affirmance. 514us1$41k 05-27-98 15:19:40 PAGES OPINPGT 214 PLAUT v. SPENDTHRIFT FARM, INC. Opinion of the Court 364. We applied that holding to the plaintiff-respondents in Lampf itself, found their suit untimely, and reinstated a summary judgment previously entered in favor of the defendant-petitioners. Ibid. On the same day we decided James B. Beam Distilling Co. v. Georgia, 501 U. S. 529 (1991), in which a majority of the Court held, albeit in differ- ent opinions, that a new rule of federal law that is applied to the parties in the case announcing the rule must be applied as well to all cases pending on direct review. See Harper v. Virginia Dept. of Taxation, 509 U. S. 86, 92 (1993). The joint effect of Lampf and Beam was to mandate application of the 1-year/3-year limitations period to petitioners' suit. The District Court, finding that petitioners' claims were un- timely under the Lampf rule, dismissed their action with prejudice on August 13, 1991. Petitioners filed no appeal; the judgment accordingly became final 30 days later. See 28 U. S. C. § 2107(a) (1988 ed., Supp. V); Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U. S. 314, 321, n. 6 (1987). On December 19, 1991, the President signed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991, 105 Stat. 2236. Section 476 of the Act-a section that had nothing to do with FDIC improvements-became § 27A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and was later codified as 15 U. S. C. § 78aa­1 (1988 ed., Supp. V). It provides: "(a) Effect on pending causes of action "The limitation period for any private civil action im- plied under section 78j(b) of this title [§ 10(b) of the Secu- rities Exchange Act of 1934] that was commenced on or before June 19, 1991, shall be the limitation period pro- vided by the laws applicable in the jurisdiction, includ- ing principles of retroactivity, as such laws existed on June 19, 1991. "(b) Effect on dismissed causes of action "Any private civil action implied under section 78j(b) of this title that was commenced on or before June 19, 1991- 514us1$41k 05-27-98 15:19:40 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 211 (1995) 215 Opinion of the Court "(1) which was dismissed as time barred subsequent to June 19, 1991, and "(2) which would have been timely filed under the limitation period provided by the laws applicable in the jurisdiction, including principles of retroactivity, as such laws existed on June 19, 1991, "shall be reinstated on motion by the plaintiff not later than 60 days after December 19, 1991." On February 11, 1992, petitioners returned to the District Court and filed a motion to reinstate the action previously dismissed with prejudice. The District Court found that the conditions set out in §§ 27A(b)(1) and (2) were met, so that petitioners' motion was required to be granted by the terms of the statute. It nonetheless denied the motion, agreeing with respondents that § 27A(b) is unconstitutional. Mem- orandum Opinion and Order, Civ. Action No. 87­438 (ED Ky., Apr. 13, 1992). The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed. 1 F. 3d 1487 (1993). We granted certiorari. 511 U. S. 1141 (1994).1 II Respondents bravely contend that § 27A(b) does not re- quire federal courts to reopen final judgments, arguing first that the reference to "the laws applicable in the jurisdiction . . . as such laws existed on June 19, 1991" (the day before Lampf was decided) may reasonably be construed to refer precisely to the limitations period provided in Lampf itself, in which case petitioners' action was time barred even under 1 Last Term this Court affirmed, by an equally divided vote, a judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that held § 27A(b) constitutional. Morgan Stanley & Co. v. Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co., 511 U. S. 658 (1994) (per curiam). That ruling of course lacks prece- dential weight. Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U. S. 63, 73, n. 8 (1977). 514us1$41k 05-27-98 15:19:40 PAGES OPINPGT 216 PLAUT v. SPENDTHRIFT FARM, INC. Opinion of the Court § 27A.2 It is true that "[a] judicial construction of a statute is an authoritative statement of what the statute meant be- fore as well as after the decision of the case giving rise to that construction." Rivers v. Roadway Express, Inc., 511 U. S. 298, 312­313 (1994); see also id., at 313, n. 12. But respondents' argument confuses the question of what the law in fact was on June 19, 1991, with the distinct question of what § 27A means by its reference to what the law was. We think it entirely clear that it does not mean the law enunci- ated in Lampf, for two independent reasons. First, Lampf provides a uniform, national statute of limitations (instead of using the applicable state limitations period, as lower federal courts had previously done. See Lampf, 501 U. S., at 354, and n. 1). If the statute referred to that law, its reference to the "laws applicable in the jurisdiction" (emphasis added) would be quite inexplicable. Second, if the statute refers to the law enunciated in Lampf, it is utterly without effect, a result to be avoided if possible. American Nat. Red Cross v. S. G., 505 U. S. 247, 263­264 (1992); see 2A N. Singer, Suth- erland on Statutory Construction § 46.06 (Sands rev. 4th ed. 1984). It would say, in subsection (a), that the limitations period is what the Supreme Court has held to be the limita- tions period; and in subsection (b), that suits dismissed as untimely under Lampf which were timely under Lampf (a null set) shall be reinstated. To avoid a constitutional ques- tion by holding that Congress enacted, and the President approved, a blank sheet of paper would indeed constitute "disingenuous evasion." George Moore Ice Cream Co. v. Rose, 289 U. S. 373, 379 (1933). 2 Since respondents' reading of the statute would avoid a constitutional question of undoubted gravity, we think it prudent to entertain the argu- ment even though respondents did not make it in the Sixth Circuit. Of course the Sixth Circuit did decide (against respondents) the point to which the argument was directed. See 1 F. 3d 1487, 1490 (1993) ("The statute's language is plain and unambiguous. . . . [It] commands the Federal courts to reinstate cases which those courts have dismissed"). 514us1$41k 05-27-98 15:19:40 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 211 (1995) 217 Opinion of the Court As an alternative reason why § 27A(b) does not require the reopening of final judgments, respondents suggest that the subsection applies only to cases still pending in the federal courts when § 27A was enacted. This has only half the de- fect of the first argument, for it makes only half of § 27A purposeless-§ 27A(b). There is no need to "reinstate" ac- tions that are still pending; § 27A(a) (the new statute of limi- tations) could and would be applied by the courts of appeals. On respondents' reading, the only consequence of § 27A(b) would be the negligible one of permitting the plaintiff in the pending appeal from a statute-of-limitations dismissal to re- turn immediately to the district court, instead of waiting for the court of appeals' reversal. To enable § 27A(b) to achieve such an insignificant consequence, one must disregard the language of the provision, which refers generally to suits "dismissed as time barred." It is perhaps arguable that this does not include suits that are not yet finally dismissed, i. e., suits still pending on appeal; but there is no basis for the contention that it includes only those. In short, there is no reasonable construction on which § 27A(b) does not require federal courts to reopen final judgments in suits dismissed with prejudice by virtue of Lampf. III Respondents submit that § 27A(b) violates both the sepa- ration of powers and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.3 Because the latter submission, if correct, might dictate a similar result in a challenge to state legisla- tion under the Fourteenth Amendment, the former is the narrower ground for adjudication of the constitutional ques- tions in the case, and we therefore consider it first. Ash- wander v. TVA, 297 U. S. 288, 347 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concur- ring). We conclude that in § 27A(b) Congress has exceeded its authority by requiring the federal courts to exercise 3 "No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." U. S. Const., Amdt. 5. 514us1$41k 05-27-98 15:19:40 PAGES OPINPGT 218 PLAUT v. SPENDTHRIFT FARM, INC. Opinion of the Court "[t]he judicial Power of the United States," U. S. Const., Art. III, § 1, in a manner repugnant to the text, structure, and traditions of Article III. Our decisions to date have identified two types of legisla- tion that require federal courts to exercise the judicial power in a manner that Article III forbids. The first appears in United States v. Klein, 13 Wall. 128 (1872), where we refused to give effect to a statute that was said "[to] prescribe rules of decision to the Judicial Department of the government in cases pending before it." Id., at 146. Whatever the precise scope of Klein, however, later decisions have made clear that its prohibition does not take hold when Congress "amend[s] applicable law." Robertson v. Seattle Audubon Soc., 503 U. S. 429, 441 (1992). Section 27A(b) indisputably does set out substantive legal standards for the Judiciary to apply, and in that sense changes the law (even if solely retroac- tively). The second type of unconstitutional restriction upon the exercise of judicial power identified by past cases is exemplified by Hayburn's Case, 2 Dall. 409 (1792), which stands for the principle that Congress cannot vest review of the decisions of Article III courts in officials of the Executive Branch. See, e. g., Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman S. S. Corp., 333 U. S. 103 (1948). Yet under any application of § 27A(b) only courts are involved; no officials of other departments sit in direct review of their decisions. Section 27A(b) therefore offends neither of these previously established prohibitions. We think, however, that § 27A(b) offends a postulate of Ar- ticle III just as deeply rooted in our law as those we have mentioned. Article III establishes a "judicial department" with the "province and duty . . . to say what the law is" in particular cases and controversies. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803). The record of history shows that the Framers crafted this charter of the judicial department with an expressed understanding that it gives the Federal Judiciary the power, not merely to rule on cases, but to de- 514us1$41k 05-27-98 15:19:40 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 211 (1995) 219 Opinion of the Court cide them, subject to review only by superior courts in the Article III hierarchy-with an understanding, in short, that "a judgment conclusively resolves the case" because "a `judi- cial Power' is one to render dispositive judgments." East- erbrook, Presidential Review, 40 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 905, 926 (1990). By retroactively commanding the federal courts to reopen final judgments, Congress has violated this funda- mental principle. A The Framers of our Constitution lived among the ruins of a system of intermingled legislative and judicial powers, which had been prevalent in the colonies long before the Revolution, and which after the Revolution had produced factional strife and partisan oppression. In the 17th and 18th centuries colonial assemblies and legislatures func- tioned as courts of equity of last resort, hearing original ac- tions or providing appellate review of judicial judgments. G. Wood, The Creation of the American Republic 1776­1787, pp. 154­155 (1969). Often, however, they chose to correct the judicial process through special bills or other enacted legislation. It was common for such legislation not to pre- scribe a resolution of the dispute, but rather simply to set aside the judgment and order a new trial or appeal. M. Clarke, Parliamentary Privilege in the American Colonies 49­51 (1943). See, e. g., Judicial Action by the Provincial Legislature of Massachusetts, 15 Harv. L. Rev. 208 (1902) (collecting documents from 1708­1709); 5 Laws of New Hampshire, Including Public and Private Acts, Resolves, Votes, Etc., 1784­1792 (Metcalf ed. 1916). Thus, as de- scribed in our discussion of Hayburn's Case, supra, at 218, such legislation bears not on the problem of interbranch review but on the problem of finality of judicial judgments. The vigorous, indeed often radical, populism of the revolu- tionary legislatures and assemblies increased the frequency of legislative correction of judgments. Wood, supra, at 155­ 156, 407­408. See also INS v. Chadha, 462 U. S. 919, 961 514us1$41k 05-27-98 15:19:40 PAGES OPINPGT 220 PLAUT v. SPENDTHRIFT FARM, INC. Opinion of the Court (1983) (Powell, J., concurring). "The period 1780­1787 . . . was a period of `constitutional reaction' " to these develop- ments, "which . . . leaped suddenly to its climax in the Phila- delphia Convention." E. Corwin, The Doctrine of Judicial Review 37 (1914). Voices from many quarters, official as well as private, decried the increasing legislative interfer- ence with the private-law judgments of the courts. In 1786, the Vermont Council of Censors issued an "Address of the Council of Censors to the Freemen of the State of Vermont" to fulfill the council's duty, under the State Constitution of 1784, to report to the people " `whether the legislative and executive branches of government have assumed to them- selves, or exercised, other or greater powers than they are entitled to by the Constitution.' " Vermont State Papers 1779­1786, pp. 531, 533 (Slade ed. 1823). A principal method of usurpation identified by the censors was "[t]he instances . . . of judgments being vacated by legislative acts." Id., at 540. The council delivered an opinion "that the General Assembly, in all the instances where they have vacated judgments, recovered in due course of law, (except where the particular circumstances of the case evidently made it necessary to grant a new trial) have exercised a power not delegated, or intended to be delegated, to them, by the Constitution. . . . It super- cedes the necessity of any other law than the pleasure of the Assembly, and of any other court than themselves: for it is an imposition on the suitor, to give him the trou- ble of obtaining, after several expensive trials, a final judgment agreeably to the known established laws of the land; if the Legislature, by a sovereign act, can inter- fere, reverse the judgment, and decree in such manner, as they, unfettered by rules, shall think proper." Ibid. So too, the famous report of the Pennsylvania Council of Censors in 1784 detailed the abuses of legislative interfer- ence with the courts at the behest of private interests and 514us1$41k 05-27-98 15:19:40 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 211 (1995) 221 Opinion of the Court factions. As the General Assembly had (they wrote) made a custom of "extending their deliberations to the cases of individuals," the people had "been taught to consider an ap- plication to the legislature, as a shorter and more certain mode of obtaining relief from hardships and losses, than the usual process of law." The censors noted that because "fa- vour and partiality have, from the nature of public bodies of men, predominated in the distribution of this relief . . . [t]hese dangerous procedures have been too often recurred to, since the revolution." Report of the Committee of the Council of Censors 6 (Bailey ed. 1784). This sense of a sharp necessity to separate the legislative from the judicial power, prompted by the crescendo of legis- lative interference with private judgments of the courts, tri- umphed among the Framers of the new Federal Constitution. See Corwin, The Progress of Constitutional Theory Between the Declaration of Independence and the Meeting of the Phil- adelphia Convention, 30 Am. Hist. Rev. 511, 514­517 (1925). The Convention made the critical decision to establish a judi- cial department independent of the Legislative Branch by providing that "the judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Before and during the debates on ratification, Madison, Jef- ferson, and Hamilton each wrote of the factional disorders and disarray that the system of legislative equity had produced in the years before the framing; and each thought that the separation of the legislative from the judicial power in the new Constitution would cure them. Madison's Feder- alist No. 48, the famous description of the process by which "[t]he legislative department is every where extending the sphere of its activity, and drawing all power into its impetu- ous vortex," referred to the report of the Pennsylvania Council of Censors to show that in that State "cases belong- ing to the judiciary department [had been] frequently drawn within legislative cognizance and determination." The Fed- 514us1$41k 05-27-98 15:19:40 PAGES OPINPGT 222 PLAUT v. SPENDTHRIFT FARM, INC. Opinion of the Court eralist No. 48, pp. 333, 337 (J. Cooke ed. 1961). Madison re- lied as well on Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia, which mentioned, as one example of the dangerous concen- tration of governmental powers into the hands of the legisla- ture, that "the Legislature . . . in many instances decided rights which should have been left to judiciary controversy." Id., at 336 (emphasis deleted).4 If the need for separation of legislative from judicial power was plain, the principal effect to be accomplished by that separation was even plainer. As Hamilton wrote in his exe- gesis of Article III, § 1, in The Federalist No. 81: "It is not true . . . that the parliament of Great Britain, or the legislatures of the particular states, can rectify the exceptionable decisions of their respective courts, in any other sense than might be done by a future legisla- ture of the United States. The theory neither of the British, nor the state constitutions, authorises the re- visal of a judicial sentence, by a legislative act. . . . A legislature without exceeding its province cannot re- verse a determination once made, in a particular case; though it may prescribe a new rule for future cases." The Federalist No. 81, p. 545 (J. Cooke ed. 1961). The essential balance created by this allocation of authority was a simple one. The Legislature would be possessed of power to "prescrib[e] the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated," but the power of "[t]he interpretation of the laws" would be "the proper and peculiar province of the courts." Id., No. 78, at 523, 525. 4 Read in the abstract these public pronouncements might be taken, as the Solicitor General does take them, see Brief for United States 28­30, to disapprove only the practice of having the legislature itself sit as a court of original or appellate jurisdiction. But against the backdrop of history, that reading is untenable. Many, perhaps a plurality, of the instances of legislative equity in the period before the framing simply involved duly enacted laws that nullified judgments so that new trials or judicial rulings on the merits could take place. See supra, at 219. 514us1$41k 05-27-98 15:19:40 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 211 (1995) 223 Opinion of the Court See also Corwin, The Doctrine of Judicial Review, at 42. The Judiciary would be, "from the nature of its functions, . . . the [department] least dangerous to the political rights of the constitution," not because its acts were subject to legislative correction, but because the binding effect of its acts was lim- ited to particular cases and controversies. Thus, "though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter: . . . so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislative and execu- tive." The Federalist No. 78, at 522, 523. Judicial decisions in the period immediately after ratifica- tion of the Constitution confirm the understanding that it forbade interference with the final judgments of courts. In Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386 (1798), the Legislature of Connect- icut had enacted a statute that set aside the final judgment of a state court in a civil case. Although the issue before this Court was the construction of the Ex Post Facto Clause, Art. I, § 10, Justice Iredell (a leading Federalist who had guided the Constitution to ratification in North Carolina) noted that "the Legislature of [Connecticut] has been in the uni- form, uninterrupted, habit of exercising a general super- intending power over its courts of law, by granting new trials. It may, indeed, appear strange to some of us, that in any form, there should exist a power to grant, with respect to suits depending or adjudged, new rights of trial, new privileges of proceeding, not previously rec- ognized and regulated by positive institutions . . . . The power . . . is judicial in its nature; and whenever it is exercised, as in the present instance, it is an exercise of judicial, not of legislative, authority." Id., at 398. The state courts of the era showed a similar understanding of the separation of powers, in decisions that drew little dis- tinction between the federal and state constitutions. To 514us1$41k 05-27-98 15:19:40 PAGES OPINPGT 224 PLAUT v. SPENDTHRIFT FARM, INC. Opinion of the Court choose one representative example from a multitude: In Bates v. Kimball, 2 Chipman 77 (Vt. 1824), a special Act of the Vermont Legislature authorized a party to appeal from the judgment of a court even though, under the general law, the time for appeal had expired. The court, noting that the unappealed judgment had become final, set itself the ques- tion "Have the Legislature power to vacate or annul an exist- ing judgment between party and party?" Id., at 83. The answer was emphatic: "The necessity of a distinct and sepa- rate existence of the three great departments of government . . . had been proclaimed and enforced by . . . Blackstone, Jefferson and Madison," and had been "sanctioned by the people of the United States, by being adopted in terms more or less explicit, into all their written constitutions." Id., at 84. The power to annul a final judgment, the court held (citing Hayburn's Case, 2 Dall., at 410), was "an assumption of Judicial power," and therefore forbidden. Bates v. Kim- ball, supra, at 90. For other examples, see Merrill v. Sher- burne, 1 N. H. 199 (1818) (legislature may not vacate a final judgment and grant a new trial); Lewis v. Webb, 3 Greenleaf 299 (Me. 1825) (same); T. Cooley, Constitutional Limitations 95­96 (1868) (collecting cases); J. Sutherland, Statutory Con- struction 18­19 (J. Lewis ed. 1904) (same). By the middle of the 19th century, the constitutional equi- librium created by the separation of the legislative power to make general law from the judicial power to apply that law in particular cases was so well understood and accepted that it could survive even Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1857). In his First Inaugural Address, President Lincoln explained why the political branches could not, and need not, interfere with even that infamous judgment: "I do not forget the position assumed by some, that con- stitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court; nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case, upon the parties to a suit, as to the object of that suit . . . . And while it is obviously possible that 514us1$41k 05-27-98 15:19:40 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 211 (1995) 225 Opinion of the Court such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particu- lar case, with the chance that it may be over-ruled, and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice." 4 R. Basler, The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln 268 (1953) (First Inaugural Address 1861). And the great constitutional scholar Thomas Cooley ad- dressed precisely the question before us in his 1868 treatise: "If the legislature cannot thus indirectly control the action of the courts, by requiring of them a construction of the law according to its own views, it is very plain it cannot do so directly, by setting aside their judgments, compelling them to grant new trials, ordering the dis- charge of offenders, or directing what particular steps shall be taken in the progress of a judicial inquiry." Cooley, supra, at 94­95. B Section 27A(b) effects a clear violation of the separation- of-powers principle we have just discussed. It is, of course, retroactive legislation, that is, legislation that prescribes what the law was at an earlier time, when the act whose effect is controlled by the legislation occurred-in this case, the filing of the initial Rule 10b­5 action in the District Court. When retroactive legislation requires its own appli- cation in a case already finally adjudicated, it does no more and no less than "reverse a determination once made, in a particular case." The Federalist No. 81, at 545. Our deci- sions stemming from Hayburn's Case-although their pre- cise holdings are not strictly applicable here, see supra, at 218-have uniformly provided fair warning that such an act exceeds the powers of Congress. See, e. g., Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Inc., 333 U. S., at 113 ("Judgments within the powers vested in courts by the Judiciary Article 514us1$41k 05-27-98 15:19:40 PAGES OPINPGT 226 PLAUT v. SPENDTHRIFT FARM, INC. Opinion of the Court of the Constitution may not lawfully be revised, overturned or refused faith and credit by another Department of Gov- ernment"); United States v. O'Grady, 22 Wall. 641, 647­648 (1875) ("Judicial jurisdiction implies the power to hear and determine a cause, and . . . Congress cannot subject the judg- ments of the Supreme Court to the re-examination and revi- sion of any other tribunal"); Gordon v. United States, 117 U. S. Appx. 697, 700­704 (1864) (opinion of Taney, C. J.) (judgments of Article III courts are "final and conclusive upon the rights of the parties"); Hayburn's Case, 2 Dall., at 411 (opinion of Wilson and Blair, JJ., and Peters, D. J.) ("[R]evision and control" of Article III judgments is "radi- cally inconsistent with the independence of that judicial power which is vested in the courts"); id., at 413 (opinion of Iredell, J., and Sitgreaves, D. J.) ("[N]o decision of any court of the United States can, under any circumstances, . . . be liable to a revision, or even suspension, by the [l]egislature itself, in whom no judicial power of any kind appears to be vested"). See also Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co., 18 How. 421, 431 (1856) ("[I]t is urged, that the act of congress cannot have the effect and operation to annul the judgment of the court already rendered, or the rights determined thereby . . . . This, as a general proposition, is certainly not to be denied, especially as it respects adjudica- tion upon the private rights of parties. When they have passed into judgment the right becomes absolute, and it is the duty of the court to enforce it"). Today those clear statements must either be honored, or else proved false. It is true, as petitioners contend, that Congress can always revise the judgments of Article III courts in one sense: When a new law makes clear that it is retroactive, an appel- late court must apply that law in reviewing judgments still on appeal that were rendered before the law was enacted, and must alter the outcome accordingly. See United States v. Schooner Peggy, 1 Cranch 103 (1801); Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U. S. 244, 273­280 (1994). Since that is 514us1$41k 05-27-98 15:19:40 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 211 (1995) 227 Opinion of the Court so, petitioners argue, federal courts must apply the "new" law created by § 27A(b) in finally adjudicated cases as well; for the line that separates lower court judgments that are pending on appeal (or may still be appealed), from lower court judgments that are final, is determined by statute, see, e. g., 28 U. S. C. § 2107(a) (30-day time limit for appeal to fed- eral court of appeals), and so cannot possibly be a constitu- tional line. But a distinction between judgments from which all appeals have been forgone or completed, and judg- ments that remain on appeal (or subject to being appealed), is implicit in what Article III creates: not a batch of uncon- nected courts, but a judicial department composed of "infe- rior Courts" and "one supreme Court." Within that hierar- chy, the decision of an inferior court is not (unless the time for appeal has expired) the final word of the department as a whole. It is the obligation of the last court in the hierar- chy that rules on the case to give effect to Congress's latest enactment, even when that has the effect of overturning the judgment of an inferior court, since each court, at every level, must "decide according to existing laws." Schooner Peggy, supra, at 109. Having achieved finality, however, a judicial decision becomes the last word of the judicial depart- ment with regard to a particular case or controversy, and Congress may not declare by retroactive legislation that the law applicable to that very case was something other than what the courts said it was. Finality of a legal judgment is determined by statute, just as entitlement to a government benefit is a statutory creation; but that no more deprives the former of its constitutional significance for separation-of- powers analysis than it deprives the latter of its significance for due process purposes. See, e. g., Cleveland Bd. of Ed. v. Loudermill, 470 U. S. 532 (1985); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U. S. 215 (1976). To be sure, § 27A(b) reopens (or directs the reopening of) final judgments in a whole class of cases rather than in a particular suit. We do not see how that makes any differ- 514us1$41k 05-27-98 15:19:40 PAGES OPINPGT 228 PLAUT v. SPENDTHRIFT FARM, INC. Opinion of the Court ence. The separation-of-powers violation here, if there is any, consists of depriving judicial judgments of the conclu- sive effect that they had when they were announced, not of acting in a manner-viz., with particular rather than general effect-that is unusual (though, we must note, not impossi- ble) for a legislature. To be sure, a general statute such as this one may reduce the perception that legislative interfer- ence with judicial judgments was prompted by individual fa- voritism; but it is legislative interference with judicial judg- ments nonetheless. Not favoritism, nor even corruption, but power is the object of the separation-of-powers prohibi- tion. The prohibition is violated when an individual final judgment is legislatively rescinded for even the very best of reasons, such as the legislature's genuine conviction (sup- ported by all the law professors in the land) that the judg- ment was wrong; and it is violated 40 times over when 40 final judgments are legislatively dissolved. It is irrelevant as well that the final judgments reopened by § 27A(b) rested on the bar of a statute of limitations. The rules of finality, both statutory and judge made, treat a dis- missal on statute-of-limitations grounds the same way they treat a dismissal for failure to state a claim, for failure to prove substantive liability, or for failure to prosecute: as a judgment on the merits. See, e. g., Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 41(b); United States v. Oppenheimer, 242 U. S. 85, 87­88 (1916). Petitioners suggest, directly or by implication, two reasons why a merits judgment based on this particular ground may be uniquely subject to congressional nullifica- tion. First, there is the fact that the length and indeed even the very existence of a statute of limitations upon a federal cause of action is entirely subject to congressional control. But virtually all of the reasons why a final judgment on the merits is rendered on a federal claim are subject to congres- sional control. Congress can eliminate, for example, a par- ticular element of a cause of action that plaintiffs have found it difficult to establish; or an evidentiary rule that has often 514us1$41k 05-27-98 15:19:40 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 211 (1995) 229 Opinion of the Court excluded essential testimony; or a rule of offsetting wrong (such as contributory negligence) that has often prevented recovery. To distinguish statutes of limitations on the ground that they are mere creatures of Congress is to distin- guish them not at all. The second supposedly distinguishing characteristic of a statute of limitations is that it can be ex- tended, without violating the Due Process Clause, after the cause of the action arose and even after the statute itself has expired. See, e. g., Chase Securities Corp. v. Donaldson, 325 U. S. 304 (1945). But that also does not set statutes of limitations apart. To mention only one other broad cate- gory of judgment-producing legal rule: Rules of pleading and proof can similarly be altered after the cause of action arises, Landgraf v. USI Film Products, supra, at 275, and n. 29, and even, if the statute clearly so requires, after they have been applied in a case but before final judgment has been entered. Petitioners' principle would therefore lead to the conclusion that final judgments rendered on the basis of a stringent (or, alternatively, liberal) rule of pleading or proof may be set aside for retrial under a new liberal (or, alterna- tively, stringent) rule of pleading or proof. This alone pro- vides massive scope for undoing final judgments and would substantially subvert the doctrine of separation of powers. The central theme of the dissent is a variant on these argu- ments. The dissent maintains that Lampf "announced" a new statute of limitations, post, at 246, in an act of "judicial . . . lawmaking," post, at 247, that "changed the law," post, at 250. That statement, even if relevant, would be wrong. The point decided in Lampf had never before been addressed by this Court, and was therefore an open question, no matter what the lower courts had held at the time. But the more important point is that Lampf as such is irrelevant to this case. The dissent itself perceives that "[w]e would have the same issue to decide had Congress enacted the Lampf rule," and that the Lampf rule's genesis in judicial lawmaking rather than, shall we say, legislative lawmaking, "should not 514us1$41k 05-27-98 15:19:40 PAGES OPINPGT 230 PLAUT v. SPENDTHRIFT FARM, INC. Opinion of the Court affect the separation-of-powers analysis." Post, at 247. Just so. The issue here is not the validity or even the source of the legal rule that produced the Article III judgments, but rather the immunity from legislative abrogation of those judgments themselves. The separation-of-powers question before us has nothing to do with Lampf, and the dissent's attack on Lampf has nothing to do with the question before us. C Apart from the statute we review today, we know of no instance in which Congress has attempted to set aside the final judgment of an Article III court by retroactive legis- lation. That prolonged reticence would be amazing if such interference were not understood to be constitutionally pro- scribed. The closest analogue that the Government has been able to put forward is the statute at issue in United States v. Sioux Nation, 448 U. S. 371 (1980). That law re- quired the Court of Claims, " `[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law . . . [to] review on the merits, without re- gard to the defense of res judicata or collateral estoppel,' " a Sioux claim for just compensation from the United States- even though the Court of Claims had previously heard and rejected that very claim. We considered and rejected separation-of-powers objections to the statute based upon Hayburn's Case and United States v. Klein. See 448 U. S., at 391­392. The basis for our rejection was a line of prece- dent (starting with Cherokee Nation v. United States, 270 U. S. 476 (1926)) that stood, we said, for the proposition that "Congress has the power to waive the res judicata effect of a prior judgment entered in the Government's favor on a claim against the United States." Sioux Nation, 448 U. S., at 397. And our holding was as narrow as the precedent on which we had relied: "In sum, . . . Congress' mere waiver of the res judicata effect of a prior judicial decision rejecting the validity of a legal claim against the United States does 514us1$41k 05-27-98 15:19:40 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 211 (1995) 231 Opinion of the Court not violate the doctrine of separation of powers." Id., at 407.5 The Solicitor General suggests that even if Sioux Nation is read in accord with its holding, it nonetheless establishes that Congress may require Article III courts to reopen their final judgments, since "if res judicata were compelled by Ar- ticle III to safeguard the structural independence of the courts, the doctrine would not be subject to waiver by any party litigant." Brief for United States 27 (citing Commod- ity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Schor, 478 U. S. 833, 850­851 (1986)). But the proposition that legal defenses based upon doctrines central to the courts' structural independence can never be waived simply does not accord with our cases. Certainly one such doctrine consists of the "judicial Power" to disregard an unconstitutional statute, see Marbury, 1 Cranch, at 177; yet none would suggest that a litigant may never waive the defense that a statute is unconstitutional. See, e. g., G. D. Searle & Co. v. Cohn, 455 U. S. 404, 414 (1982). What may follow from our holding that the judicial power unalterably includes the power to render final judgments is not that waivers of res judicata are always impermissible, but rather that, as many Federal Courts of Appeals have held, waivers of res judicata need not always be accepted- that trial courts may in appropriate cases raise the res judi- cata bar on their own motion. See, e. g., Coleman v. Ra- mada Hotel Operating Co., 933 F. 2d 470, 475 (CA7 1991); In re Medomak Canning, 922 F. 2d 895, 904 (CA1 1990); Hol- loway Constr. Co. v. United States Dept. of Labor, 891 F. 2d 1211, 1212 (CA6 1989). Waiver subject to the control of the 5 The dissent quotes a passage from the opinion saying that Congress " `only was providing a forum so that a new judicial review of the Black Hills claim could take place.' " Post, at 256 (quoting 448 U. S., at 407). That is quite consistent with the res judicata holding. Any party who waives the defense of res judicata provides a forum for a new judicial review. 514us1$41k 05-27-98 15:19:40 PAGES OPINPGT 232 PLAUT v. SPENDTHRIFT FARM, INC. Opinion of the Court courts themselves would obviously raise no issue of separa- tion of powers, and would be precisely in accord with the language of the decision that the Solicitor General relies upon. We held in Schor that, although a litigant had con- sented to bring a state-law counterclaim before an Article I tribunal, 478 U. S., at 849, we would nonetheless choose to consider his Article III challenge, because "when these Arti- cle III limitations are at issue, notions of consent and waiver cannot be dispositive," id., at 851 (emphasis added). See also Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U. S. 868, 878­879 (1991) (finding a "rare cas[e] in which we should exercise our discre- tion" to hear a waived claim based on the Appointments Clause, Art. II, § 2, cl. 2).6 Petitioners also rely on a miscellany of decisions upholding legislation that altered rights fixed by the final judgments of non-Article III courts, see, e. g., Sampeyreac v. United States, 7 Pet. 222, 238 (1833); Freeborn v. Smith, 2 Wall. 160 (1865), or administrative agencies, Paramino Lumber Co. v. Marshall, 309 U. S. 370 (1940), or that altered the prospec- tive effect of injunctions entered by Article III courts, Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co., 18 How., at 421. These cases distinguish themselves; nothing in our holding today calls them into question. Petitioners rely on general state- ments from some of these cases that legislative annulment of final judgments is not an exercise of judicial power. But even if it were our practice to decide cases by weight of prior dicta, we would find the many dicta that reject congressional 6 The statute at issue in United States v. Sioux Nation, 448 U. S. 371 (1980), seemingly prohibited courts from raising the res judicata defense sua sponte. See id., at 432­433 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting). The Court did not address that point; as far as appears it saw no reason to raise the defense on its own. Of course the unexplained silences of our decisions lack precedential weight. See, e. g., Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U. S. 619, 630­631 (1993). 514us1$41k 05-27-98 15:19:40 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 211 (1995) 233 Opinion of the Court power to revise the judgments of Article III courts to be the more instructive authority. See supra, at 225­226.7 Finally, petitioners liken § 27A(b) to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which authorizes courts to relieve parties from a final judgment for grounds such as excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud, or "any other reason justi- fying relief . . . ." We see little resemblance. Rule 60(b), which authorizes discretionary judicial revision of judgments in the listed situations and in other " `extraordinary circum- stances,' " Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U. S. 847, 864 (1988), does not impose any legislative mandate to reopen upon the courts, but merely reflects and 7 The dissent tries to turn the dicta of the territorial-court cases, Sam- peyreac and Freeborn, into holdings. It says of Sampeyreac that "the relevant judicial power that the [challenged] statute arguably supplanted was this Court's Article III appellate jurisdiction." Post, at 253. Even if it were true that the judicial power under discussion was that of this Court (which is doubtful), the point could still not possibly constitute a holding, since there was no "supplanted power" at issue in the case. One of the principal grounds of decision was that the finality of the territorial court's decree had not been retroactively abrogated. The decree had been entered under a previous statute which provided that a decree "shall be final and conclusive between the parties." Sampeyreac v. United States, 7 Pet., at 239 (emphasis in original). The asserted basis for re- opening was fraud, in that Sampeyreac did not actually exist. We rea- soned that "as Sampeyreac was a fictitious person, he was no party to the decree, and the act [under which the decree had allegedly become final] in strictness does not apply to the case." Ibid. The dissent likewise says of Freeborn that "the `judicial power' to which the opinion referred was this Court's Article III appellate jurisdiction." Post, at 255. Once again, even if it was, the point remains dictum. No final judgment was at issue in Freeborn. The challenged statute reached only " `cases of appeal or writ of error heretofore prosecuted and now pending in the supreme court of the United States,' " see post, at 254, n. 7 (quoting 13 Stat. 441) (emphasis added). As we have explained, see supra, at 226, Congress may require (insofar as separation-of-powers limi- tations are concerned) that new statutes be applied in cases not yet final but still pending on appeal. 514us1$41k 05-27-98 15:19:40 PAGES OPINPGT 234 PLAUT v. SPENDTHRIFT FARM, INC. Opinion of the Court confirms the courts' own inherent and discretionary power, "firmly established in English practice long before the foun- dation of our Republic," to set aside a judgment whose en- forcement would work inequity. Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U. S. 238, 244 (1944). Thus, Rule 60(b), and the tradition that it embodies, would be relevant refutation of a claim that reopening a final judgment is al- ways a denial of property without due process; but they are irrelevant to the claim that legislative instruction to reopen impinges upon the independent constitutional authority of the courts. The dissent promises to provide "[a] few contemporary ex- amples" of statutes retroactively requiring final judgments to be reopened, "to demonstrate that [such statutes] are ordi- nary products of the exercise of legislative power." Post, at 256. That promise is not kept. The relevant retroactivity, of course, consists not of the requirement that there be set aside a judgment that has been rendered prior to its being setting aside-for example, a statute passed today which says that all default judgments rendered in the future may be reopened within 90 days after their entry. In that sense, all requirements to reopen are "retroactive," and the desig- nation is superfluous. Nothing we say today precludes a law such as that. The finality that a court can pronounce is no more than what the law in existence at the time of judgment will permit it to pronounce. If the law then applicable says that the judgment may be reopened for certain reasons, that limitation is built into the judgment itself, and its finality is so conditioned. The present case, however, involves a judg- ment that Congress subjected to a reopening requirement which did not exist when the judgment was pronounced. The dissent provides not a single clear prior instance of such congressional action. The dissent cites, first, Rule 60(b), which it describes as a "familiar remedial measure." Ibid. As we have just dis- cussed, Rule 60(b) does not provide a new remedy at all, but 514us1$41k 05-27-98 15:19:40 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 211 (1995) 235 Opinion of the Court is simply the recitation of pre-existing judicial power. The same is true of another of the dissent's examples, 28 U. S. C. § 2255, which provides federal prisoners a statutory motion to vacate a federal sentence. This procedure " `restates, clarifies and simplifies the procedure in the nature of the ancient writ of error coram nobis.' " United States v. Hay- man, 342 U. S. 205, 218 (1952) (quoting the 1948 Reviser's Note to § 2255). It is meaningless to speak of these statutes as applying "retroactively," since they simply codified judi- cial practice that pre-existed. Next, the dissent cites the provision of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 1178, 50 U. S. C. App. § 520(4), which authorizes courts, upon application, to reopen judgments against mem- bers of the Armed Forces entered while they were on active duty. It could not be clearer, however, that this provision was not retroactive. It says: "If any judgment shall be ren- dered in any action or proceeding governed by this section against any person in military service during the period of such service . . . such judgment may . . . be opened . . . ." (Emphasis added.) The dissent also cites, post, at 258, a provision of the Hand- icapped Children's Protection Act of 1986, 82 Stat. 901, 20 U. S. C. § 1415(e)(4)(B) (1988 ed. and Supp. V), which pro- vided for the award of attorney's fees under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, 89 Stat. 773, 20 U. S. C. § 1411 et seq. (1988 ed. and Supp. V). This changed the law regarding attorney's fees under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, after our decision in Smith v. Robinson, 468 U. S. 992 (1984), found such fees to be unavail- able. The provision of the Statutes at Large adopting this amendment to the United States Code specified, in effect, that it would apply not only to proceedings brought after its enactment, but also to proceedings pending at the time of, or brought after, the decision in Smith. See 100 Stat. 798. The amendment says nothing about reopening final judg- ments, and the retroactivity provision may well mean noth- 514us1$41k 05-27-98 15:19:40 PAGES OPINPGT 236 PLAUT v. SPENDTHRIFT FARM, INC. Opinion of the Court ing more than that it applies not merely to new suits com- menced after the date of its enactment, but also to previously filed (but not yet terminated) suits of the speci- fied sort. This interpretation would be consistent with the only case the dissent cites, which involved a court-entered consent decree not yet fully executed. Counsel v. Dow, 849 F. 2d 731, 734, 738­739 (CA2 1988). Alternatively, the statute can perhaps be understood to create a new cause of action for attorney's fees attributable to already concluded litigation. That would create no separation-of-powers prob- lem, and would be consistent with this Court's view that "[a]ttorney's fee determinations . . . are `collateral to the main cause of action' and `uniquely separable from the cause of action to be proved at trial.' " Landgraf v. USI Film Prod- ucts, 511 U. S., at 277 (quoting White v. New Hampshire Dept. of Employment Security, 455 U. S. 445, 451­452 (1982)).8 The dissent's perception that retroactive reopening provi- sions are to be found all about us is perhaps attributable to its inversion of the statutory presumption regarding retroac- tivity. Thus, it asserts that Rule 60(b) must be retroactive, since "[n]ot a single word in its text suggests that it does not apply to judgments entered prior to its effective date." 8 Even the dissent's scouring the 50 States for support has proved unpro- ductive. It cites statutes from five States, post, at 258­259, nn. 12­13. Four of those statutes involve a virtually identical provision, which per- mits the state-chartered entity that takes over an insolvent insurance com- pany to apply to have any of the insurer's default judgments set aside. See Del. Code Ann., Tit. 18, § 4418 (1989); Fla. Stat. § 631.734 (1984); N. Y. Ins. Law § 7717 (McKinney Supp. 1995); 40 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 991.1716 (Supp. 1994). It is not at all clear, indeed it seems to us unlikely, that these statutes applied retroactively, to judgments that were final before enactment of the scheme that created the state-chartered entity. The last statute involves a discretionary procedure for allowing appeal by pro se litigants, Va. Code Ann. § 8.01­428(C) (Supp. 1994). It is obvious that the provision did not apply retroactively, to judgments rendered before the procedures were established. 514us1$41k 05-27-98 15:19:40 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 211 (1995) 237 Opinion of the Court Post, at 256­257. This reverses the traditional rule, con- firmed only last Term, that statutes do not apply retroac- tively unless Congress expressly states that they do. See Landgraf, supra, at 277­280. The dissent adds that "the traditional construction of remedial measures . . . support[s] construing [Rule 60(b)] to apply to past as well as future judgments." Post, at 257. But reliance on the vaguely re- medial purpose of a statute to defeat the presumption against retroactivity was rejected in the companion cases of Landgraf, see 511 U. S., at 284­286, and n. 37, and Rivers v. Roadway Express, 511 U. S., at 309­313. Cf. Landgraf, supra, at 297 (Blackmun, J., dissenting) ("This presumption [against retroactive legislation] need not be applied to reme- dial legislation . . .") (citing Sampeyreac, 7 Pet., at 238). The dissent sets forth a number of hypothetical horribles flowing from our assertedly "rigid holding"-for example, the inability to set aside a civil judgment that has become final during a period when a natural disaster prevented the timely filing of a certiorari petition. Post, at 262. That is horrible not because of our holding, but because the underly- ing statute itself enacts a "rigid" jurisdictional bar to enter- taining untimely civil petitions. Congress could undoubt- edly enact prospective legislation permitting, or indeed requiring, this Court to make equitable exceptions to an oth- erwise applicable rule of finality, just as district courts do pursuant to Rule 60(b). It is no indication whatever of the invalidity of the constitutional rule which we announce, that it produces unhappy consequences when a legislature lacks foresight, and acts belatedly to remedy a deficiency in the law. That is a routine result of constitutional rules. See, e. g., Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U. S. 37 (1990) (Ex Post Facto Clause precludes postoffense statutory extension of a criminal sentence); United States Trust Co. of N. Y. v. New Jersey, 431 U. S. 1 (1977) (Contract Clause prevents retroac- tive alteration of contract with state bondholders); Louis- ville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford, 295 U. S. 555, 589­ 514us1$41k 05-27-98 15:19:40 PAGES OPINPGT 238 PLAUT v. SPENDTHRIFT FARM, INC. Opinion of the Court 590, 601­602 (1935) (Takings Clause invalidates a bankruptcy law that abrogates a vested property interest). See also United States v. Security Industrial Bank, 459 U. S. 70, 78 (1982). Finally, we may respond to the suggestion of the concur- rence that this case should be decided more narrowly. The concurrence is willing to acknowledge only that "sometimes Congress lacks the power under Article I to reopen an other- wise closed court judgment," post, at 240­241. In the pres- ent context, what it considers critical is that § 27A(b) is "exclusively retroactive" and "appli[es] to a limited number of individuals." Post, at 241. If Congress had only "pro- vid[ed] some of the assurances against `singling out' that ordinary legislative activity normally provides-say, pros- pectivity and general applicability-we might have a dif- ferent case." Post, at 243. This seems to us wrong in both fact and law. In point of fact, § 27A(b) does not "single out" any defendant for ad- verse treatment (or any plaintiff for favorable treatment). Rather, it identifies a class of actions (those filed pre-Lampf, timely under applicable state law, but dismissed as time barred post-Lampf ) which embraces many plaintiffs and de- fendants, the precise number and identities of whom we even now do not know. The concurrence's contention that the number of covered defendants "is too small (compared with the number of similar, uncovered firms) to distinguish meaningfully the law before us from a similar law aimed at a single closed case," post, at 244 (emphasis added), renders the concept of "singling out" meaningless. More importantly, however, the concurrence's point seems to us wrong in law. To be sure, the class of actions identified by § 27A(b) could have been more expansive (e. g., all actions that were or could have been filed pre-Lampf ) and the provi- sion could have been written to have prospective as well as retroactive effect (e. g., "all post-Lampf dismissed actions, plus all future actions under Rule 10b­5, shall be timely if brought within 30 years of the injury"). But it escapes us 514us1$41k 05-27-98 15:19:40 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 211 (1995) 239 Opinion of the Court how this could in any way cause the statute to be any less an infringement upon the judicial power. The nub of that infringement consists not of the Legislature's acting in a par- ticularized and hence (according to the concurrence) nonleg- islative fashion; 9 but rather of the Legislature's nullifying prior, authoritative judicial action. It makes no difference whatever to that separation-of-powers violation that it is in gross rather than particularized (e. g., "we hereby set aside all hitherto entered judicial orders"), or that it is not accom- panied by an "almost" violation of the Bill of Attainder Clause, or an "almost" violation of any other constitutional provision. Ultimately, the concurrence agrees with our judgment only "[b]ecause the law before us embodies risks of the very sort that our Constitution's `separation of powers' prohibition seeks to avoid." Post, at 246. But the doctrine of separa- tion of powers is a structural safeguard rather than a rem- edy to be applied only when specific harm, or risk of specific harm, can be identified. In its major features (of which the conclusiveness of judicial judgments is assuredly one) it is a prophylactic device, establishing high walls and clear distinc- tions because low walls and vague distinctions will not be judicially defensible in the heat of interbranch conflict. It is interesting that the concurrence quotes twice, and cites with- out quotation a third time, the opinion of Justice Powell in 9 The premise that there is something wrong with particularized legis- lative action is of course questionable. While legislatures usually act through laws of general applicability, that is by no means their only legiti- mate mode of action. Private bills in Congress are still common, and were even more so in the days before establishment of the Claims Court. Even laws that impose a duty or liability upon a single individual or firm are not on that account invalid-or else we would not have the extensive jurisprudence that we do concerning the Bill of Attainder Clause, includ- ing cases which say that it requires not merely "singling out" but also punishment, see, e. g., United States v. Lovett, 328 U. S. 303, 315­318 (1946), and a case which says that Congress may legislate "a legitimate class of one," Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U. S. 425, 472 (1977). 514us1$41k 05-27-98 15:19:40 PAGES OPINPGT 240 PLAUT v. SPENDTHRIFT FARM, INC. Breyer, J., concurring in judgment INS v. Chadha, 462 U. S., at 959. But Justice Powell wrote only for himself in that case. He alone expressed dismay that "[t]he Court's decision . . . apparently will invalidate every use of the legislative veto," and opined that "[t]he breadth of this holding gives one pause." Ibid. It did not give pause to the six-Justice majority, which put an end to the long-simmering interbranch dispute that would other- wise have been indefinitely prolonged. We think legislated invalidation of judicial judgments deserves the same categor- ical treatment accorded by Chadha to congressional invalida- tion of executive action. The delphic alternative suggested by the concurrence (the setting aside of judgments is all right so long as Congress does not "impermissibly tr[y] to apply, as well as make, the law," post, at 241) simply pro- longs doubt and multiplies confrontation. Separation of powers, a distinctively American political doctrine, profits from the advice authored by a distinctively American poet: Good fences make good neighbors. * * * We know of no previous instance in which Congress has enacted retroactive legislation requiring an Article III court to set aside a final judgment, and for good reason. The Con- stitution's separation of legislative and judicial powers denies it the authority to do so. Section 27A(b) is unconstitutional to the extent that it requires federal courts to reopen final judgments entered before its enactment. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. It is so ordered. Justice Breyer, concurring in the judgment. I agree with the majority that § 27A(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U. S. C. § 78aa­1 (1988 ed., Supp. V) (hereinafter § 27A(b)) is unconstitutional. In my view, the separation of powers inherent in our Constitution means that at least sometimes Congress lacks the power under Ar- 514us1$41q 05-27-98 15:19:40 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 211 (1995) 241 Breyer, J., concurring in judgment ticle I to reopen an otherwise closed court judgment. And the statutory provision here at issue, § 27A(b), violates a basic "separation-of-powers" principle-one intended to pro- tect individual liberty. Three features of this law-its ex- clusively retroactive effect, its application to a limited num- ber of individuals, and its reopening of closed judgments- taken together, show that Congress here impermissibly tried to apply, as well as make, the law. Hence, § 27A(b) falls outside the scope of Article I. But, it is far less clear, and unnecessary for the purposes of this case to decide, that sep- aration of powers "is violated" whenever an "individual final judgment is legislatively rescinded" or that it is "violated 40 times over when 40 final judgments are legislatively dis- solved." See ante, at 228. I therefore write separately. The majority provides strong historical evidence that Con- gress lacks the power simply to reopen, and to revise, final judgments in individual cases. See ante, at 219­222. The Framers would have hesitated to lodge in the Legislature both that kind of power and the power to enact general laws, as part of their effort to avoid the "despotic government" that accompanies the "accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands." The Federalist No. 47, p. 241 (J. Gideon ed. 1831) (J. Madison); id., No. 48, at 249 (quoting T. Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia). For one thing, the authoritative application of a general law to a particular case by an independent judge, rather than by the legislature itself, provides an assurance that even an un- fair law at least will be applied evenhandedly according to its terms. See, e. g., 1 Montesquieu, The Spirit of Laws 174 (T. Nugent transl. 1886) (describing one objective of the "sep- aration of powers" as preventing "the same monarch or sen- ate," having "enact[ed] tyrannical laws" from "execut[ing] them in a tyrannical manner"); W. Gwyn, The Meaning of the Separation of Powers 42­43, 104­106 (1965) (discussing historically relevant sources that explain one purpose of sep- aration of powers as helping to assure an "impartial rule of 514us1$41q 05-27-98 15:19:40 PAGES OPINPGT 242 PLAUT v. SPENDTHRIFT FARM, INC. Breyer, J., concurring in judgment law"). For another thing, as Justice Powell has pointed out, the Constitution's "separation-of-powers" principles reflect, in part, the Framers' "concern that a legislature should not be able unilaterally to impose a substantial deprivation on one person." INS v. Chadha, 462 U. S. 919, 962 (1983) (opin- ion concurring in judgment). The Framers "expressed" this principle, both in "specific provisions, such as the Bill of At- tainder Clause," and in the Constitution's "general allocation of power." Ibid.; see United States v. Brown, 381 U. S. 437, 442 (1965) (Bill of Attainder Clause intended to imple- ment the separation of powers, acting as "a general safe- guard against legislative exercise of the judicial function"); Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 136 (1810) (Marshall, C. J.) ("It is the peculiar province of the legislature to prescribe gen- eral rules for the government of society; the application of those rules to individuals in society would seem to be the duty of other departments"); cf. Hurtado v. California, 110 U. S. 516, 535­536 (1884). Despite these two important "separation-of-powers" con- cerns, sometimes Congress can enact legislation that focuses upon a small group, or even a single individual. See, e. g., Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U. S. 425, 468­484 (1977); Selective Service System v. Minnesota Pub- lic Interest Research Group, 468 U. S. 841, 846­856 (1984); Brown, supra, at 453­456. Congress also sometimes passes private legislation. See Chadha, supra, at 966, n. 9 (Powell, J., concurring in judgment) ("When Congress grants particu- lar individuals relief or benefits under its spending power, the danger of oppressive action that the separation of powers was designed to avoid is not implicated"). And, sometimes Congress can enact legislation that, as a practical matter, radically changes the effect of an individual, previously en- tered court decree. See Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Bel- mont Bridge Co., 18 How. 421 (1856). Statutes that apply prospectively and (in part because of that prospectivity) to an open-ended class of persons, however, are more than sim- 514us1$41q 05-27-98 15:19:40 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 211 (1995) 243 Breyer, J., concurring in judgment ply an effort to apply, person by person, a previously enacted law, or to single out for oppressive treatment one, or a hand- ful, of particular individuals. Thus, it seems to me, if Con- gress enacted legislation that reopened an otherwise closed judgment but in a way that mitigated some of the here rele- vant "separation-of-powers" concerns, by also providing some of the assurances against "singling out" that ordinary legislative activity normally provides-say, prospectivity and general applicability-we might have a different case. Cf. Brown, supra, at 461 ("Congress must accomplish [its desired] results by rules of general applicability. It cannot specify the people upon whom the sanction it prescribes is to be levied"). Because such legislation, in light of those mitigating circumstances, might well present a different con- stitutional question, I do not subscribe to the Court's more absolute statement. The statute before us, however, has no such mitigating fea- tures. It reopens previously closed judgments. It is en- tirely retroactive, applying only to those Rule 10b­5 actions actually filed, on or before (but on which final judgments were entered after) June 19, 1991. See 15 U. S. C. § 78j(b) and 17 CFR 240.10b­5 (1994). It lacks generality, for it ap- plies only to a few individual instances. See Hearings on H. R. 3185 before the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance of the House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce, 102d Cong., 1st Sess., 3­4 (1991) (listing, by case name, only 15 cases that had been dismissed on the basis of Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson, 501 U. S. 350 (1991)). And, it is underinclu- sive, for it excludes from its coverage others who, relying upon pre-Lampf limitations law, may have failed to bring timely securities fraud actions against any other of the Na- tion's hundreds of thousands of businesses. I concede that its coverage extends beyond a single individual to many po- tential plaintiffs in these class actions. But because the leg- islation disfavors not plaintiffs but defendants, I should think 514us1$41q 05-27-98 15:19:40 PAGES OPINPGT 244 PLAUT v. SPENDTHRIFT FARM, INC. Breyer, J., concurring in judgment that the latter number is the more relevant. And, that num- ber is too small (compared with the number of similar, uncov- ered firms) to distinguish meaningfully the law before us from a similar law aimed at a single closed case. Nor does the existence of § 27A(a), which applies to Rule 10b­5 actions pending at the time of the legislation, change this conclusion. That provision seems aimed at too few additional individuals to mitigate the low level of generality of § 27A(b). See Hearings on H. R. 3185, supra, at 5­6 (listing 17 cases in which dismissal motions based on Lampf were pending). The upshot is that, viewed in light of the relevant, liberty- protecting objectives of the "separation of powers," this case falls directly within the scope of language in this Court's cases suggesting a restriction on Congress' power to reopen closed court judgments. See, e. g., Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman S. S. Corp., 333 U. S. 103, 113 (1948) ("Judgments within the powers vested in courts by the Judi- ciary Article of the Constitution may not lawfully be revised [or] overturned . . . by another Department of Government"); Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co., supra, at 431 ("[I]f the rem- edy in this case had been an action at law, and a judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff for damages, the right to these would have passed beyond the reach of the power of congress"); Hayburn's Case, 2 Dall. 409, 413 (1792) (letter from Justice Iredell and District Judge Sitgreaves to Presi- dent Washington) ("[N]o decision of any court of the United States can, under any circumstances, in our opinion, agree- able to the Constitution, be liable to a revision, or even sus- pension, by the Legislature itself"). At the same time, because the law before us both reopens final judgments and lacks the liberty-protecting assurances that prospectivity and greater generality would have pro- vided, we need not, and we should not, go further-to make of the reopening itself, an absolute, always determinative distinction, a "prophylactic device," or a foundation for the building of a new "high wal[l]" between the branches. 514us1$41q 05-27-98 15:19:40 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 211 (1995) 245 Breyer, J., concurring in judgment Ante, at 239. Indeed, the unnecessary building of such walls is, in itself, dangerous, because the Constitution blends, as well as separates, powers in its effort to create a government that will work for, as well as protect the liberties of, its citi- zens. See The Federalist No. 48 (J. Madison). That doc- trine does not "divide the branches into watertight compart- ments," nor "establish and divide fields of black and white." Springer v. Philippine Islands, 277 U. S. 189, 209, 211 (1928) (Holmes, J., dissenting); see also Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579, 635 (1952) (Jackson, J., concur- ring) (referring to the need for "workable government"); id., at 596­597 (Frankfurter, J., concurring); Mistretta v. United States, 488 U. S. 361, 381 (1989) (the doctrine does not create a "hermetic division among the Branches" but "a carefully crafted system of checked and balanced power within each Branch"). And, important separation-of-powers decisions of this Court have sometimes turned, not upon absolute distinc- tions, but upon degree. See, e. g., Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 48­54 (1932); A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U. S. 495, 551­555 (1935) (Cardozo, J., con- curring). As the majority invokes the advice of an Ameri- can poet, one might consider as well that poet's caution, for he not only notes that "Something there is that doesn't love a wall," but also writes, "Before I built a wall I'd ask to know/ What I was walling in or walling out." R. Frost, Mending Wall, The New Oxford Book of American Verse 395­396 (R. Ellmann ed. 1976). Finally, I note that the cases the dissent cites are distin- guishable from the one before us. Sampeyreac v. United States, 7 Pet. 222 (1833), considered a law similar to § 27A(b) (it reopened a set of closed judgments in fraud cases), but the Court did not reach the here relevant issue. Rather, the Court rested its conclusion upon the fact that Sampeyreac was not "a real person," while conceding that, were he real, the case "might present a different question." Id., at 238­ 239. Freeborn v. Smith, 2 Wall. 160 (1865), which involved 514us1$41q 05-27-98 15:19:40 PAGES OPINPGT 246 PLAUT v. SPENDTHRIFT FARM, INC. Stevens, J., dissenting an Article I court, upheld a law that applied to all cases pend- ing on appeal (in the Supreme Court) from the territory of Nevada, irrespective of the causes of action at issue or which party was seeking review. See id., at 162. That law had generality, a characteristic that helps to avoid the problem of legislatively singling out a few individuals for adverse treatment. See Chadha, 462 U. S., at 966 (Powell, J., concur- ring in judgment). Neither did United States v. Sioux Na- tion, 448 U. S. 371 (1980), involve legislation that adversely treated a few individuals. Rather, it permitted the reopen- ing of a case against the United States. See id., at 391. Because the law before us embodies risks of the very sort that our Constitution's "separation-of-powers" prohibition seeks to avoid, and because I can find no offsetting legislative safeguards that normally offer assurances that minimize those risks, I agree with the Court's conclusion and I join its judgment. Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Ginsburg joins, dissenting. On December 19, 1991, Congress enacted § 27A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U. S. C. § 78aa­1 (1988 ed., Supp. V) (hereinafter 1991 amendment), to remedy a flaw in the limitations rule this Court announced on June 20, 1991, in Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson, 501 U. S. 350 (1991). In Lampf the Court re- placed the array of state statutes of limitations that had gov- erned shareholder actions under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U. S. C. § 78j(b), and Rule 10b­5, 17 CFR 240.10b­5 (1994) (hereinafter 10b­5 actions), with a uniform federal limitations rule. Congress found only one flaw in the Court's new rule: its failure to exempt pending cases from its operation. Accordingly, without altering the pro- spective effect of the Lampf rule, the 1991 amendment reme- died its flaw by providing that pre-Lampf law should deter- mine the limitations period applicable to all cases that had 514us1$41i 05-27-98 15:19:40 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 211 (1995) 247 Stevens, J., dissenting been pending on June 20, 1991-both those that remained pending on December 19, 1991, when § 27A was enacted, and those that courts dismissed between June 20 and December 19, 1991. Today the Court holds that the 1991 amendment violates the Constitution's separation of powers because, by encompassing the dismissed claims, it requires courts to re- open final judgments in private civil actions. Section 27A is a statutory amendment to a rule of law announced by this Court. The fact that the new rule an- nounced in Lampf was a product of judicial, rather than con- gressional, lawmaking should not affect the separation-of- powers analysis. We would have the same issue to decide had Congress enacted the Lampf rule but, as a result of inad- vertence or perhaps a scrivener's error, failed to exempt pending cases, as is customary when limitations periods are shortened.1 In my opinion, if Congress had retroactively re- stored rights its own legislation had inadvertently or un- fairly impaired, the remedial amendment's failure to exclude dismissed cases from the benefited class would not make it invalid. The Court today faces a materially identical situa- tion and, in my view, reaches the wrong result. Throughout our history, Congress has passed laws that allow courts to reopen final judgments. Such laws charac- teristically apply to judgments entered before as well as after their enactment. When they apply retroactively, they may raise serious due process questions,2 but the Court 1 Our decisions prior to Lampf consistently held that retroactive appli- cation of new, shortened limitations periods would violate "fundamental notions of justified reliance and due process." Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson, 501 U. S. 350, 371 (1991) (O'Connor, J., dissenting); see, e. g., Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U. S. 97 (1971); Saint Francis College v. Al-Khazraji, 481 U. S. 604 (1987). 2 Because the Court finds a separation-of-powers violation, it does not reach respondents' alternative theory that § 27A(b) denied them due proc- ess under the Fifth Amendment, a theory the Court of Appeals did not identify as an alternative ground for its holding. In my judgment, the statute easily survives a due process challenge. Section 27A(b) is ration- 514us1$41i 05-27-98 15:19:40 PAGES OPINPGT 248 PLAUT v. SPENDTHRIFT FARM, INC. Stevens, J., dissenting has never invalidated such a law on separation-of-powers grounds until today. Indeed, only last Term we recognized Congress' ample power to enact a law that "in effect `re- stored' rights that [a party] reasonably and in good faith thought he possessed before the surprising announcement" of a Supreme Court decision. Rivers v. Roadway Express, Inc., 511 U. S. 298, 310 (1994) (discussing Frisbie v. Whitney, 9 Wall. 187 (1870)). We conditioned our unambiguous re- statement of the proposition that "Congress had the power to enact legislation that had the practical effect of restoring the status quo retroactively," 511 U. S., at 310, only on Con- gress' clear expression of its intent to do so. A large class of investors reasonably and in good faith thought they possessed rights of action before the surprising announcement of the Lampf rule on June 20, 1991. When it enacted the 1991 amendment, Congress clearly expressed its intent to restore the rights Lampf had denied the aggrieved class. Section 27A comported fully with Rivers and with other precedents in which we consistently have recognized Congress' power to enact remedial statutes that set aside classes of final judgments. The only remarkable feature of ally related to a legitimate public purpose. Cf., e. g., Concrete Pipe & Products of Cal., Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust for South- ern Cal., 508 U. S. 602, 636­641 (1993). Given the existence of statutes and rules, such as Rule 60(b), that allow courts to reopen apparently "final" judgments in various circumstances, see infra, at 256­259, respondents cannot assert an inviolable "vested right" in the District Court's post- Lampf dismissal of petitioners' claims. In addition, § 27A(b) did not upset any "settled expectations" of respondents. Cf. Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U. S. 244, 266 (1994). In Landgraf, we concluded that Con- gress did not intend § 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U. S. C. § 1981a (1988 ed., Supp. V), to apply retroactively because retroactive application would have placed a new legal burden on past conduct. 511 U. S., at 280­ 286. Before 1991 no one could have relied either on the yet-to-be- announced rule in Lampf or on the Court's unpredictable decision to apply that rule retroactively. All of the reliance interests that ordinarily sup- port a presumption against retroactivity militate in favor of allowing ret- roactive application of § 27A. 514us1$41i 05-27-98 15:19:40 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 211 (1995) 249 Stevens, J., dissenting this enactment is the fact that it remedied a defect in a new judge-made rule rather than in a statute. The familiar history the Court invokes, involving colonial legislatures' ad hoc decisions of individual cases, " `unfettered by rules,' " ante, at 220 (quoting Vermont State Papers 1779­ 1786, p. 540 (Slade ed. 1823)), provides no support for its holding. On the contrary, history and precedent demon- strate that Congress may enact laws that establish both sub- stantive rules and procedures for reopening final judgments. When it enacted the 1991 amendment to the Lampf rule, Congress did not encroach on the judicial power. It decided neither the merits of any 10b­5 claim nor even whether any such claim should proceed to decision on the merits. It did provide that the rule governing the timeliness of 10b­5 ac- tions pending on June 19, 1991, should be the pre-Lampf statute of limitations, and it also established a procedure for Article III courts to apply in determining whether any dis- missed case should be reinstated. Congress' decision to ex- tend that rule and procedure to 10b­5 actions dismissed dur- ing the brief period between this Court's law-changing decision in Lampf and Congress' remedial action is not a sufficient reason to hold the statute unconstitutional. I Respondents conducted a public offering of common stock in 1983. Petitioners, suing on behalf of themselves and other purchasers of the stock, filed a 10b­5 action in 1987 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, alleging violations of substantive federal rules that had been in place since 1934. Respondents moved to dismiss the complaint as untimely because petitioners had filed it more than three years after the events in dispute. At that time, settled law in Kentucky and elsewhere in the United States directed federal courts to determine statutes of limitations applicable to 10b­5 actions by reference to 514us1$41i 05-27-98 15:19:41 PAGES OPINPGT 250 PLAUT v. SPENDTHRIFT FARM, INC. Stevens, J., dissenting state law.3 The relevant Kentucky statute provided a 3- year limitations period,4 which petitioners contended ran from the time the alleged fraud was or should have been discovered. A Magistrate agreed with petitioners and rec- ommended denial of respondents' motion to dismiss, but by 1991 the District Court had not yet ruled on that issue. The factual question whether petitioners should have discovered respondents' alleged 10b­5 violations more than three years before they filed suit remained open for decision by an Arti- cle III judge on June 20, 1991. On that day, this Court's decision in Lampf changed the law. The Court concluded that every 10b­5 action is time barred unless brought within three years of the alleged vio- lation and one year of its discovery. Moreover, it applied that novel rule to pending cases. As Justice O'Connor pointed out in her dissent, the Court held the plaintiffs' suit "time barred under a limitations period that did not exist before," a holding that "depart[ed] drastically from our es- tablished practice and inflict[ed] an injustice on the [plain- tiffs]." Lampf, 501 U. S., at 369.5 The inequitable conse- quences of Lampf reached beyond the parties to that case, 3 "Federal judges have `borrowed' state statutes of limitations because they were directed to do so by the Congress of the United States under the Rules of Decision Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1652." Lampf, 501 U. S., at 367, n. 2 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (citations omitted); see, e. g., Stull v. Bayard, 561 F. 2d 429, 431­432 (CA2 1977), cert. denied, 434 U. S. 1035 (1978); Roberts v. Magnetic Metals Co., 611 F. 2d 450, 456 (CA3 1979); Robuck v. Dean Witter & Co., 649 F. 2d 641, 644 (CA9 1980) (borrowing state statutes of limitations for 10b­5 actions). 4 See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 292.480(3) (Michie 1988). 5 The Lampf opinion drew two other dissents. Justice Kennedy, joined by Justice O'Connor, would have adopted a different substantive limitations rule. See 501 U. S., at 374. Justice Souter and I would have adhered to "four decades of . . . settled law" and maintained the existing regime until Congress enacted a new federal statute of limita- tions. Id., at 366­367 (Stevens, J., dissenting). No one dissented from the proposition that a uniform federal limitations period would be wise policy. 514us1$41i 05-27-98 15:19:41 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 211 (1995) 251 Stevens, J., dissenting injuring a large class of litigants that includes petitioners. Without resolving the factual issue that would have deter- mined the timeliness of petitioners' complaint before Lampf, the District Court dismissed the instant action as untimely under the new limitations period dictated by this Court. Because Lampf had deprived them of any nonfrivolous basis for an appeal, petitioners acquiesced in the dismissal, which therefore became final on September 12, 1991. Congress responded to Lampf by passing § 27A, which be- came effective on December 19, 1991. The statute changed the substantive limitations law, restoring the pre-Lampf lim- itations rule for two categories of 10b­5 actions that had been pending on June 19, 1991. Subsection (a) of § 27A ap- plies to cases that were still pending on December 19, 1991. The Courts of Appeals have uniformly upheld the constitu- tionality of that subsection,6 and its validity is not challenged in this case. Subsection (b) applies to actions, like the in- stant case, that (1) were dismissed after June 19, 1991, and (2) would have been timely under the pre-Lampf regime. This subsection authorized the district courts to reinstate dismissed cases if the plaintiff so moved within 60 days after the effective date of § 27A. The amendment was not self- executing: Unless the plaintiff both filed a timely motion for reinstatement and then satisfied the court that the complaint had been timely filed under applicable pre-Lampf law, the dismissal would remain in effect. In this case petitioners made the required showing, but the District Court refused to reinstate their case. Instead, 6 See Cooperativa de Ahorro y Credito Aguada v. Kidder, Peabody & Co., 993 F. 2d 269 (CA1), cert. pending, No. 93­564; Axel Johnson Inc. v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 6 F. 3d 78 (CA2 1993); Cooke v. Manufactured Homes, Inc., 998 F. 2d 1256 (CA4 1993); Berning v. A. G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 990 F. 2d 272 (CA7 1993); Gray v. First Winthrop Corp., 989 F. 2d 1564 (CA9 1993); Anixter v. Home-Stake Production Co., 977 F. 2d 1533 (CA10 1992), cert. denied sub nom. Dennler v. Trippet, 507 U. S. 1029 (1993); Henderson v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., 971 F. 2d 1567 (CA11 1992), cert. denied, 510 U. S. 828 (1993). 514us1$41i 05-27-98 15:19:41 PAGES OPINPGT 252 PLAUT v. SPENDTHRIFT FARM, INC. Stevens, J., dissenting it held § 27A(b) unconstitutional. 789 F. Supp. 231 (ED Ky. 1992). The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, contrary to an earlier decision of the Fifth Circuit, affirmed. 1 F. 3d 1487 (1993). II Aside from § 27A(b), the Court claims to "know of no in- stance in which Congress has attempted to set aside the final judgment of an Article III court by retroactive legislation." Ante, at 230. In fact, Congress has done so on several occa- sions. Section 27A(b) is part of a remedial statute. As early as 1833, we recognized that a remedial statute author- izing the reopening of a final judgment after the time for appeal has expired is "entirely unexceptionable" even though it operates retroactively. "It has been repeatedly decided in this court, that the retrospective operation of such a law forms no objection to it. Almost every law, providing a new remedy, affects and operates upon causes of action existing at the time the law is passed." Sampeyreac v. United States, 7 Pet. 222, 239 (1833). We have upheld remedial stat- utes that carried no greater cause for separation-of-powers concerns than does § 27A(b); others have provoked no chal- lenges. In contrast, the colonial directives on which the majority relies were nothing like remedial statutes. The remedial 1830 law we construed in Sampeyreac strongly resembled § 27A(b): It authorized a class of litigants to reopen claims, brought under an 1824 statute, that courts had already finally adjudicated. The 1824 statute author- ized proceedings to establish title to certain lands in the State of Missouri and the territory of Arkansas. It provided for an appeal to this Court within one year after the entry of the judgment or decree, "and should no appeal be taken, the judgment or decree of the district court shall in like man- ner be final and conclusive." 7 Pet., at 238. In 1827 the Arkansas Territorial Court entered a decree in favor of one Sampeyreac, over the objection of the United States that the nominal plaintiff was a fictitious person. Because no appeal 514us1$41i 05-27-98 15:19:41 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 211 (1995) 253 Stevens, J., dissenting was taken from that decree, it became final in 1828. In 1830 Congress passed a special statute authorizing the Arkansas court to reopen any decree entered under the 1824 statute if, prior to July 1, 1831, the United States filed a bill of review alleging that the decree had been based on forged evidence of title. The United States filed such a bill and obtained a reversal of the 1827 decree from the Arkansas court. The successors in interest of the fictitious Mr. Sampeyreac argued in this Court that the Arkansas court should not have entertained the Government's bill of review because the 1830 statute "was the exercise of a judicial power, and it is no answer to this objection, that the execution of its provisions is given to a court. The legislature of the union cannot use such a power." Id., at 229. We categorically rejected that argument: "The law of 1830 is in no respect the exercise of judicial powers." Id., at 239. Of course, as the majority notes, ante, at 232­233, the particular decree at stake in Sampeyreac had issued not from an Article III court but from a territorial court. However, our opinion contains no suggestion that Congress' power to authorize the reopening of judgments entered by the Arkansas court was any broader than its power to authorize the reopening of judg- ments entered under the same statute by the United States District Court in Missouri. Moreover, the relevant judicial power that the 1830 statute arguably supplanted was this Court's Article III appellate jurisdiction-which, prior to the 1830 enactment, provided the only avenue for review of the trial courts' judgments. Similarly, in Freeborn v. Smith, 2 Wall. 160 (1865), the Court rejected a challenge to an Act of Congress that re- moved an accidental impediment to the exercise of our appel- late jurisdiction. When Congress admitted Nevada into the Union as a State in March 1864, ch. 36, 13 Stat. 30, it ne- glected to provide for the disposition of pending appeals from final judgments previously entered by the Supreme Court of 514us1$41i 05-27-98 15:19:41 PAGES OPINPGT 254 PLAUT v. SPENDTHRIFT FARM, INC. Stevens, J., dissenting the Nevada Territory. Accordingly, the Freeborn defend- ants in error moved to dismiss a writ of error to the territo- rial court on the ground that we had no power to decide the case. At the suggestion of plaintiffs in error, the Court deferred ruling on the motion until after February 27, 1865, when Congress passed a special statute that authorized the Court to decide this and similar cases.7 Defendants in error renewed their motion, arguing that Congress could not re- open judgments that were already final and unreviewable because Congress was not competent to exercise judicial power. Defendants in error argued that, "[i]f it be possible for a right to attach itself to a judgment, it has done so here, and there could not be a plainer case of an attempt to destroy it by legislative action." 2 Wall., at 165. The Court, however, noted that the omission in the 1864 statute had left the case "in a very anomalous situation," id., at 174, and that passage of the later statute "was absolutely necessary to remove an impediment in the way of any legal proceeding in the case." Id., at 175. It concluded that such "acts are of a remedial character, and are peculiar subjects of legislation. They are not liable to the imputation of being assumptions of judicial power." Ibid. As in Sampeyreac, although Freeborn in- 7 The Act provided, in part: "That all cases of appeal or writ of error heretofore prosecuted and now pending in the supreme court of the United States, upon any record from the supreme court of the Territory of Nevada, may be heard and deter- mined by the supreme court of the United States, and the mandate of execution or of further proceedings shall be directed by the supreme court of the United States to the district court of the United States for the district of Nevada, or to the supreme court of the State of Nevada, as the nature of said appeal or writ of error may require, and each of these courts shall be the successor of the supreme court of Nevada Territory as to all such cases, with full power to hear and determine the same, and to award mesne or final process thereon. . . . Provided, That said appeals shall be prosecuted and said writs of errors sued out at any time before the first day of July, eighteen hundred and sixty-six." Ch. 64, § 8, 13 Stat. 441. 514us1$41i 05-27-98 15:19:41 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 211 (1995) 255 Stevens, J., dissenting volved the review of a judgment entered by a territorial court, the "judicial power" to which the opinion referred was this Court's Article III appellate jurisdiction. If Congress may enact a law authorizing this Court to reopen decisions that we previously lacked power to review, Congress must have the power to let district courts reopen their own judgments. Also apposite is United States v. Sioux Nation, 448 U. S. 371 (1980), which involved the Sioux Nation's longstanding claim that the Government had in 1877 improperly abrogated the treaty by which the Sioux had held title to the Black Hills. The Sioux first brought their claim under a special 1920 jurisdictional statute. The Court of Claims dismissed the suit in 1942, holding that the 1920 Act did not give the court jurisdiction to consider the adequacy of the compensa- tion the Government had paid in 1877. Congress passed a new jurisdictional statute in 1946, and in 1950 the Sioux brought a new action. In 1975 the Court of Claims, al- though acknowledging the merit of the Sioux's claim, held that the res judicata effect of the 1942 dismissal barred the suit. In response, Congress passed a statute in 1978 that authorized the Court of Claims to take new evidence and instructed it to consider the Sioux's claims on the merits, disregarding res judicata. The Sioux finally prevailed. We held that the 1978 Act did not violate the separation of powers. 448 U. S., at 407. The Court correctly notes, see ante, at 230­231, and n. 5, that our opinion in Sioux Nation prominently discussed precedents establishing Congress' power to waive the res judicata effect of judgments against the United States. We never suggested, however, that those precedents sufficed to overcome the separation-of-powers objections raised against the 1978 Act. Instead, we made extensive comments about the propriety of Congress' action that were as necessary to our holding then as they are salient to the Court's analysis today. In passing the 1978 Act, we held, Congress 514us1$41i 05-27-98 15:19:41 PAGES OPINPGT 256 PLAUT v. SPENDTHRIFT FARM, INC. Stevens, J., dissenting "only was providing a forum so that a new judicial re- view of the Black Hills claim could take place. This re- view was to be based on the facts found by the Court of Claims after reviewing all the evidence, and an applica- tion of generally controlling legal principles to those facts. For these reasons, Congress was not reviewing the merits of the Court of Claims' decisions, and did not interfere with the finality of its judgments. "Moreover, Congress in no way attempted to pre- scribe the outcome of the Court of Claims' new review of the merits." 448 U. S., at 407. Congress observed the same boundaries in enacting § 27A(b). Our opinions in Sampeyreac, Freeborn, and Sioux Nation correctly characterize statutes that specify new grounds for the reopening of final judgments as remedial. Moreover, these precedents correctly identify the unremarkable nature of the legislative power to enact remedial statutes. "[A]cts . . . of a remedial character . . . are the peculiar subjects of legislation. They are not liable to the imputation of being assumptions of judicial power." Freeborn, 2 Wall., at 175. A few contemporary examples of such statutes will suffice to demonstrate that they are ordinary products of the exercise of legislative power. The most familiar remedial measure that provides for re- opening of final judgments is Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That Rule both codified common-law grounds for relieving a party from a final judgment and added an encompassing reference to "any other reason justi- fying relief from the operation of the judgment." 8 Not a 8 The full text of Rule 60(b) provides: "On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party's legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), 514us1$41i 05-27-98 15:19:41 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 211 (1995) 257 Stevens, J., dissenting single word in its text suggests that it does not apply to judgments entered prior to its effective date. On the con- trary, the purpose of the Rule, its plain language, and the traditional construction of remedial measures all support construing it to apply to past as well as future judgments. Indeed, because the Rule explicitly abolished the common- law writs it replaced, an unintended gap in the law would have resulted if it did not apply retroactively.9 misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judg- ment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have pro- spective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the oper- ation of the judgment. The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken. A motion under this subdivision (b) does not affect the finality of a judgment or suspend its operation. This rule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, order, or pro- ceeding, or to grant relief to a defendant not actually personally notified as provided in Title 28, U. S. C. § 1655, or to set aside a judgment for fraud upon the court. Writs of coram nobis, coram vobis, audita querela, and bills of review and bills in the nature of a bill of review, are abolished, and the procedure for obtaining any relief from a judgment shall be by motion as prescribed in these rules or by an independent action." This Court adopted the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and submitted them to Congress as the Rules Enabling Act required. They became ef- fective after Congress adjourned without altering them. See generally 308 U. S. 647 (letter of transmittal to Congress, Jan. 3, 1938). 9 In its criticism of this analysis of Rule 60(b), the majority overstates our holdings on retroactivity in Landgraf, 511 U. S., at 280, and Rivers v. Roadway Express, Inc., 511 U. S. 298 (1994). Our opinion in Landgraf nowhere says "that statutes do not apply retroactively unless Congress expressly states that they do." Ante, at 237. To the contrary, it says that, "[w]hen . . . the statute contains no such express command, the court must determine whether the new statute would have retroactive effect," an inquiry that requires "clear congressional intent favoring such a re- sult." Landgraf, 511 U. S., at 280 (emphasis added); see also id., at 273­ 275; Rivers, 511 U. S., at 304­309. In the case of Rule 60(b), the factors I have identified, taken together, support a finding of clear congressional 514us1$41i 05-27-98 15:19:41 PAGES OPINPGT 258 PLAUT v. SPENDTHRIFT FARM, INC. Stevens, J., dissenting Other examples of remedial statutes that resemble § 27A include the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940, 50 U. S. C. App. § 520(4), which authorizes members of the Armed Forces to reopen judgments entered while they were on active duty; the Handicapped Children's Protection Act of 1986, 20 U. S. C. § 1415(e)(4)(B) (1988 ed. and Supp. V), which provided for recovery of attorney's fees under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, 20 U. S. C. § 1411 et seq. (1988 ed. and Supp. V); 10 and the federal habeas corpus statute, 28 U. S. C. § 2255, which authorizes federal courts to reopen judgments of conviction. The habeas stat- ute, similarly to Rule 60(b), replaced a common-law writ, see App. to H. R. Rep. No. 308, 80th Cong., 2d Sess., A180 (1947), and thus necessarily applied retroactively.11 State statutes that authorize the reopening of various types of default judg- ments 12 and judgments that became final before a party re- intent. Moreover, neither Landgraf nor Rivers "rejected" consideration of a statute's remedial purpose in analyzing Congress' intent to apply the statute retroactively. Compare ante, at 237, with Landgraf, 511 U. S., at 281­286, and n. 37, and Rivers, 511 U. S., at 304­311. 10 When it enacted the Handicapped Children's Protection Act, Congress overruled our contrary decision in Smith v. Robinson, 468 U. S. 992 (1984), by applying the Act retroactively to any action either pending on or brought after July 4, 1984, the day before we announced Smith. See 100 Stat. 798. Accordingly, a court has applied the Act retroactively to a case in which the parties had entered into a consent decree prior to its enact- ment. See Counsel v. Dow, 849 F. 2d 731, 738­739 (CA2 1988). The Court's attempts to explain away the retroactivity provision, ante, at 235­ 236, simply do not comport with the plain language of the Act. 11 The Government also calls our attention to 28 U. S. C. § 1655, a statute that requires courts to reopen final in rem judgments upon entries of appearance by defendants who were not personally served. See Brief for United States 24­25, and n. 17. While that statute had only prospective effect, the Court offers no reason why Congress could not pass a similar statute that would apply retroactively to judgments entered under pre- existing procedures. 12 See, e. g., Del. Code Ann., Tit. 18, § 4418 (1989); Fla. Stat. § 631.734 (1984); N. Y. Ins. Law § 7717 (McKinney Supp. 1995); 40 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 991.1716 (Supp. 1994). 514us1$41i 05-27-98 15:19:41 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 211 (1995) 259 Stevens, J., dissenting ceived notice of their entry,13 as well as provisions for mo- tions to reopen based on newly discovered evidence,14 further demonstrate the widespread acceptance of remedial statutes that allow courts to set aside final judgments. As in the case of Rule 60(b), logic dictates that these statutes be con- strued to apply retroactively to judgments that were final at the time of their enactments. All of these remedial statutes announced generally applicable rules of law as well as estab- lishing procedures for reopening final judgments.15 In contrast, in the examples of colonial legislatures' review of trial courts' judgments on which today's holding rests, the legislatures issued directives in individual cases without pur- porting either to set forth or to apply any legal standard. Cf. ante, at 219­225; see, e. g., INS v. Chadha, 462 U. S. 919, 961­962 (1983) (Powell, J., concurring in judgment). The principal compendium on which the Court relies, ante, at 219, accurately describes these legislative directives: "In these records, which are of the first quarter of the 18th century, the provincial legislature will often be found acting in a judicial capacity, sometimes trying causes in equity, sometimes granting equity powers to some court of the common law for a particular tempo- rary purpose, and constantly granting appeals, new trials, and other relief from judgments, on equitable 13 For example, a Virginia statute provides that, when a pro se litigant fails to receive notice of the trial court's entry of an order, even after the time to appeal has expired, the trial judge may within 60 days vacate the order and grant the party leave to appeal. Va. Code Ann. § 8.01­428(C) (Supp. 1994). 14 See Herrera v. Collins, 506 U. S. 390, 410­411, and nn. 8­11 (1993) (citing state statutes). 15 The Court offers no explanation of why the Constitution should be construed to interpose an absolute bar against these statutes' retroactive application. Under the Court's reasoning, for example, an amendment that broadened the coverage of Rule 60(b) could not apply to any inequita- ble judgments entered prior to the amendment. The Court's rationale for this formalistic restriction remains elusive. 514us1$41i 05-27-98 15:19:41 PAGES OPINPGT 260 PLAUT v. SPENDTHRIFT FARM, INC. Stevens, J., dissenting grounds." Judicial Action by the Provincial Legisla- ture of Massachusetts, 15 Harv. L. Rev. 208, n. 1 (1902). The Framers' disapproval of such a system of ad hoc legisla- tive review of individual trial court judgments has no bear- ing on remedial measures such as Rule 60(b) or the 1991 amendment at issue today. The history on which the Court relies provides no support for its holding. III The lack of precedent for the Court's holding is not, of course, a sufficient reason to reject it. Correct application of separation-of-powers principles, however, confirms that the Court has reached the wrong result. As our most recent major pronouncement on the separation of powers noted, "we have never held that the Constitution requires that the three branches of Government `operate with absolute independ- ence.' " Morrison v. Olson, 487 U. S. 654, 693­694 (1988) (quoting United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S. 683, 707 (1974)). Rather, our jurisprudence reflects "Madison's flexible ap- proach to separation of powers." Mistretta v. United States, 488 U. S. 361, 380 (1989). In accepting Madison's conception rather than any "hermetic division among the Branches," id., at 381, "we have upheld statutory provisions that to some degree commingle the functions of the Branches, but that pose no danger of either aggrandizement or encroachment," id., at 382. Today's holding does not comport with these ideals. Section 27A shares several important characteristics with the remedial statutes discussed above. It does not decide the merits of any issue in any litigation but merely removes an impediment to judicial decision on the merits. The im- pediment it removes would have produced inequity because the statute's beneficiaries did not cause the impediment. It requires a party invoking its benefits to file a motion within a specified time and to convince a court that the statute enti- tles the party to relief. Most important, § 27A(b) specifies 514us1$41i 05-27-98 15:19:41 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 211 (1995) 261 Stevens, J., dissenting both a substantive rule to govern the reopening of a class of judgments-the pre-Lampf limitations rule-and a pro- cedure for the courts to apply in determining whether a particular motion to reopen should be granted. These char- acteristics are quintessentially legislative. They reflect Congress' fealty to the separation of powers and its intention to avoid the sort of ad hoc excesses the Court rightly criti- cizes in colonial legislative practice. In my judgment, all of these elements distinguish § 27A from "judicial" action and confirm its constitutionality. A sensible analysis would at least consider them in the balance. Instead, the Court myopically disposes of § 27A(b) by hold- ing that Congress has no power to "requir[e] an Article III court to set aside a final judgment." Ante, at 240. That holding must mean one of two things. It could mean that Congress may not impose a mandatory duty on a court to set aside a judgment even if the court makes a particular finding, such as a finding of fraud or mistake, that Congress has not made. Such a rule, however, could not be correct. Al- though Rule 60(b), for example, merely authorizes federal courts to set aside judgments after making appropriate find- ings, Acts of Congress characteristically set standards that judges are obligated to enforce. Accordingly, Congress surely could add to Rule 60(b) certain instances in which courts must grant relief from final judgments if they make particular findings-for example, a finding that a member of the jury accepted a bribe from the prevailing party. The Court, therefore, must mean to hold that Congress may not unconditionally require an Article III court to set aside a final judgment. That rule is both unwise and beside the point of this case. A simple hypothetical example will illustrate the practical failings of the Court's new rule. Suppose Congress, instead of endorsing the new limitations rule fashioned by the Court in Lampf, had decided to return to the pre-Lampf regime (or perhaps to enact a longer uniform statute). Subsection 514us1$41i 05-27-98 15:19:41 PAGES OPINPGT 262 PLAUT v. SPENDTHRIFT FARM, INC. Stevens, J., dissenting (a) of § 27A would simply have provided that the law in effect prior to June 19, 1991, would govern the timeliness of all 10b­5 actions. In that event, subsection (b) would still have been necessary to remedy the injustice caused by this Court's failure to exempt pending cases from its new rule. In my judgment, the statutory correction of the inequitable flaw in Lampf would be appropriate remedial legislation whether or not Congress had endorsed that decision's sub- stantive limitations rule. The Court, unfortunately, appears equally consistent: Even though the class of dismissed 10b­5 plaintiffs in my hypothetical would have been subject to the same substantive rule as all other 10b­5 plaintiffs, the Court's reasoning would still reject subsection (b) as an impermissible exercise of "judicial" power. The majority's rigid holding unnecessarily hinders the Government from addressing difficult issues that inevitably arise in a complex society. This Court, for example, lacks power to enlarge the time for filing petitions for certiorari in a civil case after 90 days from the entry of final judgment, no matter how strong the equities. See 28 U. S. C. § 2101(c). If an Act of God, such as a flood or an earthquake, sufficiently disrupted communications in a particular area to preclude filing for several days, the majority's reasoning would appear to bar Congress from addressing the resulting inequity. If Congress passed remedial legislation that retroactively granted movants from the disaster area extra time to file petitions or motions for extensions of time to file, today's holding presumably would compel us to strike down the leg- islation as an attack on the finality of judgments. Such a ruling, like today's holding, would gravely undermine federal courts' traditional power "to set aside a judgment whose enforcement would work inequity." Ante, at 234.16 16 The Court also appears to bar retroactive application of changes in the criminal law. Its reasoning suggests that, for example, should Con- gress one day choose to abolish the federal death penalty, the new statute 514us1$41i 05-27-98 15:19:41 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 211 (1995) 263 Stevens, J., dissenting Even if the rule the Court announces today were sound, it would not control the case before us. In order to obtain the benefit of § 27A, petitioners had to file a timely motion and persuade the District Court they had timely filed their com- plaint under pre-Lampf law. In the judgment of the Dis- trict Court, petitioners satisfied those conditions. Congress reasonably could have assumed, indeed must have expected, that some movants under § 27A(b) would fail to do so. The presence of an important condition that the District Court must find a movant to have satisfied before it may reopen a judgment distinguishes § 27A from the unconditional con- gressional directives the Court appears to forbid. Moreover, unlike the colonial legislative commands on which the Court bases its holding, § 27A directed action not in "a civil case," ante, at 223 (discussing Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386 (1798)), but in a large category of civil cases.17 The Court declares that a legislative direction to reopen a class of 40 cases is 40 times as bad as a direction to reopen a single final judgment because "power is the object of the separation-of-powers prohibition." See ante, at 228. This self-evident observation might be salient if § 27A(b) uncondi- tionally commanded courts to reopen judgments even absent findings that the complaints were timely under pre-Lampf law. But Congress did not decide-and could not know how any court would decide-the timeliness issue in any particu- could not constitutionally save a death row inmate from execution if his conviction had become final before the statute was passed. 17 At the time Congress was considering the bill that became § 27A, a House Subcommittee reported that Lampf had resulted in the dismissal of 15 cases, involving thousands of plaintiffs in every State (of whom over 32,000 had been identified) and claims totaling over $692.25 million. In addition, motions to dismiss based on Lampf were then pending in 17 cases involving thousands of plaintiffs in every State and claims totaling over $4.578 billion. Hearing on H. R. 3185, before the Subcommittee on Tele- communications and Finance of the House Committee on Energy and Com- merce, 102d Cong., 1st Sess., 1­4 (1991). 514us1$41i 05-27-98 15:19:41 PAGES OPINPGT 264 PLAUT v. SPENDTHRIFT FARM, INC. Stevens, J., dissenting lar case in the affected category. Congress, therefore, had no way to identify which particular plaintiffs would benefit from § 27A. It merely enacted a law that applied a substan- tive rule to a class of litigants, specified a procedure for invoking the rule, and left particular outcomes to individ- ualized judicial determinations-a classic exercise of legisla- tive power. "All we seek," affirmed a sponsor of § 27A, "is to give the victims [of securities fraud] a fair day in court." 18 A stat- ute, such as § 27A, that removes an unanticipated and unjust impediment to adjudication of a large class of claims on their merits poses no danger of "aggrandizement or encroach- ment." Mistretta, 488 U. S., at 382.19 This is particularly true for § 27A in light of Congress' historic primacy over statutes of limitations.20 The statute contains several checks against the danger of congressional overreaching. The Court in Lampf undertook a legislative function. Es- sentially, it supplied a statute of limitations for 10b­5 ac- 18 137 Cong. Rec. S18624 (Nov. 27, 1991) (statement of Sen. Bryan). 19 Today's decision creates a new irony of judicial legislation. A chal- lenge to the constitutionality of § 27A(a) could not turn on the sanctity of final judgments. Section 27A(a) benefits litigants who had filed appeals that Lampf rendered frivolous; petitioners and other law-abiding litigants whose claims Lampf rendered untimely had acquiesced in the dismissal of their actions. By striking down § 27A(b) on a ground that would leave § 27A(a) intact, the Court indulges litigants who protracted proceedings but shuts the courthouse door to litigants who proceeded with diligence and respect for the Lampf judgment. 20 "Statutes of limitation find their justification in necessity and conven- ience rather than in logic. They represent expedients, rather than principles. . . . They are by definition arbitrary, and their operation does not discriminate between the just and the unjust claim, or the voidable and unavoidable delay. They have come into the law not through the judicial process but through legislation. They represent a public policy about the privilege to litigate. . . . [T]he history of pleas of limitation shows them to be good only by legislative grace and to be subject to a relatively large degree of legislative control." Chase Securities Corp. v. Donald- son, 325 U. S. 304, 314 (1945) (Jackson, J.) (footnote and citation omitted). 514us1$41i 05-27-98 15:19:41 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 211 (1995) 265 Stevens, J., dissenting tions. The Court, however, failed to adopt the transition rules that ordinarily attend alterations shortening the time to sue. Congress, in § 27A, has supplied those rules. The statute reflects the ability of two coequal branches to cooper- ate in providing for the impartial application of legal rules to particular disputes. The Court's mistrust of such cooper- ation ill serves the separation of powers.21 IV The Court has drawn the wrong lesson from the Framers' disapproval of colonial legislatures' appellate review of judi- cial decisions. The Framers rejected that practice, not out of a mechanistic solicitude for "final judgments," but because they believed the impartial application of rules of law, rather 21 Although I agree with Justice Breyer's general approach to the separation-of-powers issue, I believe he gives insufficient weight to two important features of § 27A. First, he fails to recognize that the statute restored a pre-existing rule of law in order to remedy the manifest injus- tice produced by the Court's retroactive application of Lampf. The only " `substantial deprivation' " Congress imposed on defendants was that properly filed lawsuits proceed to decisions on the merits. Cf. ante, at 242 (Breyer, J., concurring in judgment) (quoting INS v. Chadha, 462 U. S. 919, 962 (1983) (Powell, J., concurring in judgment)). Second, he understates the class of defendants burdened by § 27A: He finds the stat- ute underinclusive because it provided no remedy for potential plaintiffs who may have failed to file timely actions in reliance on pre-Lampf limi- tations law, but he denies the importance of § 27A(a), which provided a remedy for plaintiffs who appealed dismissals after Lampf. See ante, at 243­244 (Breyer, J., concurring in judgment). The coverage of § 27A is coextensive with the retroactive application of the general rule announced in Lampf. If Congress had enacted a statute providing that the Lampf rule should apply to all cases filed after the statute's effective date and that the pre-Lampf rule should apply to all cases filed before that date, Justice Breyer could not reasonably condemn the statute as special leg- islation. The only difference between such a statute and § 27A is that § 27A covered all cases pending on the date of Lampf-June 20, 1991- rather than on the effective date of the statute-December 19, 1991. In my opinion, § 27A has sufficient generality to avoid the characteristics of a bill of attainder. 514us1$41i 05-27-98 15:19:41 PAGES OPINPGT 266 PLAUT v. SPENDTHRIFT FARM, INC. Stevens, J., dissenting than the will of the majority, must govern the disposition of individual cases and controversies. Any legislative interfer- ence in the adjudication of the merits of a particular case carries the risk that political power will supplant even- handed justice, whether the interference occurs before or after the entry of final judgment. Cf. United States v. Klein, 13 Wall. 128 (1872); Hayburn's Case, 2 Dall. 409 (1792). Section 27A(b) neither commands the reinstatement of any particular case nor directs any result on the merits. Con- gress recently granted a special benefit to a single litigant in a pending civil rights case, but the Court saw no need even to grant certiorari to review that disturbing legislative favor.22 In an ironic counterpoint, the Court today places a higher priority on protecting the Republic from the restora- tion to a large class of litigants of the opportunity to have Article III courts resolve the merits of their claims. "We must remember that the machinery of government would not work if it were not allowed a little play in its joints." Bain Peanut Co. of Tex. v. Pinson, 282 U. S. 499, 501 (1931) (Holmes, J.). The three branches must cooperate in order to govern. We should regard favorably, rather than with suspicious hostility, legislation that enables the judi- ciary to overcome impediments to the performance of its mis- sion of administering justice impartially, even when, as here, this Court has created the impediment.23 Rigid rules often make good law, but judgments in areas such as the review of potential conflicts among the three coequal branches of the 22 See Atonio v. Wards Cove Packing Co., 513 U. S. 809 (1994); see also Landgraf, 511 U. S., at 258 ("The parties agree that § 402(b) [of the Civil Rights Act of 1991] was intended to exempt a single disparate impact lawsuit against the Wards Cove Packing Company"). 23 Of course, neither the majority nor I would alter its analysis had Con- gress, rather than the Court, enacted the Lampf rule without any exemp- tion for pending cases, then later tried to remedy such unfairness by enact- ing § 27A. Thus, the Court's attribution of § 27A to "the legislature's genuine conviction (supported by all the law professors in the land) that [Lampf] was wrong," ante, at 228, is quite beside the point. 514us1$41i 05-27-98 15:19:41 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 211 (1995) 267 Stevens, J., dissenting Federal Government partake of art as well as science. That is why we have so often reiterated the insight of Justice Jackson: "The actual art of governing under our Constitution does not and cannot conform to judicial definitions of the power of any of its branches based on isolated clauses or even single Articles torn from context. While the Constitution diffuses power the better to secure liberty, it also contemplates that practice will integrate the dispersed powers into a workable government. It en- joins upon its branches separateness but interdepend- ence, autonomy but reciprocity." Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579, 635 (1952) (concur- ring opinion). We have the authority to hold that Congress has usurped a judicial prerogative, but even if this case were doubtful I would heed Justice Iredell's admonition in Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall., at 399, that "the Court will never resort to that author- ity, but in a clear and urgent case." An appropriate regard for the interdependence of Congress and the judiciary amply supports the conclusion that § 27A(b) reflects constructive legislative cooperation rather than a usurpation of judicial prerogatives. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent. 514us1$42Z 05-29-98 14:52:58 PAGES OPINPGT 268 OCTOBER TERM, 1994 Syllabus SHALALA, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES v. WHITECOTTON et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the federal circuit No. 94­372. Argued February 28, 1995-Decided April 18, 1995 Respondents, Margaret Whitecotton and her parents, filed a claim for com- pensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, al- leging that Margaret had suffered encephalopathy as a result of her vaccination against diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus (DPT). Under the Act, a claimant who, like Margaret, does not attempt to prove actual causation must make out a prima facie case by showing that "the first symptom or manifestation of the onset . . . of any . . . [listed] condi- tion . . . occurred within the time period after vaccine administration set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table." 42 U. S. C. § 300aa­11(c)(1)(C)(i). That table specifies a 3-day period for encephalopathy following a DPT vaccination. § 300aa­14(a). The Special Master ruled that Margaret had failed to make out a prima facie case, finding, inter alia, that by the time she received her vaccination she was "clearly microcephalic," that this condition evidenced pre-existing encephalopathy, and that, accord- ingly, "the first symptom or manifestation" of her condition's onset had occurred before her vaccination and the 3-day table period. The Court of Federal Claims affirmed, but the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed, holding, among other things, that a claimant satisfies the table requirements whenever she shows that any symptom or mani- festation of a listed condition occurred within the table time period, even if there was evidence of the condition before the vaccination. Held: A claimant who shows that she experienced symptoms of an injury after receiving a vaccination does not make out a prima facie case for compensation under the Act where the evidence fails to indicate that she had no symptoms of that injury before the vaccination. The Court of Appeals' assertion that the Act does not "expressly state" that a claimant relying on the table must show that the child sustained no injury prior to her vaccination-i. e., that the first symptom of the in- jury occurred after vaccination-simply does not square with § 300aa­ 11(c)(1)(C)(i)'s plain language. If a symptom or manifestation of a table injury has occurred before the vaccination, a symptom or manifestation thereafter cannot be the first, or signal the injury's onset. There can- not be two first symptoms or onsets of the same injury. Thus, a demon- stration that the claimant experienced symptoms of an injury during 514us1$42Z 05-29-98 14:52:58 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 268 (1995) 269 Opinion of the Court the table period, while necessary, is insufficient to make out a prima facie case. The claimant must also show that no evidence of the injury appeared before the vaccination. The Court of Appeals misread lan- guage in §§ 300aa­14(a), 300aa­14(b)(2), and 300aa­13(a)(2)(B) in coming to the contrary conclusion. Pp. 273­276. 17 F. 3d 374, reversed and remanded. Souter, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. O'Connor, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Breyer, J., joined, post, p. 276. Irving L. Gornstein argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Days, Assist- ant Attorney General Hunger, Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler, Barbara C. Biddle, Richard A. Olderman, and Karen P. Hewitt. Robert T. Moxley argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Richard Gage, Peter H. Meyers, and John S. Capper IV.* Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court. The question in this case is whether a claimant who shows that she experienced symptoms of an injury after receiving a vaccination makes out a prima facie case for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 100 Stat. 3755, 42 U. S. C. § 300aa­1 et seq. (1988 ed. and Supp. V), where the evidence fails to indicate that she had no symptoms of that injury before the vaccination. We hold that the claimant does not make out a case for compensation. I For injuries and deaths traceable to vaccinations, the Act establishes a scheme of recovery designed to work faster and with greater ease than the civil tort system. H. R. Rep. *Stephan E. Lawton and Anne M. Dellinger filed a brief for the Ameri- can Academy of Pediatrics as amicus curiae urging reversal. Curtis R. Webb filed a brief for Dissatisfied Parents Together et al. as amici curiae urging affirmance. 514us1$42M 05-29-98 14:52:58 PAGES OPINPGT 270 SHALALA v. WHITECOTTON Opinion of the Court No. 99­908, pp. 3­7 (1986). Special masters in the Court of Federal Claims hear vaccine-related complaints, 42 U. S. C. § 300aa­12(c) (1988 ed., Supp. V), which they adjudicate in- formally, § 300aa­12(d)(2), within strict time limits, § 300aa­ 12(d)(3)(A), subject to similarly expeditious review, § 300aa­ 12(e)(2). A claimant alleging that more than $1,000 in damages resulted from a vaccination after the Act's effective date in 1988 must exhaust the Act's procedures and refuse to accept the resulting judgment before filing any de novo civil action in state or federal court. 42 U. S. C. § 300aa­ 11(a) (1988 ed. and Supp. V). The streamlining does not stop with the mechanics of litigation, but goes even to substantive standards of proof. While a claimant may establish prima facie entitlement to compensation by introducing proof of actual causation, § 300aa­11(c)(1)(C)(ii), she can reach the same result by meeting the requirements of what the Act calls the Vac- cine Injury Table. The table lists the vaccines covered under the Act, together with particular injuries or conditions associated with each one. 42 U. S. C. § 300aa­14 (1988 ed., Supp. V). A claimant who meets certain other conditions not relevant here makes out a prima facie case by showing that she (or someone for whom she brings a claim) "sus- tained, or had significantly aggravated, any illness, disability, injury, or condition set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table in association with [a] vaccine . . . or died from the admin- istration of such vaccine, and the first symptom or mani- festation of the onset or of the significant aggravation of any such illness, disability, injury, or condition or the death oc- curred within the time period after vaccine administration set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table." 42 U. S. C. § 300aa­ 11(c)(1)(C)(i). Thus, the rule of prima facie proof turns the old maxim on its head by providing that if the post hoc event happens fast, ergo propter hoc. The Secretary of Health and Human Services may rebut a prima facie case by proving that the injury or death was in fact caused by "factors unre- 514us1$42M 05-29-98 14:52:58 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 268 (1995) 271 Opinion of the Court lated to the administration of the vaccine . . . ." § 300aa­ 13(a)(1)(B). If the Secretary fails to rebut, the claimant is entitled to compensation. 42 U. S. C. § 300aa­13(a)(1) (1988 ed. and Supp. V). Respondents, Margaret Whitecotton and her parents, filed a claim under the Act for injuries Margaret allegedly sus- tained as a result of vaccination against diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus (or DPT) on August 18, 1975, when she was nearly four months old. They alleged that Margaret (whom we will refer to as claimant) had suffered encephalopathy after the DPT vaccination, and they relied on the table scheme to make out a prima facie case. The Act defines en- cephalopathy as "any significant acquired abnormality of, or injury to, or impairment of function of the brain," 42 U. S. C. § 300aa­14(b)(3)(A), and lists the condition on the Vaccine Injury Table in association with the DPT vaccine. Under the Act, a claimant who does not prove actual causa- tion must show that "the first symptom or manifestation of the onset or of the significant aggravation" of encephalopa- thy occurred within three days of a DPT vaccination in order to make out a prima facie right to compensation. § 300aa­ 11(c)(1)(C)(i); 42 U. S. C. § 300aa­14(a) (1988 ed., Supp. V). The Special Master found that claimant had suffered clonic seizures on the evening after her vaccination and again the following morning, App. to Pet. for Cert. 24a, 27a, and accepted those seizures as symptoms of encephalopathy. He also found, however, that by the time claimant received the vaccination she was "clearly microcephalic" (meaning that she had a head size more than two standard deviations below the mean for a girl her age) and that her microcephaly was a symptom or evidence of encephalopathy that existed before the vaccination. Id., at 32a­33a. Accordingly, the Master concluded that the first symptom or manifestation of the onset of claimant's encephalopathy had occurred be- fore the vaccination and the ensuing 3-day period provided for in the table. Id., at 34a. 514us1$42M 05-29-98 14:52:58 PAGES OPINPGT 272 SHALALA v. WHITECOTTON Opinion of the Court The Master then considered whether the series of seizures was "the first symptom or manifestation . . . of [a] significant aggravation" of the claimant's encephalopathy, 42 U. S. C. § 300aa­11(c)(1)(C)(i), and again decided that it was not. The Act defines "significant aggravation" as "any change for the worse in a preexisting condition which results in mark- edly greater disability, pain, or illness accompanied by sub- stantial deterioration of health." § 300aa­33(4). The Mas- ter found that "[t]here is nothing to distinguish this case from what would reasonably have been expected consider- ing [claimant's] microcephaly. . . . [T]here was nothing that occurred in temporal relationship to the DPT vaccination which indicates that it is more likely than not that the vac- cine permanently aggravated her condition. . . . [T]he sei- zures did not continue and there was no dramatic turn for the worse in her condition . . . . Thus, there is no basis for implicating the vaccine as the cause of any aspect of [claim- ant's] present condition." App. to Pet. for Cert. 41a­43a. Because he found that claimant had failed to satisfy the table requirements, and had not tried to prove actual causation, the Master denied her compensation for failure to make out a prima facie case. The Court of Federal Claims found the Master's decision neither arbitrary nor otherwise unlawful, see 42 U. S. C. § 300aa­12(e)(2) (1988 ed., Supp. V), and affirmed. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit then reversed, hold- ing that a claimant satisfies the table requirements for the "first symptom or manifestation of the onset" of an injury whenever she shows that any symptom or manifestation of a listed condition occurred within the time period after vac- cination specified in the table, even if there was evidence of the condition before the vaccination. Because claimant here showed symptoms of encephalopathy during the 3-day period after her DPT vaccination, the Court of Appeals concluded for that reason alone that she had made out a prima facie entitlement to recovery. 17 F. 3d 374, 376­377 (1994). 514us1$42M 05-29-98 14:52:58 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 268 (1995) 273 Opinion of the Court The Court of Appeals went on to say that the Secretary had failed to rebut this prima facie case because she had not shown that claimant's encephalopathy was caused by "factors unrelated to the administration of the vaccine," 42 U. S. C. § 300aa­13(a)(1)(B). The Court of Appeals relied on the pro- vision that a "facto[r] unrelated" cannot include an "idio- pathic" condition, § 300aa­13(a)(2)(A), which the court read to mean that even when the Secretary can point to a specific factor, unrelated to the vaccine, as the source of a claimant's injury, she does not defeat a prima facie case when the cause of the identified factor is itself unknown. Taking the Sec- retary to have relied on claimant's microcephaly as the un- related factor (or as associated with it), the court ruled the Secretary's evidence insufficient on the ground that the cause of microcephaly is unknown. 17 F. 3d, at 377­378.* We granted certiorari to address the Court of Appeals's construction of the Act's requirements for making and rebut- ting a prima facie case. 513 U. S. 959 (1994). Because we hold that the court erroneously construed the provisions de- fining a prima facie case under the Act, we reverse without reaching the adequacy of the Secretary's rebuttal. II The Court of Appeals declared that nowhere does the Act "expressly state" that a claimant relying on the table to establish a prima facie case for compensation must show "that the child sustained no injury prior to administration of the vaccine," that is, that the first symptom of the injury *The Court of Appeals's language can also be read as casting doubt on the Special Master's conclusion that claimant's microcephaly evidenced a pre-existing encephalopathy. We express no view as to the validity of that conclusion. The Secretary has recently issued new regulations that may affect the Court of Appeals's definition of an idiopathic condition in future cases. These regulations apply only to petitions for compensation filed after March 10, 1995, and accordingly have no application to the present case. 60 Fed. Reg. 7678­7696 (1995). 514us1$42M 05-29-98 14:52:58 PAGES OPINPGT 274 SHALALA v. WHITECOTTON Opinion of the Court occurred after vaccination. 17 F. 3d, at 376. This state- ment simply does not square with the plain language of the statute. In laying out the elements of a prima facie case, the Act provides that a claimant relying on the table (and not alleging significant aggravation) must show that "the first symptom or manifestation of the onset . . . of [her table illness] . . . occurred within the time period after vac- cine administration set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table." § 300aa­11(c)(1)(C)(i). If a symptom or manifestation of a table injury has occurred before a claimant's vaccination, a symptom or manifestation after the vaccination cannot be the first, or signal the injury's onset. There cannot be two first symptoms or onsets of the same injury. Thus, a demonstration that the claimant experienced symptoms of an injury during the table period, while necessary, is insuffi- cient to make out a prima facie case. The claimant must also show that no evidence of the injury appeared before the vaccination. In coming to the contrary conclusion, the Court of Appeals relied on language in the table, which contains the heading, "Time period for first symptom or manifestation of onset . . . after vaccine administration." 42 U. S. C. § 300aa­14(a) (1988 ed., Supp. V). The Court of Appeals saw a "signifi- cant" distinction, 17 F. 3d, at 376, between this language and that of 42 U. S. C. § 300aa­11(c)(1)(C)(i), which is set forth above. We do not. The key to understanding the heading is the word "onset." Since the symptom or manifestation occurring after the vaccination must be evidence of the table injury's onset, an injury manifested before the vaccination could qualify only on the theory that it could have two on- sets, one before the vaccination, one after it. But it cannot: one injury, one onset. Indeed, even if the language of the heading did conflict with the text of § 300aa­11(c)(1)(C)(i), the latter would prevail, since the table heading was obviously meant to be a short form of the text preceding it. 514us1$42M 05-29-98 14:52:58 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 268 (1995) 275 Opinion of the Court The Court of Appeals sought to shore up the contrary con- clusion with two further arguments. As the court read the Act, Congress "expressly made the absence of preexisting injury an element of the prima facie case" for residual sei- zure disorder (another table injury), 17 F. 3d, at 376; thus, the court reasoned, Congress had implicitly rejected any need to negate the pre-existence of other injuries like en- cephalopathy. This argument rests on a misreading of the language in question. The statutory notes explaining the table provide that a claimant "may be considered to have suffered a residual seizure disorder if [she] did not suffer a seizure or convulsion unaccompanied by fever or accompa- nied by a fever of less than 102 degrees Fahrenheit before the first seizure or convulsion after the administration of the vaccine involved . . . ." § 300aa­14(b)(2). But this is not the language that requires a claimant alleging a seizure disorder to demonstrate the absence of pre-existing symp- toms. This provision specifies instead that certain types of seizures (those accompanied by a high fever) may not be con- sidered symptoms of residual seizure disorder, and, so, do not preclude a prima facie case even when a claimant suf- fered them before vaccination. The language carries no im- plication about a claimant's burden generally and does noth- ing to undermine Congress's global provision that a claimant who has actually suffered symptoms of a listed injury before vaccination cannot make out a prima facie case of the injury's onset after vaccination. Finally, we cannot accept the Court of Appeals's argument that because the causal "factors unrelated" on which the Sec- retary may rely to defeat a prima facie case can include oc- currences before vaccination, see § 300aa­13(a)(2)(B), such occurrences cannot bar the establishment of a prima facie case in the first instance. The "factors unrelated" provision is wholly independent of the first-symptom and onset provi- sions, serving the distinct purpose of allowing the Secretary to defeat a claim even when an injury has not manifested 514us1$42M 05-29-98 14:52:58 PAGES OPINPGT 276 SHALALA v. WHITECOTTON O'Connor, J., concurring itself before vaccination. It does not relieve a claimant of the clear statutory requirements for making out a prima facie case. III The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is accordingly reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. Justice O'Connor, with whom Justice Breyer joins, concurring. Margaret Whitecotton was born in 1975 with a condition known as microcephaly, defined commonly (but not univer- sally) as a head size smaller than two standard deviations below the norm. At the age of four months, she received a diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus (DPT) vaccination. Prior to receiving her vaccine, Margaret had never had a seizure. The day after receiving her vaccine, she suffered a series of seizures that required three days of hospitalization. Over the next five years, Margaret had intermittent seizures. She now has cerebral palsy and hip and joint problems and cannot communicate verbally. In 1990, Margaret's parents applied for compensation for her injuries under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. The Special Master denied compensation, and the Court of Federal Claims agreed. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit re- versed, 17 F. 3d 374 (1994), finding that the Whitecottons had made out a prima facie case for compensation. Although I join the Court's opinion rejecting the Court of Appeals' reading of the pertinent statutory provision, I write separately to make two points. First, I wish to indicate an additional factor supporting my conclusion that the Court of Appeals' reading of 42 U. S. C. § 300aa­11(c)(1)(C)(i) is incon- sistent with congressional intent. Second, I wish to under- score the limited nature of the question the Court decides. 514us1$42J 05-29-98 14:52:58 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 268 (1995) 277 O'Connor, J., concurring Examining the language of § 300aa­11(c)(1)(C)(i), the Court properly rejects the Court of Appeals' determination that a claimant may make out a prima facie "onset" case sim- ply by proving that she experienced a symptom of a "table illness" within the specified period after receiving a vaccina- tion. Ante, at 273­274. To establish a table case, the stat- ute requires that a claimant prove by a preponderance of the evidence either (1) that she suffered the first symptom or manifestation of the onset of a table condition within the period specified in the table or (2) that she suffered the first symptom or manifestation of a significant aggravation of a pre-existing condition within the same period. As the Court rightly concludes, proof that the claimant suffered a symptom within the period is necessary but not sufficient to satisfy either burden; the word "first" is significant and requires that the claimant demonstrate that the postvaccine symptom, whether of onset or of significant aggravation, was in fact the very first such manifestation. The Court relies on a commonsense consideration of the words "first" and "onset" in reaching this conclusion: "If a symptom or manifestation of a table injury has occurred be- fore a claimant's vaccination, a symptom or manifestation after the vaccination cannot be the first, or signal the injury's onset." Ante, at 274. I find equally persuasive the obser- vation that the Court of Appeals' reading deprives the "sig- nificant aggravation" language in the provision of all mean- ingful effect. The term "significant aggravation" is defined in the statute to mean "any change for the worse in a pre- existing condition which results in markedly greater dis- ability, pain, or illness accompanied by substantial deteriora- tion of health." 42 U. S. C. § 300aa­33(4). If, as the Court of Appeals determined, a claimant makes out an "onset" case any time she can demonstrate that any symptom occurred within the relevant period, all cases in which children ex- perience postvaccine symptoms within the table period be- come "onset" cases. The phrase "significant aggravation," 514us1$42J 05-29-98 14:52:58 PAGES OPINPGT 278 SHALALA v. WHITECOTTON O'Connor, J., concurring and any limitations Congress sought to impose by including language like "markedly greater disability" and "substantial deterioration of health," are altogether lost. To the extent possible, we adhere to "the elementary canon of construction that a statute should be interpreted so as not to render one part inoperative." Department of Revenue of Ore. v. ACF Industries, Inc., 510 U. S. 332, 340 (1994) (internal quotation marks omitted); Pennsylvania Dept. of Public Welfare v. Davenport, 495 U. S. 552, 562 (1990). The construction adopted by the Court of Appeals contravenes this principle. Our reading gives effect to the "onset" and the "significant aggravation" language while ac- cording "first" its commonsense meaning. Today's decision is quite limited. The Court of Appeals had no occasion to address the Whitecottons' challenges to the Special Master's factual findings with respect to their daughter's condition. We assume, arguendo, the soundness of his conclusions that Margaret Whitecotton suffered a pre- existing encephalopathy that was manifested by her prevac- cine microcephaly. But this may not be the case, and the Whitecottons of course may challenge these findings as clearly erroneous on remand. The Court of Appeals also did not address the Whitecottons' argument, rejected by the Special Master, that their daughter suffered a significant ag- gravation of whatever pre-existing condition she may have had as a result of the vaccine. This factual challenge ap- pears to be open as well, as does a challenge to the legal standard used by the Special Master to define "significant aggravation." We also do not pass on the Secretary's argument that the Court of Appeals misstated petitioner's burden under 42 U. S. C. § 300aa­13(a)(1)(B) (1988 ed. and Supp. V) in rebut- ting a claimant's prima facie case. Given our holding with respect to the claimant's burden, it is speculative at this time whether any effort on our part to evaluate the Court of Ap- peals' approach to the "facto[r] unrelated" standard will find 514us1$42J 05-29-98 14:52:58 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 268 (1995) 279 O'Connor, J., concurring concrete application in this case. That said, the approach taken by the Court of Appeals, under which the Secretary may not point to an underlying condition that predated use of a vaccine and obviously caused a claimant's ill health, if the cause of that underlying condition is unknown, may well warrant our attention in the future. 514us1$43z 06-11-98 18:20:01 PAGES OPINPGT 280 OCTOBER TERM, 1994 Syllabus FREIGHTLINER CORP. et al. v. MYRICK et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eleventh circuit No. 94­286. Argued February 22, 1995-Decided April 18, 1995 In separate state common-law suits, respondents alleged that the absence of an antilock braking system (ABS) in tractor-trailers manufactured by petitioners constituted a negligent design defect that caused accidents injuring one respondent and killing another's spouse. The District Court granted summary judgments for petitioners, holding that re- spondents' claims were pre-empted by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Act) and by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Standard 121, even though the applicable por- tion of that standard had previously been suspended by the Ninth Cir- cuit. Among other things, the Act forbids any State to "establish, or continue in effect," a motor vehicle safety standard "[w]henever a Fed- eral . . . standard . . . is in effect" with respect to "the same aspect of performance," 15 U. S. C. § 1392(d), while Standard 121 imposed vehicle stability requirements and truck stopping distances shorter than those that could be achieved with brakes lacking ABS. The Eleventh Circuit consolidated the cases and reversed, holding that respondents' claims were not expressly pre-empted under Circuit precedent and were not impliedly pre-empted due to a conflict between state law and the federal regulatory scheme. Held:1. Respondents' lawsuits are not expressly pre-empted. Because of Standard 121's suspension, there is simply no "minimum," § 1391(2), "objective," § 1392(a), federal standard addressing stopping distances or vehicle stability for trucks. States thus remain free to "establish, or continue in effect," their own safety standards concerning those "as- pects of performance." § 1392(d). Moreover, the absence of regulation cannot itself constitute regulation in this instance. The lack of a federal standard did not result from an affirmative decision of officials to refrain from regulating brakes, but from the decision of a federal court that the Government had not compiled sufficient evidence to justify its regula- tions. Ray v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 435 U. S. 151, 178, distinguished. Pp. 286­287. 2. Because respondents' common-law actions do not conflict with fed- eral law, they cannot be pre-empted by implication. This Court has found implied conflict pre-emption where it is "impossible for a private 514us1$43z 06-11-98 18:20:01 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 280 (1995) 281 Syllabus party to comply with both state and federal requirements," English v. General Elec. Co., 496 U. S. 72, 79, or where state law "stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of [Congress'] full pur- poses and objectives," Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52, 67. Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U. S. 504, 518, distinguished. First, it is not impossible for petitioners to comply with both federal and state law because there is simply no federal standard for a private party to com- ply with. Nothing in the Act or its regulations currently regulates the use of ABS devices. Second, a finding of liability against petitioners would undermine no federal objectives or purposes with respect to such devices, since none exist absent a promulgated federal standard. Pp. 287­290. 13 F. 3d 1516, affirmed. Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., concurred in the judgment. Charles Fried argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Richard G. Taranto, Edgar A. Neely III, Richard B. North, Jr., James A. Jacobson, and Cindy F. Wile. Paul R. Q. Wolfson argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae in support of respondents. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Days, Assistant Attorney General Hunger, Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler, Doug- las N. Letter, Paul D. Scott, Paul M. Geier, and Phillip R. Recht. Michael H. Gottesman argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Arthur H. Bryant, Leslie A. Brueckner, Robert M. Weinberg, Andrew D. Roth, James E. Carter, Raymond Brooks, and Charles A. Mathis, Jr.* *Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the American Automobile Manufacturers Association et al. by David M. Heilbron and Leslie G. Landau; for the American Trucking Associations, Inc., et al. by Kenneth S. Geller, Erika Z. Jones, John J. Sullivan, Daniel R. Barney, Lynda S. Mounts, and Jan S. Amundson; for the Product Liability Advi- sory Council, Inc., by Malcolm E. Wheeler and Richard P. Barkley; and for the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association by Glen M. Darbyshire. Briefs of amicus curiae urging affirmance were filed for the Association of Trial Lawyers of America by Jeffrey Robert White and Larry S. Stew- 514us1$43n 06-11-98 18:20:01 PAGES OPINPGT 282 FREIGHTLINER CORP. v. MYRICK Opinion of the Court Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court. By statute, the Secretary of Transportation has the au- thority to issue appropriate safety standards for motor vehi- cles and their equipment. Respondents filed lawsuits under state common law alleging negligent design defects in equip- ment manufactured by petitioners. Petitioners claim that these actions are pre-empted by a federal safety standard, even though the standard was suspended by a federal court. We hold that the absence of a federal standard cannot implic- itly extinguish state common law. I This case arises from two separate but essentially identical accidents in Georgia involving tractor-trailers. In both cases, 18-wheel tractor-trailers attempted to brake suddenly and ended up jackknifing into oncoming traffic. Neither ve- hicle was equipped with an antilock braking system (ABS).1 In the first case, respondent Ben Myrick was the driver of an oncoming vehicle that was hit by a tractor-trailer manu- factured by petitioner Freightliner. The accident left him permanently paraplegic and brain damaged. In the second case, the driver of an oncoming car, Grace Lindsey, was killed when her vehicle collided with a tractor-trailer manu- factured by petitioner Navistar. art; for the National Conference of State Legislatures et al. by Richard Ruda and James I. Crowley; and for Public Citizen, Inc., by Alan B. Mor- rison, Cornish F. Hitchcock, and David C. Vladeck. 1 ABS "helps prevent loss of control situations by automatically control- ling the amount of braking pressure applied to a wheel. With these sys- tems, the Electronic Control Unit (ECU) monitors wheel-speeds, and changes in wheel-speeds, based on electric signals transmitted from sen- sors located at the wheels or within the axle housings. If the wheels start to lock, the ECU signals a modulator control valve to actuate, thereby reducing the amount of braking pressure applied to the wheel that is being monitored." 57 Fed. Reg. 24213 (1992). 514us1$43n 06-11-98 18:20:01 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 280 (1995) 283 Opinion of the Court Respondents independently sued the manufacturers of the tractor-trailers under state tort law. They alleged that the absence of ABS was a negligent design that rendered the vehicles defective. Petitioners removed the actions to the District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on the basis of diversity of citizenship. They then sought summary judgment on the ground that respondents' claims were pre-empted by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act or Act), Pub. L. 89­563, 80 Stat. 718, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 1381 et seq., and its imple- menting regulations. In respondent Myrick's case, the Dis- trict Court held that the claims were pre-empted by federal law and granted summary judgment for petitioner Freight- liner. Myrick v. Fruehauf Corp., 795 F. Supp. 1139 (ND Ga. 1992). Following the opinion in the Myrick case, the Dis- trict Court granted summary judgment in the Lindsey action in favor of petitioner Navistar. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit consoli- dated the cases and reversed. Myrick v. Freuhauf Corp., 13 F. 3d 1516 (1994). It held that under its previous decision in Taylor v. General Motors Corp., 875 F. 2d 816 (CA11 1989), cert. denied, 494 U. S. 1065 (1990), the state-law tort claims were not expressly pre-empted. The Court of Ap- peals rejected petitioners' alternative argument that the claims were pre-empted due to a conflict between state law and the federal regulatory scheme. We granted certiorari, 513 U. S. 922 (1994). We now affirm. II In 1966, Congress enacted the Safety Act "to reduce traffic accidents and deaths and injuries to persons resulting from traffic accidents." 15 U. S. C. § 1381. The Act requires the Secretary of Transportation to establish "appropriate Federal motor vehicle safety standards." § 1392(a). The Act defines a safety standard as "a minimum standard for 514us1$43n 06-11-98 18:20:01 PAGES OPINPGT 284 FREIGHTLINER CORP. v. MYRICK Opinion of the Court motor vehicle performance, or motor vehicle equipment per- formance, which is practicable, which meets the need for motor vehicle safety and which provides objective criteria." § 1391(2). The Safety Act's express pre-emption clause provides: "Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this subchapter is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any author- ity either to establish, or to continue in effect, with re- spect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equip- ment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing any State from enforcing any safety standard which is identical to a Federal safety standard." § 1392(d). The Act also contains a saving clause, which states: "Compli- ance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard issued under this subchapter does not exempt any person from any liability under common law." § 1397(k). The Secretary has delegated the authority to promulgate safety standards to the Administrator of the National High- way Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). 49 CFR § 1.50(a) (1994). In 1970, the predecessor to NHTSA issued regulations concerning vehicles equipped with air brakes, which are used in trucks and tractor-trailers. Known as Standard 121, this regulation imposed stopping distances and vehicle stability requirements for trucks. See 36 Fed. Reg. 3817 (1971).2 Because these stopping distances were 2 Standard 121 required air-brake equipped vehicles to stop within cer- tain distances at various speeds without deviating from a 12-foot-wide lane, and without any wheel lock-up. 49 CFR § 571.121 S5.3.1 (1972). The initial stopping distance requirement from 60 miles per hour was 217 feet on a dry surface. The regulation also established brake actuation and release times, as well as other aspects of brake performance. Ibid. 514us1$43n 06-11-98 18:20:01 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 280 (1995) 285 Opinion of the Court shorter than those that could be achieved with brakes with- out ABS, several manufacturers notified NHTSA that ABS devices would be required. Some manufacturers asked NHTSA to alter the standard itself because they believed that ABS devices were unreliable and rendered vehicles dan- gerously unsafe when combined with new, more effective brakes. In 1974, NHTSA responded that Standard 121 was practical and that ABS devices did not cause accidents. See generally Paccar, Inc. v. NHTSA, 573 F. 2d 632, 637­638 (CA9), cert. denied, 439 U. S. 862 (1978). Several manufacturers and trade associations then sought review of Standard 121 in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. That court remanded the case to NHTSA because "a careful review of the extensive record" indicated that "the Standard was neither reasonable nor practicable at the time it was put into effect." 573 F. 2d, at 640. The court found that NHTSA had failed to consider the high failure rate of ABS devices placed in actual use, id., at 642, and that "there [was] a strong probability that [ABS] has created a poten- tially more hazardous highway situation than existed before the Standard became operative," id., at 643. Until NHTSA compiled sufficient evidence to show that ABS would not cre- ate the possibility of greater danger, the court concluded, the Standard would remain suspended. Ibid. After the Ninth Circuit's decision in Paccar, the agency amended Standard 121 so that the stopping distance and lock-up requirements no longer applied to trucks and trail- ers. NHTSA nevertheless left the unamended Standard 121 in the Code of Federal Regulations so that "the affected sections [could] most easily be reinstated" when the agency met Paccar's requirements. 44 Fed. Reg. 46849 (1979). NHTSA also stated that the provisions would remain in place so that manufacturers would know "what the agency still considers to be reasonable standards for minimum ac- ceptable performance." Ibid. Although NHTSA has de- veloped new stopping distance standards, to this day it still 514us1$43n 06-11-98 18:20:01 PAGES OPINPGT 286 FREIGHTLINER CORP. v. MYRICK Opinion of the Court has not taken final action to reinstate a safety standard gov- erning the stopping distance of trucks and trailers. III Despite the fact that Standard 121 remains suspended, petitioners maintain that respondents' lawsuits are expressly pre-empted. We disagree. The Act's pre-emption clause applies only "[w]henever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . is in effect" with respect to "the same aspect of performance" regulated by a state standard. 15 U. S. C. § 1392(d). There is no express federal standard addressing stopping distances or vehicle stability for trucks or trailers. No NHTSA regulation currently establishes a "minimum standard for . . . motor vehicle equipment performance," § 1391(2), nor is any standard "stated in objective terms," § 1392(a). There is simply no minimum, objective standard stated at all. Therefore, States remain free to "establish, or to continue in effect," their own safety standards concerning those "aspect[s] of performance." § 1392(d). Petitioners insist, however, that the absence of regulation itself constitutes regulation. Relying upon our opinion in Ray v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 435 U. S. 151 (1978), petition- ers assert that the failure of federal officials " `affirmatively to exercise their full authority takes on the character of a ruling that no such regulation is appropriate or approved pursuant to the policy of the statute.' " Id., at 178 (quoting Bethlehem Steel Co. v. New York State Labor Relations Bd., 330 U. S. 767, 774 (1947). Unlike this case, however, we found in Ray that Congress intended to centralize all author- ity over the regulated area in one decisionmaker: the Federal Government. 435 U. S., at 177. Here, there is no evidence that NHTSA decided that trucks and trailers should be free from all state regulation of stopping distances and vehicle stability. Indeed, the lack of federal regulation did not re- sult from an affirmative decision of agency officials to refrain from regulating air brakes. NHTSA did not decide that the 514us1$43n 06-11-98 18:20:01 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 280 (1995) 287 Opinion of the Court minimum, objective safety standard required by 15 U. S. C. § 1392(a) should be the absence of all standards, both federal and state.3 Rather, the lack of a federal standard stemmed from the decision of a federal court that the agency had not compiled sufficient evidence to justify its regulations. IV Even if § 1392(d) does not expressly extinguish state tort law, petitioners argue that respondents' lawsuits are pre- empted by implication because the state-law principle they seek to vindicate would conflict with federal law. We have recognized that a federal statute implicitly overrides state law either when the scope of a statute indicates that Con- gress intended federal law to occupy a field exclusively, Eng- lish v. General Elec. Co., 496 U. S. 72, 78­79 (1990), or when state law is in actual conflict with federal law. We have found implied conflict pre-emption where it is "impossible for a private party to comply with both state and federal requirements," id., at 79, or where state law "stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full pur- poses and objectives of Congress." Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52, 67 (1941). A As an initial matter, we must address the argument that we need not reach the conflict pre-emption issue at all. Ac- cording to respondents and the Court of Appeals, Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U. S. 504 (1992), held that implied pre-emption cannot exist when Congress has chosen to in- clude an express pre-emption clause in a statute. This argu- ment is without merit. In Cipollone we did hold that the 3 Because no federal safety standard exists, we need not reach respond- ents' argument that the term "standard" in 15 U. S. C. § 1392(d) pre-empts only state statutes and regulations, but not common law. We also need not address respondents' claim that the saving clause, § 1397(k), does not permit a manufacturer to use a federal safety standard to immunize itself from state common-law liability. 514us1$43n 06-11-98 18:20:01 PAGES OPINPGT 288 FREIGHTLINER CORP. v. MYRICK Opinion of the Court pre-emptive scope of the two statutes at issue was governed by the language in each Act. That conclusion rested on a familiar canon of statutory construction and on the absence of any reason to infer any broader pre-emption. Instead of announcing a categorical rule precluding the coexistence of express and implied pre-emption, however, the relevant pas- sage in the opinion stated: "In our opinion, the pre-emptive scope of the 1965 Act and the 1969 Act is governed entirely by the express language in § 5 of each Act. When Congress has consid- ered the issue of pre-emption and has included in the enacted legislation a provision explicitly addressing that issue, and when that provision provides a `reliable indi- cium of congressional intent with respect to state au- thority,' Malone v. White Motor Corp., 435 U. S., at 505, `there is no need to infer congressional intent to pre- empt state laws from the substantive provisions' of the legislation. California Federal Savings & Loan Assn. v. Guerra, 479 U. S. 272, 282 (1987) (opinion of Mar- shall, J.). Such reasoning is a variant of the familiar principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius: Con- gress' enactment of a provision defining the pre-emptive reach of a statute implies that matters beyond that reach are not pre-empted. In this case, the other provi- sions of the 1965 and 1969 Acts offer no cause to look beyond § 5 of each Act. Therefore, we need only iden- tify the domain expressly pre-empted by each of those sections. As the 1965 and 1969 provisions differ sub- stantially, we consider each in turn." Id., at 517. The fact that an express definition of the pre-emptive reach of a statute "implies"-i. e., supports a reasonable in- ference-that Congress did not intend to pre-empt other matters does not mean that the express clause entirely fore- closes any possibility of implied pre-emption. Indeed, just two paragraphs after the quoted passage in Cipollone, we 514us1$43n 06-11-98 18:20:01 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 280 (1995) 289 Opinion of the Court engaged in a conflict pre-emption analysis of the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act, 79 Stat. 282, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 1331 et seq., and found "no gen- eral, inherent conflict between federal pre-emption of state warning requirements and the continued vitality of state common-law damages actions." 505 U. S., at 518. Our sub- sequent decisions have not read Cipollone to obviate the need for analysis of an individual statute's pre-emptive ef- fects. See, e. g., CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U. S. 658, 673, n. 12 (1993) ("We reject petitioner's claim of implied `conflict' pre-emption . . . on the basis of the preceding anal- ysis"). At best, Cipollone supports an inference that an express pre-emption clause forecloses implied pre-emption; it does not establish a rule. B Petitioners' pre-emption argument is ultimately futile, however, because respondents' common-law actions do not conflict with federal law. First, it is not impossible for peti- tioners to comply with both federal and state law because there is simply no federal standard for a private party to comply with. Nothing in the Safety Act or its regulations currently regulates the use of ABS devices. As Standard 121 imposes no requirements either requiring or prohibiting ABS systems, tractor-trailer manufacturers are free to obey state standards concerning stopping distances and vehicle stability. Second, we cannot say that the respondents' lawsuits frus- trate "the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress." Hines, supra, at 67. In the absence of a promulgated safety standard, the Act simply fails to address the need for ABS devices at all. Further, Standard 121 currently has nothing to say concerning ABS devices one way or the other, and NHTSA has not ordered truck manufacturers to refrain from using ABS devices. A finding of liability against petitioners would undermine no 514us1$43n 06-11-98 18:20:01 PAGES OPINPGT 290 FREIGHTLINER CORP. v. MYRICK Opinion of the Court federal objectives or purposes with respect to ABS devices, since none exist. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is affirmed. It is so ordered. Justice Scalia concurs in the judgment. 514us1$44z 05-27-98 15:30:01 PAGES OPINPGT OCTOBER TERM, 1994 291 Syllabus HEINTZ et al. v. JENKINS certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the seventh circuit No. 94­367. Argued February 21, 1995-Decided April 18, 1995 Petitioner Heintz is a lawyer representing a bank that sued respondent Jenkins to recover the balance due on her defaulted car loan. After a letter from Heintz listed the amount Jenkins owed as including the cost of insurance bought by the bank when she reneged on her promise to insure the car, Jenkins brought this suit against Heintz and his law firm under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which forbids "debt collector[s]" to make false or misleading representations and to engage in various abusive and unfair practices. The District Court dismissed the suit, holding that the Act does not apply to lawyers engaging in litigation. The Court of Appeals disagreed and reversed. Held: The Act must be read to apply to lawyers engaged in consumer debt-collection litigation for two rather strong reasons. First, a lawyer who regularly tries to obtain payment of consumer debts through legal proceedings meets the Act's definition of "debt collector": one who "reg- ularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, [consumer] debts owed . . . another," 15 U. S. C. § 1692a(6). Second, although an earlier version of that definition expressly excluded "any attorney-at- law collecting a debt as an attorney on behalf of and in the name of a client," Congress repealed this exemption in 1986 without creating a narrower, litigation-related, exemption to fill the void. Heintz's argu- ments for nonetheless inferring the latter type of exemption-(1) that many of the Act's requirements, if applied directly to litigation activities, will create harmfully anomalous results that Congress could not have intended; (2) that a postenactment statement by one of the 1986 repeal's sponsors demonstrates that, despite the removal of the earlier blanket exemption, the Act still does not apply to lawyers' litigating activities; and (3) that a nonbinding "Commentary" by the Federal Trade Commis- sion's staff establishes that attorneys engaged in sending dunning let- ters and other traditional debt-collection activities are covered by the Act, while those whose practice is limited to legal activities are not- are unconvincing. Pp. 294­299. 25 F. 3d 536, affirmed. Breyer, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. 514us1$44z 05-27-98 15:30:01 PAGES OPINPGT 292 HEINTZ v. JENKINS Opinion of the Court George W. Spellmire argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were D. Kendall Griffith, Bruce L. Carmen, and David M. Schultz. Daniel A. Edelman argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Joanne S. Faulkner and Richard J. Rubin.* Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court. The issue before us is whether the term "debt collector" in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 91 Stat. 874, 15 U. S. C. §§ 1692­1692o (1988 ed. and Supp. V), applies to a lawyer who "regularly," through litigation, tries to collect consumer debts. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Cir- cuit held that it does. We agree with the Seventh Circuit and we affirm its judgment. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act prohibits "debt col- lector[s]" from making false or misleading representations and from engaging in various abusive and unfair practices. The Act says, for example, that a "debt collector" may not use violence, obscenity, or repeated annoying phone calls, 15 U. S. C. § 1692d; may not falsely represent "the character, amount, or legal status of any debt," § 1692e(2)(A); and may not use various "unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect" a consumer debt, § 1692f. Among other things, the Act sets out rules that a debt collector must follow for "acquiring location information" about the debtor, § 1692b; communicating about the debtor (and the *Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the American Bar Association by George E. Bushnell; for the Commercial Law League of America by Manuel H. Newburger and Barbara M. Barron; and for the National Association of Retail Collection Attorneys by Ronald S. Canter and Rosalie B. Levinson. Robert J. Hobbs, Joan S. Wise, Deborah M. Zuckerman, and Alan Alop filed a brief for the National Consumer Law Center, Inc., et al. as amici curiae urging affirmance. Andrew Rosen filed a brief for Sherry Ann Edwards as amicus curiae. 514us1$44q 05-27-98 15:30:01 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 291 (1995) 293 Opinion of the Court debt) with third parties, § 1692c(b); and bringing "[l]egal actions," § 1692i. The Act imposes upon "debt collector[s]" who violate its provisions (specifically described) "[c]ivil lia- bility" to those whom they, e. g., harass, mislead, or treat un- fairly. § 1692k. The Act also authorizes the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to enforce its provisions. § 1692l(a). The Act's definition of the term "debt collector" includes a person "who regularly collects or attempts to collect, di- rectly or indirectly, debts owed [to] . . . another." § 1692a(6). And, it limits "debt" to consumer debt, i. e., debts "arising out of . . . transaction[s]" that "are primarily for personal, family, or household purposes." § 1692a(5). The plaintiff in this case, Darlene Jenkins, borrowed money from the Gainer Bank in order to buy a car. She defaulted on her loan. The bank's law firm then sued Jen- kins in state court to recover the balance due. As part of an effort to settle the suit, a lawyer with that law firm, George Heintz, wrote to Jenkins' lawyer. His letter, in list- ing the amount she owed under the loan agreement, included $4,173 owed for insurance, bought by the bank because she had not kept the car insured as she had promised to do. Jenkins then brought this Fair Debt Collection Practices Act suit against Heintz and his firm. She claimed that Heintz's letter violated the Act's prohibitions against try- ing to collect an amount not "authorized by the agreement creating the debt," § 1692f(1), and against making a "false representation of . . . the . . . amount . . . of any debt," § 1692e(2)(A). The loan agreement, she conceded, required her to keep the car insured " `against loss or damage' " and permitted the bank to buy such insurance to protect the car should she fail to do so. App. to Pet. for Cert. 17. But, she said, the $4,173 substitute policy was not the kind of policy the loan agreement had in mind, for it insured the bank not only against "loss or damage" but also against her failure to repay the bank's car loan. Hence, Heintz's "representation" 514us1$44q 05-27-98 15:30:01 PAGES OPINPGT 294 HEINTZ v. JENKINS Opinion of the Court about the "amount" of her "debt" was "false"; amounted to an effort to collect an "amount" not "authorized" by the loan agreement; and thus violated the Act. Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the District Court dismissed Jenkins' Fair Debt Collection lawsuit for failure to state a claim. The court held that the Act does not apply to lawyers engaging in liti- gation. However, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Cir- cuit reversed the District Court's judgment, interpreting the Act to apply to litigating lawyers. 25 F. 3d 536 (1994). The Seventh Circuit's view in this respect conflicts with that of the Sixth Circuit. See Green v. Hocking, 9 F. 3d 18 (1993) (per curiam). We granted certiorari to resolve this conflict. 513 U. S. 959 (1994). And, as we have said, we conclude that the Seventh Circuit is correct. The Act does apply to law- yers engaged in litigation. There are two rather strong reasons for believing that the Act applies to the litigating activities of lawyers. First, the Act defines the "debt collector[s]" to whom it applies as in- cluding those who "regularly collec[t] or attemp[t] to collect, directly or indirectly, [consumer] debts owed or due or as- serted to be owed or due another." § 1692a(6). In ordinary English, a lawyer who regularly tries to obtain payment of consumer debts through legal proceedings is a lawyer who regularly "attempts" to "collect" those consumer debts. See, e. g., Black's Law Dictionary 263 (6th ed. 1990) ("To col- lect a debt or claim is to obtain payment or liquidation of it, either by personal solicitation or legal proceedings"). Second, in 1977, Congress enacted an earlier version of this statute, which contained an express exemption for law- yers. That exemption said that the term "debt collector" did not include "any attorney-at-law collecting a debt as an attorney on behalf of and in the name of a client." Pub. L. 95­109, § 803(6)(F), 91 Stat. 874, 875. In 1986, however, Congress repealed this exemption in its entirety, Pub. L. 99­ 361, 100 Stat. 768, without creating a narrower, litigation- 514us1$44q 05-27-98 15:30:01 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 291 (1995) 295 Opinion of the Court related, exemption to fill the void. Without more, then, one would think that Congress intended that lawyers be subject to the Act whenever they meet the general "debt collector" definition. Heintz argues that we should nonetheless read the statute as containing an implied exemption for those debt-collecting activities of lawyers that consist of litigating (including, he assumes, settlement efforts). He relies primarily on three arguments. First, Heintz argues that many of the Act's requirements, if applied directly to litigating activities, will create harm- fully anomalous results that Congress simply could not have intended. We address this argument in light of the fact that, when Congress first wrote the Act's substantive provi- sions, it had for the most part exempted litigating attorneys from the Act's coverage; that, when Congress later repealed the attorney exemption, it did not revisit the wording of these substantive provisions; and that, for these reasons, some awkwardness is understandable. Particularly when read in this light, we find Heintz's argument unconvincing. Many of Heintz's "anomalies" are not particularly anoma- lous. For example, the Sixth Circuit pointed to § 1692e(5), which forbids a "debt collector" to make any "threat to take action that cannot legally be taken." The court reasoned that, were the Act to apply to litigating activities, this provi- sion automatically would make liable any litigating lawyer who brought, and then lost, a claim against a debtor. Green, supra, at 21. But, the Act says explicitly that a "debt collec- tor" may not be held liable if he "shows by a preponderance of evidence that the violation was not intentional and re- sulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the mainte- nance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such error." § 1692k(c). Thus, even if we were to assume that the suggested reading of § 1692e(5) is correct, we would not find the result so absurd as to warrant implying an exemp- tion for litigating lawyers. In any event, the assumption 514us1$44q 05-27-98 15:30:01 PAGES OPINPGT 296 HEINTZ v. JENKINS Opinion of the Court would seem unnecessary, for we do not see how the fact that a lawsuit turns out ultimately to be unsuccessful could, by itself, make the bringing of it an "action that cannot legally be taken." The remaining significant "anomalies" similarly depend for their persuasive force upon readings that courts seem unlikely to endorse. For example, Heintz's strongest "anomaly" argument focuses upon the Act's provisions gov- erning "[c]ommunication in connection with debt collection." § 1692c. One of those provisions requires a "debt collector" not to "communicate further" with a consumer who "notifies" the "debt collector" that he or she "refuses to pay" or wishes the debt collector to "cease further communication." § 1692c(c). In light of this provision, asks Heintz, how can an attorney file a lawsuit against (and thereby communicate with) a nonconsenting consumer or file a motion for summary judgment against that consumer? We agree with Heintz that it would be odd if the Act em- powered a debt-owing consumer to stop the "communica- tions" inherent in an ordinary lawsuit and thereby cause an ordinary debt-collecting lawsuit to grind to a halt. But, it is not necessary to read § 1692c(c) in that way-if only be- cause that provision has exceptions that permit commun- ications "to notify the consumer that the debt collector or creditor may invoke" or "intends to invoke" a "specified rem- edy" (of a kind "ordinarily invoked by [the] debt collector or creditor"). §§ 1692c(c)(2), (3). Courts can read these ex- ceptions, plausibly, to imply that they authorize the actual invocation of the remedy that the collector "intends to invoke." The language permits such a reading, for an ordi- nary court-related document does, in fact, "notify" its recipi- ent that the creditor may "invoke" a judicial remedy. More- over, the interpretation is consistent with the statute's apparent objective of preserving creditors' judicial remedies. We need not authoritatively interpret the Act's conduct- regulating provisions now, however. Rather, we rest our 514us1$44q 05-27-98 15:30:01 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 291 (1995) 297 Opinion of the Court conclusions upon the fact that it is easier to read § 1692c(c) as containing some such additional, implicit, exception than to believe that Congress intended, silently and implicitly, to create a far broader exception, for all litigating attorneys, from the Act itself. Second, Heintz points to a statement of Congressman Frank Annunzio, one of the sponsors of the 1986 amendment that removed from the Act the language creating a blanket exemption for lawyers. Representative Annunzio stated that, despite the exemption's removal, the Act still would not apply to lawyers' litigating activities. Representative Annunzio said that the Act "regulates debt collection, not the practice of law. Con- gress repealed the attorney exemption to the act, not because of attorney[s'] conduct in the courtroom, but be- cause of their conduct in the backroom. Only collection activities, not legal activities, are covered by the act. . . . The act applies to attorneys when they are collecting debts, not when they are performing tasks of a legal nature. . . . The act only regulates the conduct of debt collectors, it does not prevent creditors, through their attorneys, from pursuing any legal remedies available to them." 132 Cong. Rec. 30842 (1986). This statement, however, does not persuade us. For one thing, the plain language of the Act itself says nothing about retaining the exemption in respect to litiga- tion. The line the statement seeks to draw between "legal" activities and "debt collection" activities was not necessarily apparent to those who debated the legislation, for litigating, at first blush, seems simply one way of collecting a debt. For another thing, when Congress considered the Act, other Congressmen expressed fear that repeal would limit lawyers' "ability to contact third parties in order to facilitate settle- ments" and "could very easily interfere with a client's right to pursue judicial remedies." H. R. Rep. No. 99­405, p. 11 514us1$44q 05-27-98 15:30:01 PAGES OPINPGT 298 HEINTZ v. JENKINS Opinion of the Court (1985) (dissenting views of Rep. Hiler). They proposed al- ternative language designed to keep litigation activities out- side the Act's scope, but that language was not enacted. Ibid. Further, Congressman Annunzio made his statement not during the legislative process, but after the statute be- came law. It therefore is not a statement upon which other legislators might have relied in voting for or against the Act, but it simply represents the views of one informed person on an issue about which others may (or may not) have thought differently. Finally, Heintz points to a "Commentary" on the Act by the FTC's staff. It says: "Attorneys or law firms that engage in traditional debt collection activities (sending dunning letters, making collection calls to consumers) are covered by the [Act], but those whose practice is limited to legal activities are not covered." Federal Trade Commission-State- ments of General Policy or Interpretation Staff Com- mentary on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 53 Fed. Reg. 50097, 50100 (1988) (emphasis added; footnote omitted). We cannot give conclusive weight to this statement. The Commentary of which this statement is a part says that it "is not binding on the Commission or the public." Id., at 50101. More importantly, we find nothing either in the Act or elsewhere indicating that Congress intended to authorize the FTC to create this exception from the Act's coverage- an exception that, for the reasons we have set forth above, falls outside the range of reasonable interpretations of the Act's express language. See, e. g., Brown v. Gardner, 513 U. S. 115, 120­122 (1994); see also Fox v. Citicorp Credit Servs., Inc., 15 F. 3d 1507, 1513 (CA9 1994) (FTC staff's statement conflicts with Act's plain language and is therefore not entitled to deference); Scott v. Jones, 964 F. 2d 314, 317 (CA4 1992) (same). 514us1$44q 05-27-98 15:30:01 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 291 (1995) 299 Opinion of the Court For these reasons, we agree with the Seventh Circuit that the Act applies to attorneys who "regularly" engage in consumer-debt-collection activity, even when that activity consists of litigation. Its judgment is therefore Affirmed. 514us2$45z 05-27-98 16:00:19 PAGES OPINPGT 300 OCTOBER TERM, 1994 Syllabus CELOTEX CORP. v. EDWARDS et ux. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit No. 93­1504. Argued December 6, 1994-Decided April 19, 1995 The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas en- tered a judgment in favor of respondents and against petitioner Celotex Corp. To stay execution of the judgment pending appeal, petitioner posted a supersedeas bond, with an insurance company (Northbrook) serving as surety. After the Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment, Celo- tex filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida. Exercising its equitable powers under 11 U. S. C. § 105(a), the Bankruptcy Court issued an injunction, which, in pertinent part, prohibited judgment creditors from proceeding against sureties without the Bankruptcy Court's permission. Respondents thereafter filed a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65.1 in the Northern District of Texas seeking permission to execute against Northbrook on the bond. The District Court granted the mo- tion. The Fifth Circuit affirmed and later denied Celotex's petition for rehearing, rejecting the argument that its decision allowed a collateral attack on the Bankruptcy Court order. Held: Respondents must obey the Bankruptcy Court's injunction. The well-established rule that "persons subject to an injunctive order issued by a court with jurisdiction are expected to obey that decree until it is modified or reversed, even if they have proper grounds to object to the order," GTE Sylvania, Inc. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 445 U. S. 375, 386, applies to bankruptcy cases, Oriel v. Russell, 278 U. S. 358. A bankruptcy court has jurisdiction over proceedings "aris- ing under," "arising in," or "related to" a Chapter 11 case. 28 U. S. C. §§ 1334(b) and 157(a). The "related to" language must be read to grant jurisdiction over more than simply proceedings involving the debtor's property or the estate. Respondents' immediate execution on the bond is at least a question "related to" Celotex's bankruptcy. While the pro- ceeding against Northbrook does not directly involve Celotex, the Bank- ruptcy Court found that allowing respondents and other bonded judg- ment creditors to execute immediately on the bonds would have a direct and substantial adverse effect on Celotex's ability to undergo a successful Chapter 11 reorganization. The fact that Federal Rule of Civil Proce- dure 65.1 provides an expedited procedure for executing on supersedeas bonds does not mean that such a procedure cannot be stayed by a law- 514us2$45z 05-27-98 16:00:19 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 300 (1995) 301 Opinion of the Court fully entered injunction. Board of Governors, FRS v. MCorp Finan- cial, Inc., 502 U. S. 32, distinguished. The issue whether the Bank- ruptcy Court properly issued the injunction need not be addressed here. Since it is for the court of first instance to determine the question of the validity of the law, and since its orders are to be respected until its decision is reversed, respondents should have challenged the injunction in the Bankruptcy Court rather than collaterally attacking the injunc- tion in the Texas federal courts. Pp. 306­313. 6 F. 3d 312, reversed. Rehnquist, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which O'Con- nor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg, J., joined, post, p. 313. Jeffrey W. Warren argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were John R. Bush, Christine M. Polans, Baldo M. Carnecchia, Jr., Stephen A. Madva, and Howard J. Bashman. Brent M. Rosenthal argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief was Frederick M. Baron.* Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that respondents should be allowed to execute against petitioner's surety on a supersedeas bond posted by peti- tioner where the judgment which occasioned the bond had become final. It so held even though the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida pre- viously had issued an injunction prohibiting respondents *Robert B. Millner and Lorie A. Chaiten filed a brief for Northbrook Property and Casualty Insurance Co. as amicus curiae urging reversal. Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the Association of Trial Lawyers of America by Jeffrey Robert White, J. Conard Metcalf, and Larry S. Stewart; and for the New York Clearing House Association by Richard H. Klapper and James S. Rubin. Larry L. Simms filed a brief for Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. as amicus curiae. 514us2$45h 05-27-98 16:00:19 PAGES OPINPGT 302 CELOTEX CORP. v. EDWARDS Opinion of the Court from executing on the bond without the Bankruptcy Court's permission. We hold that respondents were obligated to obey the injunction issued by the Bankruptcy Court. I In 1987 respondents Bennie and Joann Edwards filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas against petitioner Celotex Corporation (and others) alleging asbestos-related injuries. In April 1989 the Dis- trict Court entered a $281,025.80 judgment in favor of re- spondents and against Celotex. To stay execution of the judgment pending appeal, Celotex posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of $294,987.88, with Northbrook Prop- erty and Casualty Insurance Company serving as surety on the bond. As collateral for the bond, Celotex allowed Northbrook to retain money owed to Celotex under a settle- ment agreement resolving insurance coverage disputes be- tween Northbrook and Celotex. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, issuing its mandate on October 12, 1990, and thus rendering "final" respondents' judgment against Celotex. Edwards v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc., 911 F. 2d 1151 (1990). That same day, Celotex filed a voluntary peti- tion for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida.1 The filing of the petition automatically stayed both the continuation of "proceeding[s] against" Celotex and the commencement of "any act to obtain possession of prop- erty" of Celotex.2 11 U. S. C. §§ 362(a)(1) and (3). 1 For purposes of this case, we assume respondents' judgment became final before Celotex filed its petition in bankruptcy. 2 As of the filing date, more than 141,000 asbestos-related bodily injury lawsuits were pending against Celotex, and over 100 asbestos-related bodily injury cases were in some stage of appeal, with judgments totaling nearly $70 million being stayed by supersedeas bonds that Celotex had posted. 514us2$45h 05-27-98 16:00:19 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 300 (1995) 303 Opinion of the Court On October 17, 1990, the Bankruptcy Court exercised its equitable powers under 11 U. S. C. § 105(a) and issued an in- junction (hereinafter Section 105 Injunction) to augment the protection afforded Celotex by the automatic stay. In perti- nent part, the Section 105 Injunction stayed all proceedings involving Celotex "regardless of . . . whether the matter is on appeal and a supersedeas bond has been posted by [Celo- tex]." App. to Pet. for Cert. A­28.3 Respondents, whose bonded judgment against Celotex had already been affirmed on appeal, filed a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65.1 in the District Court seeking permission to execute against Northbrook on the supersedeas bond. Both Celotex and Northbrook opposed this motion, asserting that all proceedings to enforce the bonds had been enjoined by the Bankruptcy Court's Section 105 Injunction. Celotex brought to the District Court's attention the fact that, since respondents had filed their Rule 65.1 motion, the Bankruptcy Court had reaffirmed the Section 105 Injunction and made clear that the injunction prohibited judgment creditors like respondents from proceeding against sureties without the Bankruptcy Court's permission: "Where at the time of filing the petition, the appellate process between Debtor and the judgment creditor had been concluded, the judgment creditor is precluded from proceeding against any supersedeas bond posted by Debtor without first seeking to vacate the Section 105 3 The Bankruptcy Court noted that, upon request of a party in interest and following 30 days' written notice and a hearing, it would "consider granting relief from the restraints imposed" by the Section 105 Injunction. App. to Pet. for Cert. A­28. Several of Celotex's bonded judgment credi- tors whose cases were still on appeal filed motions requesting that the Bankruptcy Court lift the Section 105 Injunction (1) to enable their pend- ing appellate actions to proceed and (2) to permit them to execute upon the bonds once the appellate process concluded in their favor. The Bank- ruptcy Court granted the first request but denied the second. In re Celo- tex, 128 B. R. 478, 484 (1991) (Celotex I). 514us2$45h 05-27-98 16:00:19 PAGES OPINPGT 304 CELOTEX CORP. v. EDWARDS Opinion of the Court stay entered by this Court." In re Celotex, 128 B. R. 478, 485 (1991) (Celotex I). Despite the Bankruptcy Court's reaffirmation and clarifica- tion of the Section 105 Injunction, the District Court allowed respondents to execute on the bond against Northbrook.4 4 Two days after the District Court entered its order, the Bankruptcy Court ruled on motions to lift the Section 105 Injunction that had been filed by several bonded judgment creditors who, like respondents, had pre- vailed against Celotex on appeal. The Bankruptcy Court again reaf- firmed the Section 105 Injunction and it again explained that the injunc- tion prohibited judgment creditors like respondents from executing on the supersedeas bonds against third parties without its permission. In re Celotex, 140 B. R. 912, 914 (1992) (Celotex II). It refused to lift the Sec- tion 105 Injunction at that time, finding that Celotex would suffer irrepa- rable harm. It reasoned that if the judgment creditors were allowed to execute against the sureties on the supersedeas bonds, the sureties would in turn seek to lift the Section 105 Injunction to reach Celotex's collateral under the settlement agreements, possibly destroying any chance of a suc- cessful reorganization plan. See id., at 914­915. To protect the bonded judgment creditors, the Bankruptcy Court or- dered that: (1) the sureties involved, including Northbrook, establish es- crow accounts sufficient to insure full payment of the bonds; (2) Celotex create an interest-bearing reserve account or increase the face amount of any supersedeas bond to cover the full amount of judgment through confirmation; and (3) Celotex provide in any plan that the bonded claim- ants' claims be paid in full unless otherwise determined by the court or agreed by the claimant. Id., at 917. The Bankruptcy Court also directed Celotex to file "any preference action or any fraudulent transfer action or any other action to avoid or subordinate any judgment creditor's claim against any judgment creditor or against any surety on any supersedeas bond within 60 days of the entry" of its order. Ibid. Accordingly, Celo- tex filed an adversary proceeding against respondents, 227 other similarly situated bonded judgment creditors in over 100 cases, and the sureties on the supersedeas bonds, including Northbrook. See Second Amended Complaint in Celotex Corp. v. Allstate Ins. Co., Adversary No. 92­584 (Bkrtcy. Ct. MD Fla.). In that proceeding, Celotex asserts that the bonded judgment creditors should not be able to execute on their bonds because, by virtue of the collateralization of the bonds, the bonded judg- ment creditors are beneficiaries of Celotex asset transfers that are void- able as preferences and fraudulent transfers. See ibid. Celotex also 514us2$45h 05-27-98 16:00:19 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 300 (1995) 305 Opinion of the Court Celotex appealed, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed. Ed- wards v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc., 6 F. 3d 312 (1993) (Edwards II). It first held that, because the appel- late process for which the supersedeas bond was posted had been completed, Celotex no longer had a property interest in the bond and the automatic stay provisions of 11 U. S. C. § 362 therefore did not prevent respondents from executing against Northbrook. 6 F. 3d, at 315­317. The court then acknowledged that "[t]he jurisdiction of bankruptcy courts has been extended to include stays on proceedings involving third parties under the auspices of 28 U. S. C. § 1334(b)," id., at 318, and that the Bankruptcy Court itself had ruled that the Section 105 Injunction enjoined respondents' proceeding against Northbrook to execute on the supersedeas bond. Ibid. The Fifth Circuit nevertheless disagreed with the merits of the Bankruptcy Court's Section 105 Injunction, holding that "the integrity of the estate is not implicated in the present case because the debtor has no present or future interest in this supersedeas bond." Id., at 320. The court reasoned that the Section 105 Injunction was "manifestly un- fair" and an "unjust result" because the supersedeas bond was posted "to cover precisely the type of eventuality which occurred in this case, insolvency of the judgment debtor." Id., at 319. In concluding that the Section 105 Injunction was improper, the Fifth Circuit expressly disagreed with the reasoning and result of Willis v. Celotex Corp., 978 F. 2d 146 (1992), cert. denied, 507 U. S. 1030 (1993), where the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, examining the same Sec- tion 105 Injunction, held that the Bankruptcy Court had the power under 11 U. S. C. § 105(a) to stay proceedings against sureties on the supersedeas bonds. 6 F. 3d, at 320. Celotex filed a petition for rehearing, arguing that the Fifth Circuit's decision allowed a collateral attack on an contends that the punitive damages portions of the judgments can be voided or subordinated on other bankruptcy law grounds. See ibid. This adversary proceeding is currently pending in the Bankruptcy Court. 514us2$45h 05-27-98 16:00:19 PAGES OPINPGT 306 CELOTEX CORP. v. EDWARDS Opinion of the Court order of the Bankruptcy Court sitting under the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The Fifth Circuit denied the petition, stating in part that "we have not held that the bankruptcy court in Florida was necessarily wrong; we have only concluded that the district court, over which we do have appellate jurisdiction, was right." Id., at 321. Because of the conflict between the Fifth Circuit's decision in this case and the Fourth Circuit's decision in Willis, we granted certiorari. 511 U. S. 1105 (1994). We now reverse. II Respondents acknowledge that the Bankruptcy Court's Section 105 Injunction prohibited them from attempting to execute against Northbrook on the supersedeas bond posted by Celotex. Brief in Opposition 6, n. 2 (recognizing that the Section 105 Injunction "was intended to, and did, enjoin col- lection attempts like those made by [respondents] against Northbrook in this case"). In GTE Sylvania, Inc. v. Con- sumers Union of United States, Inc., 445 U. S. 375, 386 (1980), we reaffirmed the well-established rule that "persons subject to an injunctive order issued by a court with jurisdic- tion are expected to obey that decree until it is modified or reversed, even if they have proper grounds to object to the order." In GTE Sylvania, we went on to say: "There is no doubt that the Federal District Court in Delaware had jurisdiction to issue the temporary re- straining orders and preliminary and permanent injunc- tions. Nor were those equitable decrees challenged as only a frivolous pretense to validity, although of course there is disagreement over whether the District Court erred in issuing the permanent injunction. Under these circumstances, the CPSC was required to obey the injunctions out of respect for judicial process." Id., at 386­387 (internal quotation marks, citations, and foot- note omitted). 514us2$45h 05-27-98 16:00:19 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 300 (1995) 307 Opinion of the Court This rule was applied in the bankruptcy context more than 60 years ago in Oriel v. Russell, 278 U. S. 358 (1929), where the Court held that turnover orders issued under the old bankruptcy regime could not be collaterally attacked in a later contempt proceeding. Respondents acknowledge the validity of the rule but contend that it has no application here. They argue that the Bankruptcy Court lacked juris- diction to issue the Section 105 Injunction, though much of their argument goes to the correctness of the Bankruptcy Court's decision to issue the injunction rather than to its jurisdiction to do so. The jurisdiction of the bankruptcy courts, like that of other federal courts, is grounded in, and limited by, statute. Title 28 U. S. C. § 1334(b) provides that "the district courts shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of all civil proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in or related to cases under title 11." The district courts may, in turn, refer "any or all proceedings arising under title 11 or arising in or related to a case under title 11 . . . to the bankruptcy judges for the district." 28 U. S. C. § 157(a). Here, the Bank- ruptcy Court's jurisdiction to enjoin respondents' proceeding against Northbrook must be based on the "arising under," "arising in," or "related to" language of §§ 1334(b) and 157(a). Respondents argue that the Bankruptcy Court had juris- diction to issue the Section 105 Injunction only if their pro- ceeding to execute on the bond was "related to" the Celotex bankruptcy. Petitioner argues the Bankruptcy Court in- deed had such "related to" jurisdiction. Congress did not delineate the scope of "related to" 5 jurisdiction, but its choice 5 Proceedings "related to" the bankruptcy include (1) causes of action owned by the debtor which become property of the estate pursuant to 11 U. S. C. § 541, and (2) suits between third parties which have an effect on the bankruptcy estate. See 1 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 3.01[1][c][iv], p. 3­28 (15th ed. 1994). The first type of "related to" proceeding involves a claim like the state-law breach of contract action at issue in Northern 514us2$45h 05-27-98 16:00:20 PAGES OPINPGT 308 CELOTEX CORP. v. EDWARDS Opinion of the Court of words suggests a grant of some breadth. The jurisdic- tional grant in § 1334(b) was a distinct departure from the jurisdiction conferred under previous Acts, which had been limited to either possession of property by the debtor or con- sent as a basis for jurisdiction. See S. Rep. No. 95­989, pp. 153­154 (1978). We agree with the views expressed by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Pacor, Inc. v. Higgins, 743 F. 2d 984 (1984), that "Congress intended to grant comprehensive jurisdiction to the bankruptcy courts so that they might deal efficiently and expeditiously with all matters connected with the bankruptcy estate," id., at 994; see also H. R. Rep. No. 95­595, pp. 43­48 (1977), and that the "related to" language of § 1334(b) must be read to give district courts (and bankruptcy courts under § 157(a)) juris- diction over more than simply proceedings involving the property of the debtor or the estate. We also agree with that court's observation that a bankruptcy court's "related to" jurisdiction cannot be limitless. See Pacor, supra, at 994; cf. Board of Governors, FRS v. MCorp Financial, Inc., 502 U. S. 32, 40 (1991) (stating that Congress has vested "lim- ited authority" in bankruptcy courts).6 Pipeline Constr. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U. S. 50 (1982). The instant case involves the second type of "related to" proceeding. 6 In attempting to strike an appropriate balance, the Third Circuit in Pacor, Inc. v. Higgins, 743 F. 2d 984 (1984), devised the following test for determining the existence of "related to" jurisdiction: "The usual articulation of the test for determining whether a civil pro- ceeding is related to bankruptcy is whether the outcome of that proceeding could conceivably have any effect on the estate being administered in bankruptcy. . . . Thus, the proceeding need not necessarily be against the debtor or against the debtor's property. An action is related to bank- ruptcy if the outcome could alter the debtor's rights, liabilities, options, or freedom of action (either positively or negatively) and which in any way impacts upon the handling and administration of the bankrupt estate." Id., at 994 (emphasis in original; citations omitted). The First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Cir- cuits have adopted the Pacor test with little or no variation. See In re G. S. F. Corp., 938 F. 2d 1467, 1475 (CA1 1991); A. H. Robins Co. v. Pic- 514us2$45h 05-27-98 16:00:20 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 300 (1995) 309 Opinion of the Court We believe that the issue whether respondents are entitled to immediate execution on the bond against Northbrook is at least a question "related to" Celotex's bankruptcy.7 Admit- tedly, a proceeding by respondents against Northbrook on the supersedeas bond does not directly involve Celotex, ex- cept to satisfy the judgment against it secured by the bond. But to induce Northbrook to serve as surety on the bond, cinin, 788 F. 2d 994, 1002, n. 11 (CA4), cert. denied, 479 U. S. 876 (1986); In re Wood, 825 F. 2d 90, 93 (CA5 1987); Robinson v. Michigan Consol. Gas Co., 918 F. 2d 579, 583­584 (CA6 1990); In re Dogpatch U. S. A., Inc., 810 F. 2d 782, 786 (CA8 1987); In re Fietz, 852 F. 2d 455, 457 (CA9 1988); In re Gardner, 913 F. 2d 1515, 1518 (CA10 1990); In re Lemco Gypsum, Inc., 910 F. 2d 784, 788, and n. 19 (CA11 1990). The Second and Seventh Circuits, on the other hand, seem to have adopted a slightly different test. See In re Turner, 724 F. 2d 338, 341 (CA2 1983); In re Xonics, Inc., 813 F. 2d 127, 131 (CA7 1987); Home Ins. Co. v. Cooper & Cooper, Ltd., 889 F. 2d 746, 749 (CA7 1989). But whatever test is used, these cases make clear that bankruptcy courts have no jurisdiction over proceedings that have no effect on the estate of the debtor. 7 The dissent agrees that respondents' proceeding to execute on the su- persedeas bond is "related to" Celotex's bankruptcy, post, at 318, n. 5, but noting that "only the district court has the power [under 28 U. S. C. § 157(c)(1)] to enter `any final order or judgment' " in related "[n]on-core proceedings," post, at 321­322, the dissent concludes that the Bankruptcy Court here did not possess sufficient "related to" jurisdiction to issue the Section 105 Injunction, post, at 322. The Section 105 Injunction, however, is only an interlocutory stay which respondents have yet to challenge. See infra, at 313. Thus, the Bankruptcy Court did not lack jurisdiction under § 157(c)(1) to issue the Section 105 Injunction because that injunc- tion was not a "final order or judgment." In any event, respondents have waived any claim that the granting of the Section 105 Injunction was a noncore proceeding under § 157(c)(1). Respondents base their arguments solely on 28 U. S. C. § 1334, and concede in their brief that the "bankruptcy court had subject matter jurisdiction to issue orders affecting the bond, then, only if the proceedings on the bond were `related' to the Celotex bankruptcy itself within the meaning of § 1334(b)." Brief for Respondents 22. We conclude, and the dissent agrees, that those proceedings are so related. See post, at 317­318, and n. 5. We thus need not (and do not) reach the question whether the grant- ing of the Section 105 Injunction was a "core" proceeding. 514us2$45h 05-27-98 16:00:20 PAGES OPINPGT 310 CELOTEX CORP. v. EDWARDS Opinion of the Court Celotex agreed to allow Northbrook to retain the proceeds of a settlement resolving insurance coverage disputes between Northbrook and Celotex. The Bankruptcy Court found that allowing respondents-and 227 other bonded judgment cred- itors-to execute immediately on the bonds would have a direct and substantial adverse effect on Celotex's ability to undergo a successful reorganization. It stated: "[I]f the Section 105 stay were lifted to enable the judg- ment creditors to reach the sureties, the sureties in turn would seek to lift the Section 105 stay to reach Debtor's collateral, with corresponding actions by Debtor to pre- serve its rights under the settlement agreements. Such a scenario could completely destroy any chance of re- solving the prolonged insurance coverage disputes cur- rently being adjudicated in this Court. The settlement of the insurance coverage disputes with all of Debtor's insurers may well be the linchpin of Debtor's formula- tion of a feasible plan. Absent the confirmation of a fea- sible plan, Debtor may be liquidated or cease to exist after a carrion feast by the victors in a race to the court- house." In re Celotex, 140 B. R. 912, 915 (1992) (Celo- tex II). In light of these findings by the Bankruptcy Court, it is relevant to note that we are dealing here with a reorganiza- tion under Chapter 11, rather than a liquidation under Chap- ter 7. The jurisdiction of bankruptcy courts may extend more broadly in the former case than in the latter. Cf. Con- tinental Ill. Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 294 U. S. 648, 676 (1935). And we think our holding- that respondents' immediate execution on the supersedeas bond is at least "related to" the Celotex bankruptcy-is in accord with representative recent decisions of the Courts of Appeals. See, e. g., American Hardwoods, Inc. v. Deutsche Credit Corp., 885 F. 2d 621, 623 (CA9 1989) (finding "related to" jurisdiction where enforcement of state-court judgment 514us2$45h 05-27-98 16:00:20 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 300 (1995) 311 Opinion of the Court by creditor against debtor's guarantors would affect adminis- tration of debtor's reorganization plan); cf. MacArthur Co. v. Johns-Manville Corp., 837 F. 2d 89, 93 (CA2) (noting that a bankruptcy court's injunctive powers under § 105(a) allow it to enjoin suits that "might impede the reorganization proc- ess"), cert. denied, 488 U. S. 868 (1988); In re A. H. Robins Co., 828 F. 2d 1023, 1024­1026 (CA4 1987) (affirming Bank- ruptcy Court's § 105(a) injunction barring products liability plaintiffs from bringing actions against debtor's insurers because such actions would interfere with debtor's reorga- nization), cert. denied sub nom., 485 U. S. 969 (1988).8 Respondents, relying on our decision in Board of Gover- nors, FRS v. MCorp Financial, Inc., 502 U. S. 32 (1991), con- tend that § 1334(b)'s statutory grant of jurisdiction must be reconciled and harmonized with Federal Rule of Civil Proce- dure 65.1, which provides an expedited procedure for execut- ing on supersedeas bonds. In MCorp, we held that the grant of jurisdiction in § 1334(b) to district courts sitting in bankruptcy did not authorize an injunction against a regula- tory proceeding, but there we relied on "the specific preclu- sive language" of 12 U. S. C. § 1818(i)(1), which stated that " `no court shall have jurisdiction to affect by injunction or otherwise the issuance or enforcement of any [Board] notice or order.' " 502 U. S., at 39, 42. There is no analogous statutory prohibition against enjoining the maintenance of a proceeding under Rule 65.1. That Rule provides: "Whenever these rules . . . require or permit the giving of security by a party, and security is given in the form 8 We recognize the theoretical possibility of distinguishing between the proceeding to execute on the bond in the Fifth Circuit and the § 105 stay proceeding in the Bankruptcy Court in the Eleventh Circuit. One might argue, technically, that though the proceeding to execute on the bond is "related to" the Title 11 case, the stay proceeding "arises under" Title 11, or "arises in" the Title 11 case. See In re Monroe Well Serv., Inc., 67 B. R. 746, 753 (Bkrtcy. Ct. ED Pa. 1986). We need not and do not decide this question here. 514us2$45h 05-27-98 16:00:20 PAGES OPINPGT 312 CELOTEX CORP. v. EDWARDS Opinion of the Court of a bond or stipulation or other undertaking with one or more sureties, each surety submits to the jurisdiction of the court and irrevocably appoints the clerk of the court as the surety's agent upon whom any papers af- fecting the surety's liability on the bond or undertaking may be served. The surety's liability may be enforced on motion without the necessity of an independent action. . . ." This Rule outlines a streamlined procedure for executing on bonds. It assures judgment creditors like respondents that they do not have to bring a separate action against sureties, and instead allows them to collect on the supersedeas bond by merely filing a motion. Just because the Rule provides a simplified procedure for collecting on a bond, however, does not mean that such a procedure, like the more complicated procedure of a full-fledged lawsuit, cannot be stayed by a lawfully entered injunction. Much of our discussion dealing with the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court under the "related to" language of §§ 1334(b) and 157(a) is likewise applicable in determining whether or not the Bankruptcy Court's Section 105 Injunc- tion has "only a frivolous pretense to validity." GTE Syl- vania, 445 U. S., at 386 (internal quotation marks and cita- tion omitted). The Fourth Circuit has upheld the merits of the Bankruptcy Court's Section 105 Injunction, see Willis, 978 F. 2d, at 149­150, and even the Fifth Circuit in this case did not find "that the bankruptcy court in Florida was neces- sarily wrong." See Edwards II, 6 F. 3d, at 321. But we need not, and do not, address whether the Bankruptcy Court acted properly in issuing the Section 105 Injunction.9 9 The dissent contends that Celotex's attempts to set aside the superse- deas bond are "patently meritless" because none of Celotex's claims can impair Northbrook's obligation to respondents. See post, at 325. That premise, however, is not so clear as to give the Section 105 Injunction "only a frivolous pretense to validity." There is authority suggesting that, in certain circumstances, transfers from the debtor to another for 514us2$45h 05-27-98 16:00:20 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 300 (1995) 313 Stevens, J., dissenting We have made clear that " `[i]t is for the court of first in- stance to determine the question of the validity of the law, and until its decision is reversed for error by orderly review, either by itself or by a higher court, its orders based on its decision are to be respected.' " Walker v. Birmingham, 388 U. S. 307, 314 (1967) (quoting Howat v. Kansas, 258 U. S. 181, 189­190 (1922)). If respondents believed the Section 105 Injunction was improper, they should have challenged it in the Bankruptcy Court, like other similarly situated bonded judgment creditors have done. See Celotex II, 140 B. R., at 912. If dissatisfied with the Bankruptcy Court's ultimate decision, respondents can appeal "to the district court for the judicial district in which the bankruptcy judge is serv- ing," see 28 U. S. C. § 158(a), and then to the Court of Ap- peals for the Eleventh Circuit, see § 158(d). Respondents chose not to pursue this course of action, but instead to collaterally attack the Bankruptcy Court's Section 105 In- junction in the federal courts in Texas. This they cannot be permitted to do without seriously undercutting the orderly process of the law. The judgment of the Court of Appeals, accordingly, is reversed. It is so ordered. Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Ginsburg joins, dissenting. Today the majority holds that an Article III court erred when it allowed plaintiffs who prevailed on appeal to collect on a supersedeas bond in the face of an injunction issued by a non-Article III judge. Because, in my view, the majority the benefit of a third party may be recovered from that third party. See In re Air Conditioning, Inc. of Stuart, 845 F. 2d 293, 296­299 (CA11), cert. denied, 488 U. S. 993 (1988); In re Compton Corp., 831 F. 2d 586, 595 (1987), modified on other grounds, 835 F. 2d 584 (CA5 1988). Although we offer no opinion on the merits of that authority or on whether it fits the facts here, it supports our conclusion that the stay was not frivolous. 514us2$45i 05-27-98 16:00:20 PAGES OPINPGT 314 CELOTEX CORP. v. EDWARDS Stevens, J., dissenting attaches insufficient weight to the fact that the challenged injunction was issued by a non-Article III judge, I respect- fully dissent. I The outlines of the problems I perceive are best drawn by starting with an examination of the injunctions and opinions issued by the Bankruptcy Judge in this case. As the major- ity notes, Bennie and Joann Edwards (the Edwards) won a tort judgment against Celotex Corporation for damages Ben- nie Edwards suffered as a result of exposure to asbestos. To stay the judgment pending appeal, Celotex arranged for Northbrook Property and Casualty Insurance Company (Northbrook) to post a supersedeas bond to cover the full amount of the judgment. On October 12, 1990, before Celo- tex filed its voluntary petition under Chapter 11 of the Bank- ruptcy Code, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the Edwards' judgment against Celotex. It is undisputed that, when the Edwards' judgment was affirmed, any property interest that Celotex retained in the superse- deas bond was extinguished. The filing of Celotex's bankruptcy petition on October 12, 1990, triggered the automatic stay provisions of the Bank- ruptcy Code. See 11 U. S. C. § 362(a). On October 17, 1990, the Bankruptcy Judge, acting pursuant to 11 U. S. C. § 105(a),1 supplemented the automatic stay provisions with an emer- gency order staying, inter alia, all proceedings "involving any of the Debtors [i. e., Celotex]." App. to Pet. for Cert. A­28. The supersedeas bond filed in the Edwards' case, however, evidences an independent obligation on the part of 1 Title 11 U. S. C. § 105(a) provides: "The court may issue any order, process, or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title. No provision of this title providing for the raising of an issue by a party in interest shall be construed to preclude the court from, sua sponte, taking any action or making any determination necessary or appropriate to enforce or imple- ment court orders or rules, or to prevent an abuse of process." 514us2$45i 05-27-98 16:00:20 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 300 (1995) 315 Stevens, J., dissenting Northbrook. For that reason, neither the automatic stay of proceedings against the debtor pursuant to § 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code nor the Bankruptcy Judge's October 17, § 105(a) stay restrained the Edwards from proceed- ing against Northbrook to enforce Northbrook's obligations under the bond. As the Court of Appeals correctly held, the October 17 order enjoined the prosecution of proceedings involving "the Debtors," but did not expressly enjoin the Ed- wards from proceeding against Northbrook. See Edwards v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc., 6 F. 3d 312, 315 (CA5 1993). On May 3, 1991, the Edwards commenced their proceeding against Northbrook by filing a motion pursuant to Rule 65.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 2 to enforce the su- persedeas bond. Several weeks later-on June 13, 1991- the Bankruptcy Court entered a new three-paragraph order enjoining all of Celotex's judgment creditors from collecting on their supersedeas bonds. Paragraph 1 of the order ad- dressed creditors whose appellate process had not yet con- cluded. Paragraph 2 addressed creditors whose appellate process concluded only after Celotex had filed for bank- ruptcy. Paragraph 3 applied to judgment creditors, such as the Edwards, whose appeals had concluded before the filing of the bankruptcy petition. Paragraph 3 expressly pre- cluded those creditors from proceeding against any bond "without first seeking to vacate the Section 105 stay entered by this Court." In re Celotex Corp., 128 B. R. 478, 485 (Bkrtcy. Ct. MD Fla. 1991). 2 Rule 65.1 states: "Whenever these rules . . . require or permit the giving of security by a party, and security is given in the form of a bond or stipulation or other undertaking with one or more sureties, each surety submits to the juris- diction of the court and irrevocably appoints the clerk of the court as the surety's agent upon whom any papers affecting the surety's liability on the bond or undertaking may be served. The surety's liability may be enforced on motion without the necessity of an independent action." 514us2$45i 05-27-98 16:00:20 PAGES OPINPGT 316 CELOTEX CORP. v. EDWARDS Stevens, J., dissenting The opinion supporting that order explained that Para- graphs 1 and 2 rested in part on the theory that the debtor retains a property interest in the supersedeas bonds until the appellate process was complete, and any attempt to col- lect on those bonds was therefore covered in the first in- stance by § 362(a)'s automatic stay provisions. The opinion recognized that that rationale did not cover supersedeas bonds posted in litigation with judgment creditors, such as the Edwards, whose appellate process was complete. The Bankruptcy Judge concluded, however, that § 105(a) gave him the power to stay the collection efforts of such bonded judgment creditors. The Bankruptcy Judge contended that other courts had utilized the § 105(a) stay "to preclude ac- tions which may `impede the reorganization process,' " id., at 483, quoting In re Johns-Manville Corp., 837 F. 2d 89, 93 (CA2), cert. denied, 488 U. S. 868 (1988), or " `which will have an adverse impact on the Debtor's ability to formulate a Chapter 11 plan,' " 128 B. R., at 483, quoting A. H. Robins Co. v. Piccinin, 788 F. 2d 994 (CA4), cert. denied, 479 U. S. 876 (1986). But cf. n. 12, infra. Apparently viewing his own authority as virtually limitless, the Bankruptcy Judge described a general bankruptcy power "to stop ongoing liti- gation and to prevent peripheral court decisions from dealing with issues . . . without first allowing the bankruptcy court to have an opportunity to review the potential effect on the debtor." 128 B. R., at 484. He concluded that in "mega" cases in which "potential conflicts with other judicial deter- minations" might arise, "the powers of the bankruptcy court under Section 105 must in the initial stage be absolute." Ibid. I do not agree that the powers of a bankruptcy judge, a non-Article III judge, "must . . . be absolute" at the initial stage or indeed at any stage. Instead, the jurisdiction and the power of bankruptcy judges are cabined by specific and important statutory and constitutional constraints that oper- ate at every phase of a bankruptcy. In my view, those con- 514us2$45i 05-27-98 16:00:20 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 300 (1995) 317 Stevens, J., dissenting straints require that the judgment of the Court of Appeals be affirmed. The majority concludes that the Court of Appeals must be reversed because the Bankruptcy Judge had jurisdiction to issue the injunction and because the injunction had more than a " `frivolous pretense to validity.' " Ante, at 312. Even applying the majority's framework, I would affirm the Court of Appeals. As I will demonstrate, the constraints on the jurisdiction and authority of the Bankruptcy Judge com- pel the conclusion that the Bankruptcy Judge lacked jurisdic- tion to issue the challenged injunction, and that the injunc- tion has only a " `frivolous pretense to validity.' " I will also explain, however, why the majority's deferential approach seems particularly inappropriate as applied to this particular injunction, now in its fifth year of preventing enforcement of supersedeas bonds lodged in an Article III court. II In my view, the Bankruptcy Judge lacked jurisdiction to issue an injunction that prevents an Article III court from allowing a judgment creditor to collect on a supersedeas bond posted in that court by a nondebtor. In reaching the contrary conclusion, the majority relies primarily on the Bankruptcy Judge's "related to" jurisdiction, and thus I will address that basis of jurisdiction first. The majority prop- erly observes that, under 28 U. S. C. § 1334(b), the district court has broad bankruptcy jurisdiction, extending to "all civil proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in or re- lated to cases under title 11." 3 The majority also notes cor- 3 The full text of § 1334 reads as follows: "(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, the district courts shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all cases under title 11. "(b) Notwithstanding any Act of Congress that confers exclusive ju- risdiction on a court or courts other than the district courts, the dis- 514us2$45i 05-27-98 16:00:20 PAGES OPINPGT 318 CELOTEX CORP. v. EDWARDS Stevens, J., dissenting rectly that the Edwards' action to enforce the supersedeas bond is within the district court's "related to" jurisdiction,4 because allowing creditors such as the Edwards "to execute immediately on the bonds would have a direct and substan- tial adverse effect on Celotex's ability to undergo a success- ful reorganization." Ante, at 310.5 The majority then ob- trict courts shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of all civil proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in or related to cases under title 11. "(c)(1) Nothing in this section prevents a district court in the interest of justice, or in the interest of comity with State courts or respect for State law, from abstaining from hearing a particular proceeding arising under title 11 or arising in or related to a case under title 11. "(2) Upon timely motion of a party in a proceeding based upon a State law claim or State law cause of action, related to a case under title 11 but not arising under title 11 or arising in a case under title 11, with respect to which an action could not have been commenced in a court of the United States absent jurisdiction under this section, the district court shall ab- stain from hearing such proceeding if an action is commenced, and can be timely adjudicated, in a State forum of appropriate jurisdiction. Any decision to abstain or not to abstain made under this subsection is not reviewable by appeal or otherwise by the court of appeals under section 158(d), 1291, or 1292 of this title or by the Supreme Court of the United States under section 1254 of this title. This subsection shall not be con- strued to limit the applicability of the stay provided for by section 362 of title 11, United States Code, as such section applies to an action affecting the property of the estate in bankruptcy. "(d) The district court in which a case under title 11 is commenced or is pending shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all of the property, wherever located, of the debtor as of the commencement of such case, and of prop- erty of the estate." 28 U. S. C. § 1334 (1988 ed. and Supp. V). 4 As § 1334(b) indicates, the district court's "related to" jurisdiction is "original but not exclusive." 5 I do not take issue with the conclusion that the Edwards' attempt to collect on the supersedeas bond falls within the "related to" jurisdiction of the district court. Cf. 1 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 3.01[1][c][iv], p. 3­29 (15th ed. 1994) (hereinafter Collier) (" `Related' proceedings which involve litigation between third parties, which could have some effect on the ad- ministration of the bankruptcy case, are illustrated by suits by creditors against guarantors"). Despite the Edwards' argument to the contrary, it seems to me quite clear that allowing the Edwards to recover from North- 514us2$45i 05-27-98 16:00:20 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 300 (1995) 319 Stevens, J., dissenting serves that, under 28 U. S. C. § 157(a), the district court may "refe[r]" to the bankruptcy judge "any or all cases under title 11 and any or all proceedings arising under title 11 or arising in or related to a case under title 11." 6 Thus, the majority concludes that, because the Edwards' action to enforce the brook on the supersedeas bond would have an adverse impact on Celotex because Northbrook would then be able to retain the insurance proceeds that Celotex pledged as collateral when the bond was issued. Indeed, I am willing to assume that if all of the bonds were enforced, the reorganiza- tion efforts would fail and Celotex would have to be liquidated. In my judgment, however, the specter of liquidation is not an acceptable basis for concluding that a bankruptcy judge, and not just the district court, has jurisdiction to interfere with the performance of a third party's fixed obligation to a judgment creditor. I also agree with the majority, ante, at 308­309, n. 6, that the facts of this case do not require us to resolve whether Pacor v. Higgins, 743 F. 2d 984 (CA3 1984), articulates the proper test for determining the scope of the district court's "related to" jurisdiction. 6 The text of § 157 reads in relevant part as follows: "(a) Each district court may provide that any or all cases under title 11 and any or all proceedings arising under title 11 or arising in or related to a case under title 11 shall be referred to the Bankruptcy Judges for the district. "(b)(1) Bankruptcy judges may hear and determine all cases under title 11 and all core proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in a case under title 11, referred under subsection (a) of this section, and may enter appropriate orders and judgments, subject to review under section 158 of this title. . . . . . "(c)(1) A bankruptcy judge may hear a proceeding that is not a core pro- ceeding but that is otherwise related to a case under title 11. In such proceeding, the Bankruptcy Judge shall submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court, and any final order or judg- ment shall be entered by the district judge after considering the Bank- ruptcy Judge's proposed findings and conclusions and after reviewing de novo those matters to which any party has timely and specifically objected. "(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection, the district court, with the consent of all the parties to the proceeding, may refer a proceeding related to a case under title 11 to a bankruptcy judge to hear and determine and to enter appropriate orders and judg- ments, subject to review under section 158 of this title." 514us2$45i 05-27-98 16:00:20 PAGES OPINPGT 320 CELOTEX CORP. v. EDWARDS Stevens, J., dissenting supersedeas bond was within the District Court's "related to" jurisdiction and because the District Court referred all matters to the Bankruptcy Judge, the Bankruptcy Judge had jurisdiction over the Edwards' action. In my view, the majority's approach pays insufficient at- tention to the remaining provisions of § 157, and, more im- portantly, to the decision of this Court that gave rise to their creation. The current jurisdictional structure of the Bank- ruptcy Code reflects this Court's decision in Northern Pipe- line Constr. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U. S. 50 (1982), which in turn addressed the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978, 92 Stat. 2549. The 1978 Act significantly restruc- tured the Bankruptcy Code. The Act created "bankruptcy courts" and vested in them "jurisdiction over all `civil pro- ceedings arising under title 11 [the Bankruptcy title] or aris- ing in or related to cases under title 11.' " Northern Pipe- line, 458 U. S., at 54, quoting 28 U. S. C. § 1471(b) (1976 ed., Supp. IV). As the plurality opinion in Northern Pipeline observed, "[t]his jurisdictional grant empowers bankruptcy courts to entertain a wide variety of cases," involving "claims based on state law as well as those based on federal law." 458 U. S., at 54. The Act also bestowed upon the judges of the bankruptcy courts broad powers to accompany this expanded jurisdiction. See n. 6, supra; Northern Pipe- line, 458 U. S., at 55. The Act did not, however, make the newly empowered bankruptcy judges Article III judges. In particular, it denied bankruptcy judges the life tenure and salary protection that the Constitution requires for Article III judges. See U. S. Const., Art. III, § 1. In Northern Pipeline, this Court held that the Act was unconstitutional, at least insofar as it allowed a non-Article III court to "entertain and decide" a purely state-law claim. 458 U. S., at 91 (Rehnquist, J., concurring in judgment); see also id., at 86 (plurality opinion). The plurality opinion distinguished the revamped bankruptcy courts from prior 514us2$45i 05-27-98 16:00:20 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 300 (1995) 321 Stevens, J., dissenting district court "adjuncts" which the Court had found did not violate Article III. The plurality noted that, in contrast to the narrow, specialized jurisdiction exercised by these prior adjuncts, "the subject-matter jurisdiction of the bankruptcy courts encompasses not only traditional matters of bank- ruptcy, but also `all civil proceedings arising under title 11 or arising in or related to cases under title 11.' " Id., at 85. In addition, prior adjuncts "engaged in statutorily channeled factfinding functions," while the bankruptcy courts "exercise `all of the jurisdiction' conferred by the Act on the district courts." 7 Ibid. In response to Northern Pipeline, Congress passed the Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984 (1984 amendments), 98 Stat. 333. Section 157 was passed as part of the 1984 amendments. Section 157 establishes two broad categories of proceedings: "core proceedings" and "[n]on-core proceedings." For "all core proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in a case under title 11, referred under [§ 157(a)]," § 157(b)(1) permits bankruptcy judges to "hear and determine" the proceedings and to "enter ap- propriate orders and judgments." For noncore proceedings "otherwise related to a case under title 11," § 157(c)(1) per- mits the bankruptcy court only to "hear" the proceedings and to "submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court." See 1 Collier ¶ 3.01[1][c][iv], at 3­28 ("[C]ivil proceedings `related to cases under title 11' " are "excluded from being treated as `core proceedings' by 28 U. S. C. § 157(b)(1), and are the subject of special procedures contained in section[s] 157(c)(1) and (c)(2)"). For these "re- lated proceedings," 1 Collier ¶ 3.01[1][c][iv], at 3­28, only the 7 The plurality also noted that, in contrast to the limited powers pos- sessed by prior adjuncts, "the bankruptcy courts exercise all ordinary powers of district courts." 458 U. S., at 85. See n. 6, supra. 514us2$45i 05-27-98 16:00:20 PAGES OPINPGT 322 CELOTEX CORP. v. EDWARDS Stevens, J., dissenting district court has the power to enter "any final order or judgment." 8 In my view, the distinction between the jurisdiction to "hear and determine" core proceedings on the one hand and the jurisdiction only to "hear" related proceedings on the other hand is critical, if not dispositive. I believe that the jurisdiction to hear (and yet not to determine) a case under § 157(c)(1) provides insufficient jurisdiction to a bankruptcy judge to permit him to issue a binding injunction that pre- vents an Article III court from exercising its conceded juris- diction over the case.9 The unambiguous text of § 157(c)(1) 8 The district court may enter judgment only after de novo review of the bankruptcy judge's recommendation with respect to any matters to which one of the parties has raised a timely objection. See 28 U. S. C. § 157(c)(1). 9 It should be noted that the Bankruptcy Judge's order cannot be upheld on the ground that it purported to enjoin only the Edwards and thus did not enjoin directly the Article III court. First, the Bankruptcy Judge's orders cannot be interpreted so narrowly. The October 17 order enjoined, inter alia, "all Entities" from "commencing or continuing any judicial, ad- ministrative or other proceeding involving any of the Debtors." App. to Pet. for Cert. A­28. In my view, the word "entities" includes courts. In- deed, the Bankruptcy Judge's order tracks § 362(a)'s automatic stay provi- sions, which provide, in part, that the automatic stay is applicable "to all entities" and which enjoin "the commencement or continuation . . . of a judicial, administrative, or other action or proceeding against the debtor." 11 U. S. C. § 362(a)(1). The Courts of Appeals have uniformly held that "entities," as used in § 362, include courts. See, e. g., Maritime Electric Co., 959 F. 2d 1194, 1206 (CA3 1991) ("§ 362's stay is mandatory and `appli- cable to all entities', including state and federal courts"); Pope v. Manville Forest Products Corp., 778 F. 2d 238, 239 (CA5 1985) ("just the entry of an order of dismissal, even if entered sua sponte, constitutes a judicial act toward the disposition of the case and hence may be construed as a `continuation' of a judicial proceeding"); Ellis v. Consolidated Diesel Elec- tric Corp., 894 F. 2d 371, 372­373 (CA10 1990) (District Court's entry of summary judgment violated § 362(a)'s automatic stay); see also Maritime Electric Co., 959 F. 2d, at 1206 (collecting cases). Cf. 2 Collier ¶ 101.15, at 101­62 to 101­63 (" `Entity' is the broadest of all definitions which re- late to bodies or units"). More importantly, though the Bankruptcy Judge's June 13 order en- joins " `the judgment creditor,' " In re Celotex Corp., 128 B. R. 478, 485 514us2$45i 05-27-98 16:00:20 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 300 (1995) 323 Stevens, J., dissenting requires that the bankruptcy judge's participation in related proceedings be merely advisory rather than adjudicative. In my view, having jurisdiction to grant injunctions over cases that one may not decide is inconsistent with such an advisory role. An injunction is an extraordinary remedy whose impact on private rights may be just as onerous as a final determination. The constitutional concerns that ani- mate the current jurisdictional provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and that deny non-Article III tribunals the power to determine private controversies apply with equal force to the entry of an injunction interfering with the exercise of the admitted jurisdiction of an Article III tribunal.10 In sum, my view on the sufficiency of "related to" jurisdic- tion to sustain the injunction in this case can be stated quite simply: If a bankruptcy judge lacks jurisdiction to "deter- mine" a question, the judge also lacks jurisdiction to issue an injunction that prevents an Article III court, which conced- edly does have jurisdiction, from determining that ques- (Bkrtcy. Ct. MD Fla. 1991), the order clearly has the same practical effect as if it enjoined the court directly. My objection to the majority's ap- proach does not at all depend on whether the order that prevents the Article III court from exercising its jurisdiction does so directly or indi- rectly. Instead, my view is simply that a Bankruptcy Judge who lacks jurisdiction to decide an issue may not prevent an Article III court that is ready and willing to exercise its conceded jurisdiction from doing so. 10 In addition, 28 U. S. C. § 1334(c)(2) provides for mandatory abstention in cases involving state-law claims for which the sole basis of bankruptcy jurisdiction is "related to" jurisdiction. That provision thus makes clear that no order could have been entered over the Edwards' objection if their tort action had been tried in a state rather than a federal court. The Bankruptcy Judge's order, which does not distinguish proceedings to en- force supersedeas bonds that were posted in state-court proceedings, fails to address the implications of this mandatory abstention provision. I also believe that Congress would have expected bankruptcy judges to show the same deference to federal courts adjudicating state-law claims under diversity jurisdiction, at least when the bankruptcy judge purports to act on the basis of his "related to" jurisdiction and when the federal action can be "timely adjudicated." Ibid. 514us2$45i 05-27-98 16:00:20 PAGES OPINPGT 324 CELOTEX CORP. v. EDWARDS Stevens, J., dissenting tion.11 Any conclusion to the contrary would trivialize the constitutional imperatives that shaped the Bankruptcy Code's jurisdictional provisions.12 III Petitioner and the majority rely primarily on "related to" jurisdiction. Indeed, the Court's holding appears to rest al- most entirely on the view that a bankruptcy judge has juris- diction to enjoin proceedings in Article III courts whenever those proceedings are "related to" a pending Title 11 case. See ante, at 307­311. Two footnotes in the Court's opinion, however, might be read as suggesting alternative bases of 11 I agree with the majority that the Bankruptcy Judge's order is a tem- porary injunction, and thus it is not a "final order or judgment." Ante, at 309, n. 7. The temporary nature of the injunction, however, is irrele- vant. As I have stated repeatedly in the text, I believe that a statutory scheme that deprives a bankruptcy judge of jurisdiction to "determine" a case also deprives that judge of jurisdiction to issue binding injunctions- even temporary ones-that would prevent an Article III court with juris- diction over the case from determining it. 12 The cases on which the Bankruptcy Judge relied are entirely consist- ent with my approach, and they provide at most indirect support for his order. In A. H. Robins Co. v. Piccinin, 788 F. 2d 994, 997 (CA4), cert. denied, 479 U. S. 876 (1986), the challenged injunction was issued by an Article III court ("[T]he district court granted Robins' request for a pre- liminary injunction"); and in In re Johns-Manville Corp., 837 F. 2d 89, 91­92 (CA2), cert. denied, 488 U. S. 868 (1988), the Court of Appeals found that the Bankruptcy Judge had jurisdiction to enter the injunction in a core proceeding because the insurance policies that were the subject of the injunction were property of the bankruptcy estate. Thus, those cases do not support the present injunction, which was issued by a non-Article III judge and which affects supersedeas bonds that are concededly not property of the debtor's estate. I also note that in Willis v. Celotex Corp., 978 F. 2d 146 (1992), cert. denied, 507 U. S. 1030 (1993), though upholding the very injunction at issue in this case, the Fourth Circuit engaged in no detailed jurisdictional analy- sis and entirely omitted any discussion of the significance of the Bank- ruptcy Judge's non-Article III status. 514us2$45i 05-27-98 16:00:20 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 300 (1995) 325 Stevens, J., dissenting jurisdiction. See ante, at 304­305, n. 4, 311, n. 8. Those two footnotes require a brief response. In footnote 4 of its opinion, the Court refers to two differ- ent claims advanced by Celotex in the bankruptcy proceed- ings: a claim that "the bonded judgment creditors should not be able to execute on their bonds because, by virtue of the collateralization of the bonds, the bonded judgment creditors are beneficiaries of Celotex asset transfers that are voidable as preferences and fraudulent transfers"; and a claim that "the punitive damages portions of the judgments can be voided or subordinated." There is little doubt that those claims are properly characterized as ones "arising under" Title 11 within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. § 1334(b); 13 how- ever, it does not necessarily follow from that characterization that the Bankruptcy Judge had jurisdiction to issue the in- junction in support of the prosecution of those claims. Celo- tex's complaint was not filed until months after the Bank- ruptcy Judge's injunction issued. The claims raised in that complaint cannot retroactively provide a jurisdictional basis for the Bankruptcy Judge's injunction. Moreover, Celotex's attempts to set aside the Edwards' supersedeas bond are patently meritless. It strains credu- 13 "[W]hen a cause of action is one which is created by title 11, then that civil proceeding is one `arising under title 11.' " 1 Collier ¶ 3.01[1] [c][iii], at 3­26. A perusal of the complaint reveals that Celotex seeks relief under causes of action created by the Bankruptcy Code. See, e. g., Count I (11 U. S. C. § 547(b) (seeking to avoid preferential transfers)); Count III (11 U. S. C. § 548(a)(2)(A) (seeking to avoid constructively fraudulent trans- fers)); Count IV (11 U. S. C. § 544 (seeking to avoid transactions that would constitute constructively fraudulent transfers under state law)); Count VII (11 U. S. C. § 502 (seeking to disallow punitive damages awards); Count VII (11 U. S. C. § 510(c)(1) (seeking equitable subordination of pend- ing punitive damages awards to the claims of unsecured creditors)). Cf., e. g., 1 Collier ¶ 3.01[1][c][iii], at 3­27 ("[C]ourts interpreting this language have held that `arising under title 11' includes causes of action to recover fraudulent conveyances"). My acknowledgment of these claims, of course, is not intended as a suggestion that they have merit. 514us2$45i 05-27-98 16:00:20 PAGES OPINPGT 326 CELOTEX CORP. v. EDWARDS Stevens, J., dissenting lity, to suggest that a supersedeas bond, posted almost a year and a half before the bankruptcy petition was filed, could be set aside as a preference or as a fraudulent transfer for the benefit of Celotex's adversaries in bitterly contested litiga- tion. Conceivably, Celotex's provision of security to North- brook might be voidable, but that possibility could not impair the rights of the judgment creditors to enforce the bond against Northbrook even though they might be unwitting beneficiaries of the fraud. That possibility, at most, would be relevant to the respective claims of Northbrook and Celo- tex to the pledged collateral. Similarly, the fact that the Edwards' judgment included punitive as well as compensa- tory damages does not provide even an arguable basis for reducing Northbrook's obligations under the supersedeas bond. Even if there is a basis for subordinating a portion of Northbrook's eventual claim against Celotex on "bankruptcy law grounds," that has nothing to do with the Edwards' claim against Northbrook. It thus seems obvious that, at least with respect to the Edwards, Celotex has raised frivolous claims in an attempt to manufacture bankruptcy jurisdiction and thereby to justify a bankruptcy judge's injunction that had been issued over one year earlier. Cf. Siler v. Louis- ville & Nashville R. Co., 213 U. S. 175, 191­192 (1909) ("Of course, the Federal question must not be merely colorable or fraudulently set up for the mere purpose of endeavoring to give the court jurisdiction"). In its footnote 8, the Court appears to suggest that the injunction prohibiting the Edwards from proceeding against Northbrook (described in the footnote as the "stay proceed- ing") may "aris[e] under" Title 11 or may "arise in" the Title 11 case. Perhaps this is accurate in a literal sense: The in- junction did, of course, "arise under" Title 11 because 11 U. S. C. § 105(a) created whatever power the Bankruptcy Judge had to issue the injunction. Similarly, the injunction "arises in" the Title 11 case because that is where it origi- nated. It cannot be the law, however, that a bankruptcy 514us2$45i 05-27-98 16:00:20 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 300 (1995) 327 Stevens, J., dissenting judge has jurisdiction to enter any conceivable order that a party might request simply because § 105(a) authorizes some injunctions or because the request was first made in a pend- ing Title 11 case. Cf. 2 Collier ¶ 105.01[1], at 105­3 (Section 105 "is not an independent source of jurisdiction, but rather it grants the courts flexibility to issue orders which preserve and protect their jurisdiction"). The mere filing of a motion for a § 105 injunction to enjoin a proceeding in another forum cannot be a jurisdictional bootstrap enabling a bankruptcy judge to exercise jurisdiction that would not otherwise exist. IV Even if I believed that the Bankruptcy Judge had jurisdic- tion to issue his injunction, I would still affirm the Court of Appeals because in my view the Bankruptcy Judge's injunc- tion has only a "frivolous pretense to validity." In 1898, Congress codified the bankruptcy laws. Under the 1898 Bankruptcy Act, most bankruptcy proceedings were conducted by "referees" who resolved controversies involv- ing property in the actual or constructive possession of the court, as well as certain disputes involving property in the possession of third parties. In § 2(a)(15) of the 1898 Act, Congress vested in bankruptcy courts the power to: "[M]ake such orders, issue such process, and enter such judgments in addition to those specifically provided for as may be necessary for the enforcement of the provi- sions of this Act." Act of July 1, 1898, 30 Stat. 546. In 1938, Congress clarified both the powers and the limita- tions on the injunctive authority of referees in bankruptcy by adding to the end of § 2(a)(15), "Provided, however, That an injunction to restrain a court may be issued by the judge only." 52 Stat. 843 (emphasis in original). In 1978, through the Bankruptcy Reform Act, Congress significantly revised the Bankruptcy Code and the role of 514us2$45i 05-27-98 16:00:20 PAGES OPINPGT 328 CELOTEX CORP. v. EDWARDS Stevens, J., dissenting bankruptcy referees.14 Though stopping short of making bankruptcy referees Article III judges, Congress signifi- cantly increased the status, the duties, and the powers of those referees. For example, as we noted in Northern Pipe- line, the expanded powers under the new Act included "the power to hold jury trials, . . . to issue declaratory judgments, [and] to issue writs of habeas corpus under certain circum- stances." 458 U. S., at 55. In addition, Congress again pro- vided for broad injunctive powers. Thus, for example, in the place of § 2(a)(15), Congress added 11 U. S. C. § 105, which provided in relevant part: "The [bankruptcy court] may issue any order, process, or judgment that is necessary or appro- priate to carry out the provisions of this title." See also 458 U. S., at 55 ("Congress has allowed bankruptcy judges the power . . . to issue all writs necessary in aid of the bank- ruptcy court's expanded jurisdiction"). Once again, how- ever, along with both this marked expansion of the power of bankruptcy judges and the broad delegation of injunctive authority, Congress indicated its intent to limit the power of those judges to enjoin other courts: Although Congress provided that "[a] bankruptcy court shall have the powers of a court of equity, law, and admiralty," it also provided that bankruptcy courts "may not enjoin another court." 28 U. S. C. § 1481 (1982 ed.).15 Thus, for well over 50 years prior to the adoption of the 1984 amendments to the Bank- ruptcy Code, it was clear that Congress intended to deny bankruptcy judges the power to enjoin other courts. 14 In 1973, bankruptcy "referees" were redesignated as "judges." See Northern Pipeline Constr. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U. S. 50, 53, n. 2 (1982). As did the plurality opinion in Northern Pipeline, see ibid., I will continue to refer to all judges under the pre-1978 Act as "referees." 15 Congress also limited the power of bankruptcy courts to "punish a criminal contempt not committed in the presence of the judge of the court or warranting a punishment of imprisonment." 28 U. S. C. § 1481 (1982 ed.). 514us2$45i 05-27-98 16:00:20 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 300 (1995) 329 Stevens, J., dissenting The 1984 amendments, inter alia, repealed § 1481 (and its express limitation on injunctive authority), leaving § 105 as the only source of the bankruptcy judge's injunctive author- ity.16 Given that Northern Pipeline required a contraction in the authority of bankruptcy judges,17 and given that the 1984 amendments regarding the powers of the bankruptcy courts were passed to comply with Northern Pipeline,18 it would be perverse-and in my view "frivolous"-to contend that Congress intended the repeal of § 1481 to operate as an authorization for those judges to enjoin proceedings in other courts, thus significantly expanding the powers of bank- ruptcy judges. My view of the consequence of the 1984 amendments is reinforced by the structure of § 1481. When Congress placed restrictions on the injunctive power of the bankruptcy courts, it did so in § 1481, right after the clause granting those courts "the powers of a court of equity, law, and admi- ralty." In my view, this suggests that Congress saw § 1481-and not § 105(a)-as the source of any power to en- join other courts. Thus, the removal of § 1481 by the 1984 amendments is properly viewed as eliminating the sole source of congressionally granted authority to enjoin other courts. Cf. In re Hipp, 895 F. 2d 1503, 1515­1516 (CA5 1990) (concluding on similar reasoning that § 1481, not § 105(a), was the source of the bankruptcy court's power to punish crimi- nal contempt under the 1978 Act). 16 The 1984 amendments also repealed the authorization of bankruptcy judges to act pursuant to the All Writs Act. See 2 Collier ¶ 105.01[1], at 105­3. 17 The plurality opinion expressly noted its concerns about the bank- ruptcy judge's exercise of broad injunctive powers. See n. 7, supra. 18 See, e. g., 130 Cong. Rec. 20089 (1984) ("[Northern Pipeline] held that the broad powers granted to bankruptcy judges under the Bankruptcy Act of 1978 were judicial powers and violated Article III of the Constitu- tion. The present Bill attempts to cure the problem"). 514us2$45i 05-27-98 16:00:20 PAGES OPINPGT 330 CELOTEX CORP. v. EDWARDS Stevens, J., dissenting Nor does anything in the 1986 amendments to the Bank- ruptcy Code alter my analysis.19 The primary effect of those amendments was to give the bankruptcy judges the power to issue orders sua sponte.20 The 1986 amendments, therefore, do not reflect any expansion of the power of Bank- ruptcy Judges to enjoin other courts. The Bankruptcy Judge's error with respect to this injunc- tion thus seems clear, and the injunction falls, therefore, within the exception recognized by the majority for injunc- tions with only a "frivolous pretense to validity." I recog- nize, of course, that one may legitimately question the "frivo- lousness" of the injunction in light of the Fourth Circuit's upholding the very injunction at issue in this case, see Willis v. Celotex Corp., 978 F. 2d 146 (1992), cert. denied, 507 U. S. 1030 (1993), and the disagreement of a substantial number of my colleagues. In my view, however, the Bankruptcy Judge's error is sufficiently plain that the Court of Appeals was justified in allowing the Edwards to collect on their bond.21 19 See Bankruptcy Judges, United States Trustees, and Family Farmer Bankruptcy Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99­554, 100 Stat. 3088. With respect to 11 U. S. C. § 105, the 1986 amendments added the second sentence of the current version of § 105(a). See 100 Stat. 3097. 20 The only relevant legislative history regarding the changes to § 105(a) is contained in Senator Hatch's view that the amendment "allows a bank- ruptcy court to take any action on its own, or to make any necessary determination to prevent an abuse of process and to help expedite a case in a proper and justified manner." 132 Cong. Rec. 28610 (1986). 21 Neither of the cases cited by the majority, ante, at 312­313, n. 9, pro- vides any reason to conclude otherwise. As the majority notes, those cases hold that the bankruptcy trustee may recover from a third party (e. g., the Edwards) funds transferred from the debtor (e. g., Celotex) to another (e. g., Northbrook) for the benefit of that third party. Both cases, however, make clear that the obligation of the Northbrook-like guarantor (a bank in each case) to pay the third party was not at issue. See In re Compton Corp., 831 F. 2d 586, 590 (1987) ("[T]he trustee is not attempting to set aside the post petition payments by [the bank] to [the third party] under the letter of credit as a preference"), modified on other grounds, 835 514us2$45i 05-27-98 16:00:20 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 300 (1995) 331 Stevens, J., dissenting V The Court's holding today rests largely on its view that the Edwards' proper remedy is to appeal the Bankruptcy Judge's injunction, first to the District Court and then to the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The Court concedes, however, that the Edwards need not do so if the Bankruptcy Judge exceeded his jurisdiction, or if the injunc- tion is supported by nothing more than "a frivolous pretense to validity." Ante, at 312. For the reasons already stated, I think both of those conditions are satisfied in this case. The non-Article III Bankruptcy Judge simply lacked both jurisdiction and authority to prevent an Article III court from exercising its unquestioned jurisdiction to decide a mat- ter that is related only indirectly to the bankruptcy proceed- ing. I think it important, however, to add a few brief words explaining why I find this injunction especially troubling and why the injunction should be viewed with a particularly critical eye. First, the justification offered by the Bankruptcy Judge should give the Court pause. As originally articulated, the justification for this injunction was that emergency relief was required lest the reorganization of Celotex become im- possible and liquidation follow. Apart from the fact that the "emergency" rationale is plainly insufficient to support an otherwise improper injunction that has now lasted for more than four years, the judge's reasoning reveals reliance on the misguided notion that a good end is a sufficient justification for the existence and exercise of power. His reference to the need to exercise "absolute" power to override "poten- tial conflicts with other judicial determinations" that might have a "potential impact on the debtor" should invite far F. 2d 584 (CA5 1988); In re Air Conditioning, Inc. of Stuart, 845 F. 2d 293, 295­296 (CA11), cert. denied sub nom. First Interstate Credit Alliance v. American Bank of Martin County, 488 U. S. 993 (1988). Thus, in my view, those cases cannot form the basis for any nonfrivolous argument that Northbrook may avoid its obligation to pay the Edwards. 514us2$45i 05-27-98 16:00:20 PAGES OPINPGT 332 CELOTEX CORP. v. EDWARDS Stevens, J., dissenting more exacting scrutiny of his order than the Court deems appropriate. Second, that the subject of the injunction was a superse- deas bond makes the injunction suspect. A supersedeas bond may be viewed as putting the integrity of the court in which it is lodged on the line. As the Court of Appeals noted, the Edwards were "promised by the court" that the supersedeas bond would be available if they prevailed on appeal. 6 F. 3d, at 320. For that reason, in my opinion, questions relating to the enforceability of a supersedeas bond should generally be answered in the forum in which the bond is posted. Moreover, whenever possible, such questions should be re- solved before the court accepts the bond as security for col- lection of the judgment being appealed. After a debtor has benefited from the postponement of collection of an adverse judgment, both that debtor and its successors in interest should normally be estopped from asserting that the judg- ment creditors who relied to their detriment on the validity of the bond had no right to do so. The very purpose of a supersedeas bond is to protect judgment creditors from the risk that insolvency of the debtor may impair their ability to enforce the judgment promptly. When the bond has served the purpose of forestalling immediate levies on the judgment debtor's assets-levies that might have precipitated an ear- lier bankruptcy-it is inequitable to postpone payment merely because the risk against which the bond was intended to provide protection has actually occurred. See id., at 319 ("It is manifestly unfair to force the judgment creditor to delay the right to collect with a promise to protect the judg- ment only to later refuse to allow that successful plaintiff to execute the bond because the debtor has sought protection under the laws of bankruptcy"); In re Southmark, 138 B. R. 820, 827­828 (Bkrtcy. Ct. ND Tex. 1992) (internal quotation marks omitted) ("The principal risk against which such bonds are intended as a protection is insolvency. To hold 514us2$45i 05-27-98 16:00:20 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 300 (1995) 333 Stevens, J., dissenting that the very contingency against which they guard shall, if it happens, discharge them, seems to us bad law and worse logic"). The inequity that the Court today condones does not, of course, demonstrate that its legal analysis is incorrect. It does, however, persuade me that the Court should not review this case as though it presented an ordinary collateral attack on an injunction entered by an Article III court.22 Instead, the Court should, I believe, more carefully consider which of the two competing tribunals is guilty of trespassing in the other's domain. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent. 22 Indeed, one wonders if the same analysis would apply to a bankruptcy judge's injunction that purported to prevent this Court from allowing a successful litigant to enforce a supersedeas bond posted by a nondebtor in this Court pursuant to our Rule 23.4. 514us2$46z $U46 05-27-98 16:41:59 PAGES OPLGxPGT 334 OCTOBER TERM, 1994 Syllabus McINTYRE, executor of ESTATE OF McINTYRE, DECEASED v. OHIO ELECTIONS COMMISSION certiorari to the supreme court of ohio No. 93­986. Argued October 12, 1994-Decided April 19, 1995 After petitioner's decedent distributed leaflets purporting to express the views of "CONCERNED PARENTS AND TAX PAYERS" opposing a proposed school tax levy, she was fined by respondent for violating § 3599.09(A) of the Ohio Code, which prohibits the distribution of cam- paign literature that does not contain the name and address of the per- son or campaign official issuing the literature. The Court of Common Pleas reversed, but the Ohio Court of Appeals reinstated the fine. In affirming, the State Supreme Court held that the burdens § 3599.09(A) imposed on voters' First Amendment rights were "reasonable" and "nondiscriminatory" and therefore valid. Declaring that § 3599.09(A) is intended to identify persons who distribute campaign materials contain- ing fraud, libel, or false advertising and to provide voters with a mecha- nism for evaluating such materials, the court distinguished Talley v. California, 362 U. S. 60, in which this Court invalidated an ordinance prohibiting all anonymous leafletting. Held: Section 3599.09(A)'s prohibition of the distribution of anonymous campaign literature abridges the freedom of speech in violation of the First Amendment. Pp. 341­357. (a) The freedom to publish anonymously is protected by the First Amendment, and, as Talley indicates, extends beyond the literary realm to the advocacy of political causes. Pp. 341­343. (b) This Court's precedents make abundantly clear that the Ohio Su- preme Court's reasonableness standard is significantly more lenient than is appropriate in a case of this kind. Although Talley concerned a dif- ferent limitation than § 3599.09(A) and thus does not necessarily control here, the First Amendment's protection of anonymity nevertheless ap- plies. Section 3599.09(A) is not simply an election code provision sub- ject to the "ordinary litigation" test set forth in Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U. S. 780, and similar cases. Rather, it is a regulation of core politi- cal speech. Moreover, the category of documents it covers is defined by their content-only those publications containing speech designed to influence the voters in an election need bear the required information. See, e. g., First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 776­777. When a law burdens such speech, the Court applies "exacting scrutiny," 514us2$46z $U46 05-27-98 16:41:59 PAGES OPLGxPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 334 (1995) 335 Syllabus upholding the restriction only if it is narrowly tailored to serve an over- riding state interest. See, e. g., id., at 786. Pp. 343­347. (c) Section 3599.09(A)'s anonymous speech ban is not justified by Ohio's asserted interests in preventing fraudulent and libelous state- ments and in providing the electorate with relevant information. The claimed informational interest is plainly insufficient to support the stat- ute's disclosure requirement, since the speaker's identity is no different from other components of a document's contents that the author is free to include or exclude, and the author's name and address add little to the reader's ability to evaluate the document in the case of a handbill written by a private citizen unknown to the reader. Moreover, the state interest in preventing fraud and libel (which Ohio vindicates by means of other, more direct prohibitions) does not justify § 3599.09(A)'s extremely broad prohibition of anonymous leaflets. The statute encom- passes all documents, regardless of whether they are arguably false or misleading. Although a State might somehow demonstrate that its en- forcement interests justify a more limited identification requirement, Ohio has not met that burden here. Pp. 348­353. (d) This Court's opinions in Bellotti, 435 U. S., at 792, n. 32-which commented in dicta on the prophylactic effect of requiring identifica- tion of the source of corporate campaign advertising-and Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 75­76-which approved mandatory disclosure of campaign-related expenditures-do not establish the constitutionality of § 3599.09(A), since neither case involved a prohibition of anonymous campaign literature. Pp. 353­356. 67 Ohio St. 3d 391, 618 N. E. 2d 152, reversed. Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Ginsburg, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 358. Thomas, J., filed an opinion con- curring in the judgment, post, p. 358. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opin- ion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., joined, post, p. 371. David Goldberger argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were George Q. Vaile, Steven R. Shapiro, Joel M. Gora, Barbara P. O'Toole, and Louis A. Jacobs. Andrew I. Sutter, Assistant Attorney General of Ohio, ar- gued the cause for respondent. With him on the briefs were Lee Fisher, Attorney General, Andrew S. Bergman, Robert A. Zimmerman, and James M. Harrison, Assistant At- 514us2$46z $U46 05-27-98 16:41:59 PAGES OPLGxPGT 336 McINTYRE v. OHIO ELECTIONS COMM'N Opinion of the Court torneys General, Richard A. Cordray, State Solicitor, and Simon B. Karas.* Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court. The question presented is whether an Ohio statute that prohibits the distribution of anonymous campaign literature is a "law . . . abridging the freedom of speech" within the meaning of the First Amendment.1 *Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the State of Tennessee et al. by Charles W. Burson, Attorney General of Tennessee, Michael E. Moore, Solicitor General, and Michael W. Catalano, and by the Attorneys General for their respective States as follows: Jimmy Evans of Alabama, Bruce M. Botelho of Alaska, Winston Bryant of Arkansas, Gale A. Norton of Colorado, Charles M. Oberly III of Delaware, Robert A. Butterworth of Florida, Larry EchoHawk of Idaho, Roland W. Burris of Illinois, Pamela Fanning Carter of Indiana, Chris Gorman of Ken- tucky, Richard P. Ieyoub of Louisiana, Frank J. Kelley of Michigan, Hubert H. Humphrey III of Minnesota, Mike Moore of Mississippi, Joseph P. Mazurek of Montana, Frankie Sue Del Papa of Nevada, Jeffrey R. How- ard of New Hampshire, Deborah T. Poritz of New Jersey, Michael F. Easley of North Carolina, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Susan B. Loving of Oklahoma, T. Travis Medlock of South Carolina, Mark Barnett of South Dakota, and Jeffrey L. Amestoy of Vermont; and for the Council of State Governments et al. by Richard Ruda and Lee Fennell. Charles H. Bell, Jr., and Robert E. Leidigh filed a brief for the California Political Attorneys Association as amicus curiae. 1 The term "liberty" in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution makes the First Amendment applicable to the States. The Fourteenth Amendment reads, in relevant part: "No State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . ." U. S. Const., Amdt. 14, § 1. Referring to that Clause in his separate opinion in Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357 (1927), Justice Brandeis stated that "all fundamental rights comprised within the term liberty are protected by the Federal Constitution from invasion by the States. The right of free speech, the right to teach and the right of assembly are, of course, fundamental rights." Id., at 373 (concurring opinion). Although the text of the First Amendment provides only that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . ," Justice Brandeis' view has been embedded in our law ever since. See First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bel- lotti, 435 U. S. 765, 779­780 (1978); see also Stevens, The Bill of Rights: A Century of Progress, 59 U. Chi. L. Rev. 13, 20, 25­26 (1992). 514us2$46i $U46 05-27-98 16:41:59 PAGES OPLGxPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 334 (1995) 337 Opinion of the Court I On April 27, 1988, Margaret McIntyre distributed leaflets to persons attending a public meeting at the Blendon Middle School in Westerville, Ohio. At this meeting, the superin- tendent of schools planned to discuss an imminent referen- dum on a proposed school tax levy. The leaflets expressed Mrs. McIntyre's opposition to the levy.2 There is no sugges- tion that the text of her message was false, misleading, or libelous. She had composed and printed it on her home com- puter and had paid a professional printer to make additional copies. Some of the handbills identified her as the author; others merely purported to express the views of "CON- CERNED PARENTS AND TAX PAYERS." Except for the help provided by her son and a friend, who placed some of the leaflets on car windshields in the school parking lot, Mrs. McIntyre acted independently. 2 The following is one of Mrs. McIntyre's leaflets, in its original typeface: 514us2$46i $U46 05-27-98 16:41:59 PAGES OPLGxPGT 338 McINTYRE v. OHIO ELECTIONS COMM'N Opinion of the Court While Mrs. McIntyre distributed her handbills, an official of the school district, who supported the tax proposal, ad- vised her that the unsigned leaflets did not conform to the Ohio election laws. Undeterred, Mrs. McIntyre appeared at another meeting on the next evening and handed out more of the handbills. The proposed school levy was defeated at the next two elections, but it finally passed on its third try in November 1988. Five months later, the same school official filed a com- plaint with the Ohio Elections Commission charging that Mrs. McIntyre's distribution of unsigned leaflets violated § 3599.09(A) of the Ohio Code.3 The commission agreed and imposed a fine of $100. 3 Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3599.09(A) (1988) provides: "No person shall write, print, post, or distribute, or cause to be written, printed, posted, or distributed, a notice, placard, dodger, advertisement, sample ballot, or any other form of general publication which is designed to promote the nomination or election or defeat of a candidate, or to pro- mote the adoption or defeat of any issue, or to influence the voters in any election, or make an expenditure for the purpose of financing political communications through newspapers, magazines, outdoor advertising facilities, direct mailings, or other similar types of general public political advertising, or through flyers, handbills, or other nonperiodical printed matter, unless there appears on such form of publication in a conspicuous place or is contained within said statement the name and residence or business address of the chairman, treasurer, or secretary of the organiza- tion issuing the same, or the person who issues, makes, or is responsible therefor. The disclaimer `paid political advertisement' is not sufficient to meet the requirements of this division. When such publication is issued by the regularly constituted central or executive committee of a political party, organized as provided in Chapter 3517. of the Revised Code, it shall be sufficiently identified if it bears the name of the committee and its chairman or treasurer. No person, firm, or corporation shall print or re- produce any notice, placard, dodger, advertisement, sample ballot, or any other form of publication in violation of this section. This section does not apply to the transmittal of personal correspondence that is not repro- duced by machine for general distribution. "The secretary of state may, by rule, exempt, from the requirements of this division, printed matter and certain other kinds of printed communi- cations such as campaign buttons, balloons, pencils, or like items, the size 514us2$46i $U46 05-27-98 16:41:59 PAGES OPLGxPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 334 (1995) 339 Opinion of the Court The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas reversed. Finding that Mrs. McIntyre did not "mislead the public nor act in a surreptitious manner," the court concluded that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to her conduct. App. to Pet. for Cert. A­34 to A­35. The Ohio Court of Appeals, by a divided vote, reinstated the fine. Notwith- standing doubts about the continuing validity of a 1922 deci- sion of the Ohio Supreme Court upholding the statutory predecessor of § 3599.09(A), the majority considered itself bound by that precedent. Id., at A­20 to A­21, citing State v. Babst, 104 Ohio St. 167, 135 N. E. 525 (1922). The dissent- ing judge thought that our intervening decision in Talley v. California, 362 U. S. 60 (1960), in which we invalidated a city ordinance prohibiting all anonymous leafletting, compelled the Ohio court to adopt a narrowing construction of the statute to save its constitutionality. App. to Pet. for Cert. A­30 to A­31. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed by a divided vote. The majority distinguished Mrs. McIntyre's case from Talley on the ground that § 3599.09(A) "has as its purpose the identifi- cation of persons who distribute materials containing false statements." 67 Ohio St. 3d 391, 394, 618 N. E. 2d 152, 154 or nature of which makes it unreasonable to add an identification or dis- claimer. The disclaimer or identification, when paid for by a campaign committee, shall be identified by the words `paid for by' followed by the name and address of the campaign committee and the appropriate officer of the committee, identified by name and title." Section 3599.09(B) contains a comparable prohibition against unidentified communications uttered over the broadcasting facilities of any radio or television station. No question concerning that provision is raised in this case. Our opinion, therefore, discusses only written communications and, particularly, leaflets of the kind Mrs. McIntyre distributed. Cf. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U. S. 622, 637­638 (1994) (discussing application of First Amendment principles to regulation of television and radio). The complaint against Mrs. McIntyre also alleged violations of two other provisions of the Ohio Code, but those charges were dismissed and are not before this Court. 514us2$46i $U46 05-27-98 16:41:59 PAGES OPLGxPGT 340 McINTYRE v. OHIO ELECTIONS COMM'N Opinion of the Court (1993). The Ohio court believed that such a law should be upheld if the burdens imposed on the First Amendment rights of voters are " `reasonable' " and " `nondiscrimina- tory.' " Id., at 396, 618 N. E. 2d, at 155, quoting Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U. S. 780, 788 (1983). Under that stand- ard, the majority concluded that the statute was plainly valid: "The minor requirement imposed by R.C. 3599.09 that those persons producing campaign literature identify themselves as the source thereof neither impacts the content of their message nor significantly burdens their ability to have it disseminated. This burden is more than counterbalanced by the state interest in providing the voters to whom the message is directed with a mech- anism by which they may better evaluate its validity. Moreover, the law serves to identify those who engage in fraud, libel or false advertising. Not only are such interests sufficient to overcome the minor burden placed upon such persons, these interests were specifically ac- knowledged in [First Nat. Bank of Boston v.] Bellotti[, 435 U. S. 765 (1978),] to be regulations of the sort which would survive constitutional scrutiny." 67 Ohio St. 3d, at 396, 618 N. E. 2d, at 155­156. In dissent, Justice Wright argued that the statute should be tested under a more severe standard because of its sig- nificant effect "on the ability of individual citizens to freely express their views in writing on political issues." Id., at 398, 618 N. E. 2d, at 156­157. He concluded that § 3599.09(A) "is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest and is, therefore, unconstitutional as applied to McIntyre." Id., at 401, 618 N. E. 2d, at 159. Mrs. McIntyre passed away during the pendency of this litigation. Even though the amount in controversy is only $100, petitioner, as the executor of her estate, has pursued her claim in this Court. Our grant of certiorari, 510 U. S. 514us2$46i $U46 05-27-98 16:41:59 PAGES OPLGxPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 334 (1995) 341 Opinion of the Court 1108 (1994), reflects our agreement with his appraisal of the importance of the question presented. II Ohio maintains that the statute under review is a reason- able regulation of the electoral process. The State does not suggest that all anonymous publications are pernicious or that a statute totally excluding them from the marketplace of ideas would be valid. This is a wise (albeit implicit) con- cession, for the anonymity of an author is not ordinarily a sufficient reason to exclude her work product from the pro- tections of the First Amendment. "Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind." Talley v. California, 362 U. S., at 64. Great works of litera- ture have frequently been produced by authors writing under assumed names.4 Despite readers' curiosity and the public's interest in identifying the creator of a work of art, an author generally is free to decide whether or not to dis- close his or her true identity. The decision in favor of ano- nymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official re- 4 American names such as Mark Twain (Samuel Langhorne Clemens) and O. Henry (William Sydney Porter) come readily to mind. Benjamin Franklin employed numerous different pseudonyms. See 2 W. Bruce, Benjamin Franklin Self-Revealed: A Biographical and Critical Study Based Mainly on His Own Writings, ch. 5 (2d ed. 1923). Distinguished French authors such as Voltaire (Francois Marie Arouet) and George Sand (Amandine Aurore Lucie Dupin), and British authors such as George Eliot (Mary Ann Evans), Charles Lamb (sometimes wrote as "Elia"), and Charles Dickens (sometimes wrote as "Boz"), also published under as- sumed names. Indeed, some believe the works of Shakespeare were actually written by the Earl of Oxford rather than by William Shaksper of Stratford-on-Avon. See C. Ogburn, The Mysterious William Shake- speare: The Myth & the Reality (2d ed. 1992); but see S. Schoenbaum, Shakespeare's Lives (2d ed. 1991) (adhering to the traditional view that Shaksper was in fact the author). See also Stevens, The Shakespeare Canon of Statutory Construction, 140 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1373 (1992) (comment- ing on the competing theories). 514us2$46i $U46 05-27-98 16:41:59 PAGES OPLGxPGT 342 McINTYRE v. OHIO ELECTIONS COMM'N Opinion of the Court taliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one's privacy as possible. Whatever the motivation may be, at least in the field of liter- ary endeavor, the interest in having anonymous works enter the marketplace of ideas unquestionably outweighs any pub- lic interest in requiring disclosure as a condition of entry.5 Accordingly, an author's decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the con- tent of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. The freedom to publish anonymously extends beyond the literary realm. In Talley, the Court held that the First Amendment protects the distribution of unsigned handbills urging readers to boycott certain Los Angeles merchants who were allegedly engaging in discriminatory employment practices. 362 U. S. 60. Writing for the Court, Justice Black noted that "[p]ersecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppres- sive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all." Id., at 64. Justice Black recalled England's abusive press licensing laws and seditious libel prosecutions, and he re- minded us that even the arguments favoring the ratification of the Constitution advanced in the Federalist Papers were published under fictitious names. Id., at 64­65. On occa- sion, quite apart from any threat of persecution, an advocate may believe her ideas will be more persuasive if her readers are unaware of her identity. Anonymity thereby provides a way for a writer who may be personally unpopular to ensure that readers will not prejudge her message simply because they do not like its proponent. Thus, even in the field of 5 Though such a requirement might provide assistance to critics in evalu- ating the quality and significance of the writing, it is not indispensable. To draw an analogy from a nonliterary context, the now-pervasive practice of grading law school examination papers "blindly" (i. e., under a system in which the professor does not know whose paper she is grading) indicates that such evaluations are possible-indeed, perhaps more reliable-when any bias associated with the author's identity is prescinded. 514us2$46i $U46 05-27-98 16:41:59 PAGES OPLGxPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 334 (1995) 343 Opinion of the Court political rhetoric, where "the identity of the speaker is an important component of many attempts to persuade," City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U. S. 43, 56 (1994) (footnote omitted), the most effective advocates have sometimes opted for ano- nymity. The specific holding in Talley related to advocacy of an economic boycott, but the Court's reasoning embraced a respected tradition of anonymity in the advocacy of politi- cal causes.6 This tradition is perhaps best exemplified by the secret ballot, the hard-won right to vote one's conscience without fear of retaliation. III California had defended the Los Angeles ordinance at issue in Talley as a law "aimed at providing a way to identify those responsible for fraud, false advertising and libel." 362 U. S., at 64. We rejected that argument because nothing in the text or legislative history of the ordinance limited its application to those evils.7 Ibid. We then made clear that 6 That tradition is most famously embodied in the Federalist Papers, authored by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, but signed "Publius." Publius' opponents, the Anti-Federalists, also tended to pub- lish under pseudonyms: prominent among them were "Cato," believed to be New York Governor George Clinton; "Centinel," probably Samuel Bryan or his father, Pennsylvania judge and legislator George Bryan; "The Federal Farmer," who may have been Richard Henry Lee, a Virginia member of the Continental Congress and a signer of the Declaration of Independence; and "Brutus," who may have been Robert Yates, a New York Supreme Court justice who walked out on the Constitutional Con- vention. 2 H. Storing, ed., The Complete Anti-Federalist (1981). A fore- runner of all of these writers was the pre-Revolutionary War English pamphleteer "Junius," whose true identity remains a mystery. See Ency- clopedia of Colonial and Revolutionary America 220 (J. Faragher ed. 1990) (positing that "Junius" may have been Sir Phillip Francis). The "Letters of Junius" were "widely reprinted in colonial newspapers and lent consid- erable support to the revolutionary cause." Powell v. McCormack, 395 U. S. 486, 531, n. 60 (1969). 7 In his concurring opinion, Justice Harlan added these words: "Here the State says that this ordinance is aimed at the prevention of `fraud, deceit, false advertising, negligent use of words, obscenity, and libel,' in that it will aid in the detection of those responsible for spreading 514us2$46i $U46 05-27-98 16:41:59 PAGES OPLGxPGT 344 McINTYRE v. OHIO ELECTIONS COMM'N Opinion of the Court we did "not pass on the validity of an ordinance limited to prevent these or any other supposed evils." Ibid. The Ohio statute likewise contains no language limiting its appli- cation to fraudulent, false, or libelous statements; to the ex- tent, therefore, that Ohio seeks to justify § 3599.09(A) as a means to prevent the dissemination of untruths, its defense must fail for the same reason given in Talley. As the facts of this case demonstrate, the ordinance plainly applies even when there is no hint of falsity or libel. Ohio's statute does, however, contain a different limitation: It applies only to unsigned documents designed to influence voters in an election. In contrast, the Los Angeles ordi- nance prohibited all anonymous handbilling "in any place under any circumstances." Id., at 60­61. For that reason, Ohio correctly argues that Talley does not necessarily con- trol the disposition of this case. We must, therefore, decide whether and to what extent the First Amendment's protec- tion of anonymity encompasses documents intended to influ- ence the electoral process. Ohio places its principal reliance on cases such as Ander- son v. Celebrezze, 460 U. S. 780 (1983); Storer v. Brown, 415 U. S. 724 (1974); and Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U. S. 428 (1992), in which we reviewed election code provisions governing the voting process itself. See Anderson, supra (filing dead- lines); Storer, supra (ballot access); Burdick, supra (write-in voting); see also Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U. S. 208 (1986) (eligibility of independent voters to vote in party primaries). In those cases we refused to adopt "any material of that character. But the ordinance is not so limited, and I think it will not do for the State simply to say that the circulation of all anonymous handbills must be suppressed in order to identify the distribu- tors of those that may be of an obnoxious character. In the absence of a more substantial showing as to Los Angeles' actual experience with the distribution of obnoxious handbills, such a generality is for me too remote to furnish a constitutionally acceptable justification for the deterrent effect on free speech which this all-embracing ordinance is likely to have." 362 U. S., at 66­67 (footnote omitted). 514us2$46i $U46 05-27-98 16:41:59 PAGES OPLGxPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 334 (1995) 345 Opinion of the Court `litmus-paper test' that will separate valid from invalid re- strictions." Anderson, 460 U. S., at 789, quoting Storer, 415 U. S., at 730. Instead, we pursued an analytical process comparable to that used by courts "in ordinary litigation": We considered the relative interests of the State and the injured voters, and we evaluated the extent to which the State's interests necessitated the contested restrictions. Anderson, 460 U. S., at 789. Applying similar reasoning in this case, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld § 3599.09(A) as a "reasonable" and "nondiscriminatory" burden on the rights of voters. 67 Ohio St. 3d, at 396, 618 N. E. 2d, at 155, quot- ing Anderson, 460 U. S., at 788. The "ordinary litigation" test does not apply here. Unlike the statutory provisions challenged in Storer and Anderson, § 3599.09(A) of the Ohio Code does not control the mechanics of the electoral process. It is a regulation of pure speech. Moreover, even though this provision applies evenhandedly to advocates of differing viewpoints,8 it is a direct regulation of the content of speech. Every written document covered by the statute must contain "the name and residence or busi- ness address of the chairman, treasurer, or secretary of the organization issuing the same, or the person who issues, makes, or is responsible therefor." Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3599.09(A) (1988). Furthermore, the category of covered documents is defined by their content-only those publica- tions containing speech designed to influence the voters in an election need bear the required markings.9 Ibid. Con- sequently, we are not faced with an ordinary election restric- 8 Arguably, the disclosure requirement places a more significant burden on advocates of unpopular causes than on defenders of the status quo. For purposes of our analysis, however, we assume the statute evenhand- edly burdens all speakers who have a legitimate interest in remaining anonymous. 9 Covered documents are those "designed to promote the nomination or election or defeat of a candidate, or to promote the adoption or defeat of any issue, or to influence the voters in any election . . . ." § 3599.09(A). 514us2$46i $U46 05-27-98 16:41:59 PAGES OPLGxPGT 346 McINTYRE v. OHIO ELECTIONS COMM'N Opinion of the Court tion; this case "involves a limitation on political expression subject to exacting scrutiny." Meyer v. Grant, 486 U. S. 414, 420 (1988).10 Indeed, as we have explained on many prior occasions, the category of speech regulated by the Ohio statute oc- cupies the core of the protection afforded by the First Amendment: "Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifica- tions of candidates are integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution. The First Amendment affords the broadest protection to such political expression in order `to assure [the] unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.' Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, 484 (1957). Al- though First Amendment protections are not confined to `the exposition of ideas,' Winters v. New York, 333 U. S. 507, 510 (1948), `there is practically universal agreement that a major purpose of that Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs, . . . of course includ[ing] discussions of candidates . . . .' Mills v. Alabama, 384 U. S. 214, 218 (1966). This no more than reflects our `profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open,' New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 270 (1964). In a republic where the people are sovereign, the ability of the citi- 10 In Meyer, we unanimously applied strict scrutiny to invalidate an election-related law making it illegal to pay petition circulators for ob- taining signatures to place an initiative on the state ballot. Similarly, in Burson v. Freeman, 504 U. S. 191 (1992), although the law at issue- forbidding campaign-related speech within 100 feet of the entrance to a polling place-was an election-related restriction, both the plurality and dissent applied strict scrutiny because the law was "a facially content- based restriction on political speech in a public forum." Id., at 198; see also id., at 212­213 (Kennedy, J., concurring); id., at 217 (Stevens, J., dissenting). 514us2$46i $U46 05-27-98 16:42:00 PAGES OPLGxPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 334 (1995) 347 Opinion of the Court zenry to make informed choices among candidates for office is essential, for the identities of those who are elected will inevitably shape the course that we follow as a nation. As the Court observed in Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U. S. 265, 272 (1971), `it can hardly be doubted that the constitutional guarantee has its fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office.' " Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 14­15 (1976) (per curiam). Of course, core political speech need not center on a candidate for office. The principles enunciated in Buckley extend equally to issue-based elections such as the school tax referendum that Mrs. McIntyre sought to influence through her handbills. See First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 776­777 (1978) (speech on income tax referendum "is at the heart of the First Amendment's protection"). Indeed, the speech in which Mrs. McIntyre engaged-handing out leaflets in the advocacy of a politically controversial viewpoint-is the essence of First Amendment expression. See International Soc. for Krishna Conscious- ness, Inc. v. Lee, 505 U. S. 672 (1992); Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U. S. 444 (1938). That this advocacy occurred in the heat of a controversial referendum vote only strength- ens the protection afforded to Mrs. McIntyre's expression: Urgent, important, and effective speech can be no less protected than impotent speech, lest the right to speak be relegated to those instances when it is least needed. See Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U. S. 1, 4 (1949). No form of speech is entitled to greater constitutional protection than Mrs. McIntyre's. When a law burdens core political speech, we apply "exact- ing scrutiny," and we uphold the restriction only if it is nar- rowly tailored to serve an overriding state interest. See, e. g., Bellotti, 435 U. S., at 786. Our precedents thus make abundantly clear that the Ohio Supreme Court applied a significantly more lenient standard than is appropriate in a case of this kind. 514us2$46i $U46 05-27-98 16:42:00 PAGES OPLGxPGT 348 McINTYRE v. OHIO ELECTIONS COMM'N Opinion of the Court IV Nevertheless, the State argues that, even under the strictest standard of review, the disclosure requirement in § 3599.09(A) is justified by two important and legitimate state interests. Ohio judges its interest in preventing fraudulent and libelous statements and its interest in provid- ing the electorate with relevant information to be sufficiently compelling to justify the anonymous speech ban. These two interests necessarily overlap to some extent, but it is useful to discuss them separately. Insofar as the interest in informing the electorate means nothing more than the provision of additional information that may either buttress or undermine the argument in a document, we think the identity of the speaker is no different from other components of the document's content that the author is free to include or exclude.11 We have already held that the State may not compel a newspaper that prints edito- rials critical of a particular candidate to provide space for a reply by the candidate. Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U. S. 241 (1974). The simple interest in pro- viding voters with additional relevant information does not justify a state requirement that a writer make statements or disclosures she would otherwise omit. Moreover, in the case of a handbill written by a private citizen who is not known to the recipient, the name and address of the author add little, if anything, to the reader's ability to evaluate the 11 "Of course, the identity of the source is helpful in evaluating ideas. But `the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market' (Abrams v. United States, [250 U. S. 616, 630 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting)]). Don't underestimate the common man. People are intelligent enough to evaluate the source of an anony- mous writing. They can see it is anonymous. They know it is anony- mous. They can evaluate its anonymity along with its message, as long as they are permitted, as they must be, to read that message. And then, once they have done so, it is for them to decide what is `responsible', what is valuable, and what is truth." New York v. Duryea, 76 Misc. 2d 948, 966­967, 351 N. Y. S. 2d 978, 996 (1974) (striking down similar New York statute as overbroad). 514us2$46i $U46 05-27-98 16:42:00 PAGES OPLGxPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 334 (1995) 349 Opinion of the Court document's message. Thus, Ohio's informational interest is plainly insufficient to support the constitutionality of its disclosure requirement. The state interest in preventing fraud and libel stands on a different footing. We agree with Ohio's submission that this interest carries special weight during election cam- paigns when false statements, if credited, may have serious adverse consequences for the public at large. Ohio does not, however, rely solely on § 3599.09(A) to protect that interest. Its Election Code includes detailed and specific prohibitions against making or disseminating false statements during political campaigns. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§ 3599.09.1(B), 3599.09.2(B) (1988). These regulations apply both to candi- date elections and to issue-driven ballot measures.12 Thus, 12 Section 3599.09.1(B) provides: "No person, during the course of any campaign for nomination or elec- tion to public office or office of a political party, by means of campaign materials, including sample ballots, an advertisement on radio or television or in a newspaper or periodical, a public speech, press release, or other- wise, shall knowingly and with intent to affect the outcome of such cam- paign do any of the following: "(1) Use the title of an office not currently held by a candidate in a manner that implies that the candidate does currently hold that office or use the term `re-elect' when the candidate has never been elected at a primary, general, or special election to the office for which he is a candidate; "(2) Make a false statement concerning the formal schooling or training completed or attempted by a candidate; a degree, diploma, certificate, scholarship, grant, award, prize, or honor received, earned, or held by a candidate; or the period of time during which a candidate attended any school, college, community technical school, or institution; "(3) Make a false statement concerning the professional, occupational, or vocational licenses held by a candidate, or concerning any position the candidate held for which he received a salary or wages; "(4) Make a false statement that a candidate or public official has been indicted or convicted of a theft offense, extortion, or other crime involving financial corruption or moral turpitude; "(5) Make a statement that a candidate has been indicted for any crime or has been the subject of a finding by the Ohio elections commission without disclosing the outcome of any legal proceedings resulting from the indictment or finding; 514us2$46i $U46 05-27-98 16:42:00 PAGES OPLGxPGT 350 McINTYRE v. OHIO ELECTIONS COMM'N Opinion of the Court Ohio's prohibition of anonymous leaflets plainly is not its principal weapon against fraud.13 Rather, it serves as an aid to enforcement of the specific prohibitions and as a deterrent "(6) Make a false statement that a candidate or official has a record of treatment or confinement for mental disorder; "(7) Make a false statement that a candidate or official has been sub- jected to military discipline for criminal misconduct or dishonorably dis- charged from the armed services; "(8) Falsely identify the source of a statement, issue statements under the name of another person without authorization, or falsely state the en- dorsement of or opposition to a candidate by a person or publication; "(9) Make a false statement concerning the voting record of a candidate or public official; "(10) Post, publish, circulate, distribute, or otherwise disseminate a false statement, either knowing the same to be false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not, concerning a candidate that is designed to promote the election, nomination, or defeat of the candidate. As used in this section, `voting record' means the recorded `yes' or `no' vote on a bill, ordinance, resolution, motion, amendment, or confirmation." Section 3599.09.2(B) provides: "No person, during the course of any campaign in advocacy of or in opposi- tion to the adoption of any ballot proposition or issue, by means of cam- paign material, including sample ballots, an advertisement on radio or tele- vision or in a newspaper or periodical, a public speech, a press release, or otherwise, shall knowingly and with intent to affect the outcome of such campaign do any of the following: "(1) Falsely identify the source of a statement, issue statements under the name of another person without authorization, or falsely state the en- dorsement of or opposition to a ballot proposition or issue by a person or publication; "(2) Post, publish, circulate, distribute, or otherwise disseminate, a false statement, either knowing the same to be false or acting with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not, that is designed to promote the adoption or defeat of any ballot proposition or issue." § 3599.09.2(B). We need not, of course, evaluate the constitutionality of these provi- sions. We quote them merely to emphasize that Ohio has addressed di- rectly the problem of election fraud. To the extent the anonymity ban indirectly seeks to vindicate the same goals, it is merely a supplement to the above provisions. 13 The same can be said with regard to "libel," as many of the above-quoted Election Code provisions prohibit false statements about candidates. To the extent those provisions may be underinclusive, Ohio courts also 514us2$46i $U46 05-27-98 16:42:00 PAGES OPLGxPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 334 (1995) 351 Opinion of the Court to the making of false statements by unscrupulous prevarica- tors. Although these ancillary benefits are assuredly legiti- mate, we are not persuaded that they justify § 3599.09(A)'s extremely broad prohibition. As this case demonstrates, the prohibition encompasses documents that are not even arguably false or misleading. It applies not only to the activities of candidates and their organized supporters, but also to individuals acting inde- pendently and using only their own modest resources.14 It applies not only to elections of public officers, but also to enforce the common-law tort of defamation. See, e. g., Varanese v. Gall, 35 Ohio St. 3d 78, 518 N. E. 2d 1177 (1988) (applying the standard of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254 (1964), to an Ohio public official's state-law libel claim arising from an election-related advertisement). Like other forms of election fraud, then, Ohio directly attacks the problem of election-related libel; to the extent that the anonymity ban serves the same interest, it is merely a supplement. 14 We stressed the importance of this distinction in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 37 (1976): "Treating these expenses [the expenses incurred by campaign volunteers] as contributions when made to the candidate's campaign or at the direction of the candidate or his staff forecloses an avenue of abuse without limiting actions voluntarily undertaken by citizens independently of a candidate's campaign." (Footnote omitted.) Again, in striking down the independent expenditure limitations of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 18 U. S. C. § 608(e)(1) (1970 ed., Supp. IV) (repealed 1976), we distinguished another section of the statute (§ 608(b), which we upheld) that placed a ceiling on contributions to a polit- ical campaign. "By contrast, § 608(e)(1) limits expenditures for express advocacy of candi- dates made totally independently of the candidate and his campaign. Un- like contributions, such independent expenditures may well provide little assistance to the candidate's campaign and indeed may prove counterpro- ductive. The absence of prearrangement and coordination of an expendi- ture with the candidate or his agent not only undermines the value of the expenditure to the candidate, but also alleviates the danger that expendi- tures will be given as a quid pro quo for improper commitments from the candidate. Rather than preventing circumvention of the contribution limitations, § 608(e)(1) severely restricts all independent advocacy despite its substantially diminished potential for abuse." 424 U. S., at 47. 514us2$46i $U46 05-27-98 16:42:00 PAGES OPLGxPGT 352 McINTYRE v. OHIO ELECTIONS COMM'N Opinion of the Court ballot issues that present neither a substantial risk of libel nor any potential appearance of corrupt advantage.15 It ap- plies not only to leaflets distributed on the eve of an election, when the opportunity for reply is limited, but also to those distributed months in advance.16 It applies no matter what the character or strength of the author's interest in anonym- ity. Moreover, as this case also demonstrates, the absence of the author's name on a document does not necessarily pro- tect either that person or a distributor of a forbidden docu- ment from being held responsible for compliance with the Election Code. Nor has the State explained why it can 15 "The risk of corruption perceived in cases involving candidate elec- tions, e. g., United States v. Automobile Workers, [352 U. S. 567 (1957)]; United States v. CIO, [335 U. S. 106 (1948)], simply is not present in a popular vote on a public issue." First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 790 (1978) (footnote omitted). 16 As the Illinois Supreme Court explained in People v. White, 116 Ill. 2d 171, 180, 506 N. E. 2d 1284, 1288 (Ill. 1987), which struck down a simi- lar statute: "Implicit in the State's . . . justification is the concern that the public could be misinformed and an election swayed on the strength of an eleventh- hour anonymous smear campaign to which the candidate could not mean- ingfully respond. The statute cannot be upheld on this ground, however, because it sweeps within its net a great deal of anonymous speech com- pletely unrelated to this concern. In the first place, the statute has no time limit and applies to literature circulated two months prior to an elec- tion as well as that distributed two days before. The statute also prohib- its anonymous literature supporting or opposing not only candidates, but also referenda. A public question clearly cannot be the victim of charac- ter assassination." The temporal breadth of the Ohio statute also distinguishes it from the Tennessee law that we upheld in Burson v. Freeman, 504 U. S. 191 (1992). The Tennessee statute forbade electioneering within 100 feet of the en- trance to a polling place. It applied only on election day. The State's interest in preventing voter intimidation and election fraud was therefore enhanced by the need to prevent last-minute misinformation to which there is no time to respond. Moreover, Tennessee geographically con- fined the reach of its law to a 100-foot no-solicitation zone. By contrast, the Ohio law forbids anonymous campaign speech wherever it occurs. 514us2$46i $U46 05-27-98 16:42:00 PAGES OPLGxPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 334 (1995) 353 Opinion of the Court more easily enforce the direct bans on disseminating false documents against anonymous authors and distributors than against wrongdoers who might use false names and ad- dresses in an attempt to avoid detection. We recognize that a State's enforcement interest might justify a more limited identification requirement, but Ohio has shown scant cause for inhibiting the leafletting at issue here. V Finally, Ohio vigorously argues that our opinions in First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765 (1978), and Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1 (1976) (per curiam), amply support the constitutionality of its disclosure requirement. Neither case is controlling: The former concerned the scope of First Amendment protection afforded to corporations; the relevant portion of the latter concerned mandatory disclo- sure of campaign-related expenditures. Neither case in- volved a prohibition of anonymous campaign literature. In Bellotti, we reversed a judgment of the Supreme Judi- cial Court of Massachusetts sustaining a state law that pro- hibited corporate expenditures designed to influence the vote on referendum proposals. 435 U. S. 765. The Massachu- setts court had held that the First Amendment protects cor- porate speech only if its message pertains directly to the business interests of the corporation. Id., at 771­772. Con- sistently with our holding today, we noted that the "inherent worth of the speech in terms of its capacity for informing the public does not depend upon the identity of its source, whether corporation, association, union, or individual." Id., at 777. We also made it perfectly clear that we were not deciding whether the First Amendment's protection of cor- porate speech is coextensive with the protection it affords to individuals.17 Accordingly, although we commented in dicta 17 "In deciding whether this novel and restrictive gloss on the First Amendment comports with the Constitution and the precedents of this Court, we need not survey the outer boundaries of the Amendment's pro- 514us2$46i $U46 05-27-98 16:42:00 PAGES OPLGxPGT 354 McINTYRE v. OHIO ELECTIONS COMM'N Opinion of the Court on the prophylactic effect of requiring identification of the source of corporate advertising,18 that footnote did not neces- sarily apply to independent communications by an individual like Mrs. McIntyre. Our reference in the Bellotti footnote to the "prophylactic effect" of disclosure requirements cited a portion of our ear- lier opinion in Buckley, in which we stressed the importance of providing "the electorate with information `as to where political campaign money comes from and how it is spent by the candidate.' " 424 U. S., at 66. We observed that the "sources of a candidate's financial support also alert the voter to the interests to which a candidate is most likely to be responsive and thus facilitate predictions of future perform- ance in office." Id., at 67. Those comments concerned con- tributions to the candidate or expenditures authorized by the candidate or his responsible agent. They had no reference to the kind of independent activity pursued by Mrs. Mc- Intyre. Required disclosures about the level of financial support a candidate has received from various sources are supported by an interest in avoiding the appearance of corruption that has no application to this case. tection of corporate speech, or address the abstract question whether cor- porations have the full measure of rights that individuals enjoy under the First Amendment." Bellotti, 435 U. S., at 777­778. In a footnote to that passage, we continued: "Nor is there any occasion to consider in this case whether, under differ- ent circumstances, a justification for a restriction on speech that would be inadequate as applied to individuals might suffice to sustain the same restriction as applied to corporations, unions, or like entities." Id., at 777­778, n. 13. 18 "Corporate advertising, unlike some methods of participation in politi- cal campaigns, is likely to be highly visible. Identification of the source of advertising may be required as a means of disclosure, so that the people will be able to evaluate the arguments to which they are being subjected. See Buckley, 424 U. S., at 66­67; United States v. Harriss, 347 U. S. 612, 625­626 (1954). In addition, we emphasized in Buckley the prophylactic effect of requiring that the source of communication be disclosed. 424 U. S., at 67." Id., at 792, n. 32. 514us2$46i $U46 05-27-98 16:42:00 PAGES OPLGxPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 334 (1995) 355 Opinion of the Court True, in another portion of the Buckley opinion we ex- pressed approval of a requirement that even "independent expenditures" in excess of a threshold level be reported to the Federal Election Commission. Id., at 75­76. But that requirement entailed nothing more than an identification to the Commission of the amount and use of money expended in support of a candidate. See id., at 157­159, 160 (reproducing relevant portions of the statute 19 ). Though such mandatory reporting undeniably impedes protected First Amendment activity, the intrusion is a far cry from compelled self- identification on all election-related writings. A written election-related document-particularly a leaflet-is often a personally crafted statement of a political viewpoint. Mrs. McIntyre's handbills surely fit that description. As such, identification of the author against her will is particularly intrusive; it reveals unmistakably the content of her thoughts on a controversial issue. Disclosure of an expendi- ture and its use, without more, reveals far less information. It may be information that a person prefers to keep secret, and undoubtedly it often gives away something about the spender's political views. Nonetheless, even though money may "talk," its speech is less specific, less personal, and less provocative than a handbill-and as a result, when money supports an unpopular viewpoint it is less likely to precipi- tate retaliation. 19 One of those provisions, addressing contributions by campaign com- mittees, required: "the identification of each person to whom expenditures have been made by such committee or on behalf of such committee or candidate within the calendar year in an aggregate amount or value in excess of $100, the amount, date, and purpose of each such expenditure and the name and address of, and office sought by, each candidate on whose behalf such ex- penditure was made." 2 U. S. C. § 434(b)(9) (1970 ed., Supp. IV) (reprinted in Buckley, 424 U. S., at 158). A separate provision, 2 U. S. C. § 434(e) (1970 ed., Supp. IV) (reprinted in Buckley, 424 U. S., at 160), required individuals making contributions or expenditures to file statements containing the same information. 514us2$46i $U46 05-27-98 16:42:00 PAGES OPLGxPGT 356 McINTYRE v. OHIO ELECTIONS COMM'N Opinion of the Court Not only is the Ohio statute's infringement on speech more intrusive than the Buckley disclosure requirement, but it rests on different and less powerful state interests. The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, at issue in Buckley, regulates only candidate elections, not referenda or other issue-based ballot measures; and we construed "independent expenditures" to mean only those expenditures that "ex- pressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate." Id., at 80. In candidate elections, the Govern- ment can identify a compelling state interest in avoiding the corruption that might result from campaign expenditures. Disclosure of expenditures lessens the risk that individuals will spend money to support a candidate as a quid pro quo for special treatment after the candidate is in office. Curri- ers of favor will be deterred by the knowledge that all ex- penditures will be scrutinized by the Federal Election Com- mission and by the public for just this sort of abuse.20 Moreover, the federal Act contains numerous legitimate dis- closure requirements for campaign organizations; the similar requirements for independent expenditures serve to ensure that a campaign organization will not seek to evade disclo- sure by routing its expenditures through individual support- ers. See Buckley, 424 U. S., at 76. In short, although Buckley may permit a more narrowly drawn statute, it surely is not authority for upholding Ohio's open-ended provision.21 20 This interest also serves to distinguish United States v. Harriss, 347 U. S. 612 (1954), in which we upheld limited disclosure requirements for lobbyists. The activities of lobbyists who have direct access to elected representatives, if undisclosed, may well present the appearance of corruption. 21 We note here also that the federal Act, while constitutional on its face, may not be constitutional in all its applications. Cf. Brown v. Socialist Workers '74 Campaign Comm. (Ohio), 459 U. S. 87, 88 (1982) (holding Ohio disclosure requirements unconstitutional as applied to "a minor political 514us2$46i $U46 05-27-98 16:42:00 PAGES OPLGxPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 334 (1995) 357 Opinion of the Court VI Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. See generally J. Mill, On Liberty and Considerations on Representative Government 1, 3­4 (R. McCallum ed. 1947). It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retalia- tion-and their ideas from suppression-at the hand of an intolerant society. The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. But political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable conse- quences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse. See Abrams v. United States, 250 U. S. 616, 630­631 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting). Ohio has not shown that its inter- est in preventing the misuse of anonymous election-related speech justifies a prohibition of all uses of that speech. The State may, and does, punish fraud directly. But it cannot seek to punish fraud indirectly by indiscriminately outlawing a category of speech, based on its content, with no necessary relationship to the danger sought to be prevented. One would be hard pressed to think of a better example of the pitfalls of Ohio's blunderbuss approach than the facts of the case before us. The judgment of the Ohio Supreme Court is reversed. It is so ordered. party which historically has been the object of harassment by government officials and private parties"); Buckley, 424 U. S., at 74 (exempting minor parties from disclosure requirements if they can show "a reasonable proba- bility that the compelled disclosure of a party's contributors' names will subject them to threats, harassment, or reprisals from either Government officials or private parties"). 514us2$46p $U46 05-27-98 16:42:00 PAGES OPLGxPGT 358 McINTYRE v. OHIO ELECTIONS COMM'N Thomas, J., concurring in judgment Justice Ginsburg, concurring. The dissent is stirring in its appreciation of democratic values. But I do not see the Court's opinion as unguided by "bedrock principle," tradition, or our case law. See post, at 375­378, 378­380. Margaret McIntyre's case, it seems to me, bears a marked resemblance to Margaret Gilleo's case 1 and Mary Grace's.2 All three decisions, I believe, are sound, and hardly sensational, applications of our First Amend- ment jurisprudence. In for a calf is not always in for a cow. The Court's deci- sion finds unnecessary, overintrusive, and inconsistent with American ideals the State's imposition of a fine on an individ- ual leafleteer who, within her local community, spoke her mind, but sometimes not her name. We do not thereby hold that the State may not in other, larger circumstances require the speaker to disclose its interest by disclosing its identity. Appropriately leaving open matters not presented by McIn- tyre's handbills, the Court recognizes that a State's interest in protecting an election process "might justify a more lim- ited identification requirement." Ante, at 353. But the Court has convincingly explained why Ohio lacks "cause for inhibiting the leafletting at issue here." Ibid. Justice Thomas, concurring in the judgment. I agree with the majority's conclusion that Ohio's election law, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3599.09(A) (1988), is inconsistent with the First Amendment. I would apply, however, a dif- 1 See City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U. S. 43 (1994), in which we held that the city of Ladue could not prohibit homeowner Gilleo's display of a small sign, on her lawn or in a window, opposing war in the Persian Gulf. 2 Grace was the "lone picketer" who stood on the sidewalk in front of this Court with a sign containing the text of the First Amendment, prompting us to exclude public sidewalks from the statutory ban on dis- play of a "flag, banner, or device" on Court grounds. United States v. Grace, 461 U. S. 171, 183 (1983). 514us2$46n $U46 05-27-98 16:42:00 PAGES OPLGxPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 334 (1995) 359 Thomas, J., concurring in judgment ferent methodology to this case. Instead of asking whether "an honorable tradition" of anonymous speech has existed throughout American history, or what the "value" of anony- mous speech might be, we should determine whether the phrase "freedom of speech, or of the press," as originally understood, protected anonymous political leafletting. I believe that it did. I The First Amendment states that the government "shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." U. S. Const., Amdt. 1. When interpreting the Free Speech and Press Clauses, we must be guided by their origi- nal meaning, for "[t]he Constitution is a written instrument. As such its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now." South Carolina v. United States, 199 U. S. 437, 448 (1905). We have long recognized that the meaning of the Constitution "must necessarily de- pend on the words of the constitution [and] the meaning and intention of the convention which framed and proposed it for adoption and ratification to the conventions . . . in the several states." Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. 657, 721 (1838). See also INS v. Chadha, 462 U. S. 919, 959 (1983). We should seek the original understanding when we inter- pret the Speech and Press Clauses, just as we do when we read the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment. When the Framers did not discuss the precise question at issue, we have turned to "what history reveals was the contemporane- ous understanding of [the Establishment Clause's] guaran- tees." Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U. S. 668, 673 (1984). "[T]he line we must draw between the permissible and the imper- missible is one which accords with history and faithfully re- flects the understanding of the Founding Fathers." School Dist. of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U. S. 203, 294 (1963) (Brennan, J., concurring); see also Lee v. Weisman, 505 U. S. 577, 632­633 (1992) (Scalia, J., dissenting). 514us2$46n $U46 05-27-98 16:42:00 PAGES OPLGxPGT 360 McINTYRE v. OHIO ELECTIONS COMM'N Thomas, J., concurring in judgment II Unfortunately, we have no record of discussions of anony- mous political expression either in the First Congress, which drafted the Bill of Rights, or in the state ratifying conven- tions. Thus, our analysis must focus on the practices and beliefs held by the Founders concerning anonymous political articles and pamphlets. As an initial matter, we can safely maintain that the leaflets at issue in this case implicate the freedom of the press. When the Framers thought of the press, they did not envision the large, corporate newspaper and television establishments of our modern world. In- stead, they employed the term "the press" to refer to the many independent printers who circulated small newspapers or published writers' pamphlets for a fee. See generally B. Bailyn & J. Hench, The Press & the American Revolution (1980); L. Levy, Emergence of a Free Press (1985); B. Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (1967). "It was in this form-as pamphlets-that much of the most important and characteristic writing of the American Revo- lution occurred." 1 B. Bailyn, Pamphlets of the American Revolution 3 (1965). This practice continued during the struggle for ratification. See, e. g., Pamphlets on the Consti- tution of the United States (P. Ford ed. 1888). Regardless of whether one designates the right involved here as one of press or one of speech, however, it makes little difference in terms of our analysis, which seeks to determine only whether the First Amendment, as originally understood, protects anonymous writing. There is little doubt that the Framers engaged in anony- mous political writing. The essays in the Federalist Papers, published under the pseudonym of "Publius," are only the most famous example of the outpouring of anonymous politi- cal writing that occurred during the ratification of the Con- stitution. Of course, the simple fact that the Framers en- gaged in certain conduct does not necessarily prove that they forbade its prohibition by the government. See post, at 373 514us2$46n $U46 05-27-98 16:42:00 PAGES OPLGxPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 334 (1995) 361 Thomas, J., concurring in judgment (Scalia, J., dissenting). In this case, however, the historical evidence indicates that Founding-era Americans opposed attempts to require that anonymous authors reveal their identities on the ground that forced disclosure violated the "freedom of the press." For example, the earliest and most famous American expe- rience with freedom of the press, the 1735 Zenger trial, cen- tered around anonymous political pamphlets. The case in- volved a printer, John Peter Zenger, who refused to reveal the anonymous authors of published attacks on the Crown Governor of New York. When the Governor and his council could not discover the identity of the authors, they prose- cuted Zenger himself for seditious libel. See J. Alexander, A Brief Narrative of the Case and Trial of John Peter Zenger 9­19 (S. Katz ed. 1972). Although the case set the Colonies afire for its example of a jury refusing to convict a defendant of seditious libel against Crown authorities, it also signified at an early moment the extent to which anonymity and the freedom of the press were intertwined in the early Ameri- can mind. During the Revolutionary and Ratification periods, the Framers' understanding of the relationship between ano- nymity and freedom of the press became more explicit. In 1779, for example, the Continental Congress attempted to discover the identity of an anonymous article in the Pennsyl- vania Packet signed by the name "Leonidas." Leonidas, who actually was Dr. Benjamin Rush, had attacked the Mem- bers of Congress for causing inflation throughout the States and for engaging in embezzelment and fraud. 13 Letters of Delegates to Congress 1774­1789, p. 141, n. 1 (G. Gawalt & R. Gephart eds. 1986). Elbridge Gerry, a delegate from Massachusetts, moved to haul the printer of the newspaper before Congress to answer questions concerning Leonidas. Several Members of Congress then rose to oppose Gerry's motion on the ground that it invaded the freedom of the press. Merriweather Smith of Virginia rose, quoted from 514us2$46n $U46 05-27-98 16:42:00 PAGES OPLGxPGT 362 McINTYRE v. OHIO ELECTIONS COMM'N Thomas, J., concurring in judgment the offending article with approval, and then finished with a declaration that "[w]hen the liberty of the Press shall be restrained . . . the liberties of the People will be at an end." Henry Laurens, Notes of Debates, July 3, 1779, id., at 139. Supporting Smith, John Penn of North Carolina argued that the writer "no doubt had good designs," and that "[t]he lib- erty of the Press ought not to be restrained." Ibid. In the end, these arguments persuaded the assembled delegates, who "sat mute" in response to Gerry's motion. Id., at 141. Neither the printer nor Dr. Rush ever appeared before Con- gress to answer for their publication. D. Teeter, Press Freedom and the Public Printing: Pennsylvania, 1775­83, 45 Journalism Q. 445, 451 (1968). At least one of the state legislatures shared Congress' view that the freedom of the press protected anonymous writing. Also in 1779, the upper house of the New Jersey State Legislature attempted to punish the author of a satiri- cal attack on the Governor and the College of New Jersey (now Princeton) who had signed his work "Cincinnatus." R. Hixson, Isaac Collins: A Quaker Printer in 18th Century America 95 (1968). Attempting to enforce the crime of sedi- tious libel, the State Legislative Council ordered Isaac Col- lins-the printer and editor of the newspaper in which the article had appeared-to reveal the author's identity. Re- fusing, Collins declared: " `Were I to comply . . . I conceive I should betray the trust reposed in me, and be far from acting as a faithful guardian of the Liberty of the Press.' " Id., at 96. Apparently, the State Assembly agreed that anonymity was protected by the freedom of the press, as it voted to support the editor and publisher by frustrating the council's orders. Id., at 95. By 1784, the same Governor of New Jersey, William Livingston, was at work writing anonymous articles that defended the right to publish anonymously as part of the freedom of the press. Under the pseudonym "Scipio," 514us2$46n $U46 05-27-98 16:42:00 PAGES OPLGxPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 334 (1995) 363 Thomas, J., concurring in judgment Livingston wrote several articles attacking the legislature's failure to lower taxes, and he accused a state officer of steal- ing or losing state funds during the British invasion of New Jersey. Id., at 107­109; Scipio, Letter to the Printer, Feb. 24, 1784, The New-Jersey Gazette. Responding to the alle- gations, the officer called upon Scipio "to avow your publica- tion, give up your real name." S. Tucker, To Scipio, Mar. 2, 1784, The New-Jersey Gazette. Livingston replied with a four-part series defending "the Liberty of the Press." Al- though Livingston at first defended anonymity because it en- couraged authors to discuss politics without fear of reprisal, he ultimately invoked the liberty of the press as the guardian for anonymous political writing. "I hope [Tucker] is not se- riously bent upon a total subversion of our political system," Scipio wrote. "And pray may not a man, in a free country, convey thro' the press his sentiments on publick grievances . . . without being obliged to send a certified copy of the baptismal register to prove his name." Scipio, On the Lib- erty of the Press IV, Apr. 26, 1784, The New-Jersey Gazette. To be sure, there was some controversy among newspaper editors over publishing anonymous articles and pamphlets. But this controversy was resolved in a manner that indicates that the freedom of the press protected an author's anonym- ity. The tempest began when a Federalist, writing anony- mously himself, expressed fear that "emissaries" of "foreign enemies" would attempt to scuttle the Constitution by "fill- [ing] the press with objections" against the proposal. Bos- ton Independent Chronicle, Oct. 4, 1787, in 13 Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution 315 (J. Kamin- ski & G. Saladino eds. 1981) (hereinafter Documentary His- tory). He called upon printers to refrain from publishing when the author "chooses to remain concealed." Ibid. Benjamin Russell, the editor of the prominent Federalist newspaper the Massachusetts Centinel, immediately adopted a policy of refusing to publish Anti-Federalist pieces unless the 514us2$46n $U46 05-27-98 16:42:00 PAGES OPLGxPGT 364 McINTYRE v. OHIO ELECTIONS COMM'N Thomas, J., concurring in judgment author provided his identity to be "handed to the publick, if required." Massachusetts Centinel, Oct. 10, 1787, id., at 312, 315­316. A few days later, the Massachusetts Gazette announced that it would emulate the example set by the Massachusetts Centinel. Massachusetts Gazette, Oct. 16, 1787, id., at 317. In the same issue, the Gazette carried an article claiming that requiring an anonymous writer to leave his name with the printer, so that anyone who wished to know his identity could be informed, "appears perfectly rea- sonable, and is perfectly consistent with the liberty of the press." A Citizen, Massachusetts Gazette, Oct. 16, 1787, id., at 316. Federalists expressed similar thoughts in Philadel- phia. See A Philadelphia Mechanic, Philadelphia Independ- ent Gazetteer, Oct. 29, 1787, id., at 318­319; Galba, Philadel- phia Independent Gazetteer, Oct. 31, 1787, id., at 319. The Jewel, Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, Nov. 2, 1787, id., at 320. Ordinarily, the fact that some founding-era editors as a matter of policy decided not to publish anonymous articles would seem to shed little light upon what the Framers thought the government could do. The widespread criticism raised by the Anti-Federalists, however, who were the driv- ing force behind the demand for a Bill of Rights, indicates that they believed the freedom of the press to include the right to author anonymous political articles and pamphlets.1 That most other Americans shared this understanding is re- flected in the Federalists' hasty retreat before the withering criticism of their assault on the liberty of the press. Opposition to Russell's declaration centered in Philadel- phia. Three Philadelphia papers published the "Citizen" piece that had run in the Massachusetts Gazette. Id., at 1 The Anti-Federalists recognized little difficulty in what today would be a state-action problem, because they considered Federalist conduct in supporting the Constitution as a preview of the tyranny to come under the new Federal Government. 514us2$46n $U46 05-27-98 16:42:00 PAGES OPLGxPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 334 (1995) 365 Thomas, J., concurring in judgment 318­320.2 In response, one of the leading Anti-Federalist writers, the "Federal Farmer," attacked Russell's policy: "What can be the views of those gentlemen in Boston, who countenanced the Printers in shutting up the press against a fair and free investigation of this important system in the usual way?" Letters From the Federal Farmer No. 5, Oct. 13, 1787, in 2 The Complete Anti-Federalist 254 (H. Storing ed. 1981). Another Anti-Federalist, "Philadelphiensis," also launched a substantial attack on Russell and his defenders for undermining the freedom of the press. "In this desper- ate situation of affairs . . . the friends of this despotic scheme of government, were driven to the last and only alternative from which there was any probability of success; namely, the abolition of the freedom of the Press." Philadelphiensis, Essay I, Independent Gazetteer, Nov. 7, 1787, 3 id., at 102. In Philadelphiensis' eyes, Federalist attempts to suppress the Anti-Federalist press by requiring the disclosure of au- thors' identities only foreshadowed the oppression permitted by the new Constitution. "Here we see pretty plainly through [the Federalists'] excellent regulation of the press, how things are to be carried on after the adoption of the new constitution." Id., at 103. According to Philadelphiensis, Federalist policies had already ruined freedom in Massachu- setts: "In Boston the liberty of the press is now completely abolished; and hence all other privileges and rights of the people will in a short time be destroyed." Id., at 104. Not limited to Philadelphia, the Anti-Federalist attack was repeated widely throughout the States. In New York, one writer exclaimed that the Federalist effort to suppress ano- 2 As noted earlier, several pieces in support appeared in the Federalist newspaper, the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer. They were immedi- ately answered by two Anti-Federalists in the Philadelphia Freeman's Journal. These Anti-Federalists accused the Federalists of "preventing that freedom of enquiry which truth and honour never dreads, but which tyrants and tyranny could never endure." 13 Documentary History 317­318. 514us2$46n $U46 05-27-98 16:42:00 PAGES OPLGxPGT 366 McINTYRE v. OHIO ELECTIONS COMM'N Thomas, J., concurring in judgment nymity would "reverse the important doctrine of the free- dom of the press," whose "truth" was "universally acknowl- edged." Detector, New York Journal, Oct. 25, 1787, in 13 Documentary History 318. "Detector" proceeded to pro- claim that Russell's policy was "the introduction of this first trait of slavery into your country!" Ibid. Responding to the Federalist editorial policy, a Rhode Island Anti- Federalist wrote: "The Liberty of the Press, or the Liberty which every Person in the United States at present enjoys . . . is a Privilege of infinite Importance . . . for which . . . we have fought and bled," and that the attempt by "our aristo- cratical Gentry, to have every Person's Name published who should write against the proposed Federal Constitution, has given many of us a just Alarm." Argus, Providence United States Chronicle, Nov. 8, 1787, id., at 320­321. Edward Powars, editor of the Anti-Federalist Boston American Her- ald, proclaimed that his pages would remain "free and open to all parties." Boston American Herald, Oct. 15, 1787, id., at 316. In the Boston Independent Chronicle of Oct. 18, 1787, "Solon" accused Russell of attempting to undermine a "freedom and independence of sentiments" which "should never be checked in a free country" and was "so essential to the existance of free Governments." Id., at 313. The controversy over Federalist attempts to prohibit anonymous political speech is significant for several reasons. First, the Anti-Federalists clearly believed the right to au- thor and publish anonymous political articles and pamphlets was protected by the liberty of the press. Second, although printers' editorial policies did not constitute state action, the Anti-Federalists believed that the Federalists were merely flexing the governmental powers they would fully exercise upon the Constitution's ratification. Third, and perhaps most significantly, it appears that the Federalists agreed with the Anti-Federalist critique. In Philadelphia, where opposition to the ban was strongest, there is no record that any newspaper adopted the nonanonymity policy, nor that of 514us2$46n $U46 05-27-98 16:42:00 PAGES OPLGxPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 334 (1995) 367 Thomas, J., concurring in judgment any city or State aside from Russell's Massachusetts Centinel and the Federalist Massachusetts Gazette. Moreover, these two papers' bark was worse than their bite. In the face of widespread criticism, it appears that Russell retreated from his policy and, as he put it, " `readily' " reprinted several anonymous Federalist and Anti-Federalist essays to show that claims that he had suppressed freedom of the press " `had not any foundation in truth.' " 13 Documentary His- tory 313­314. Likewise, the Massachusetts Gazette refused to release the names of Anti-Federalist writers when re- quested. Ibid. When Federalist attempts to ban anonym- ity are followed by a sharp, widespread Anti-Federalist de- fense in the name of the freedom of the press, and then by an open Federalist retreat on the issue, I must conclude that both Anti-Federalists and Federalists believed that the free- dom of the press included the right to publish without reveal- ing the author's name. III The historical record is not as complete or as full as I would desire. For example, there is no evidence that, after the adoption of the First Amendment, the Federal Govern- ment attempted to require writers to attach their names to political documents. Nor do we have any indication that the federal courts of the early Republic would have squashed such an effort as a violation of the First Amendment. The understanding described above, however, when viewed in light of the Framers' universal practice of publishing anony- mous articles and pamphlets, indicates that the Framers shared the belief that such activity was firmly part of the freedom of the press. It is only an innovation of modern times that has permitted the regulation of anonymous speech. The large quantity of newspapers and pamphlets the Framers produced during the various crises of their genera- tion show the remarkable extent to which the Framers relied upon anonymity. During the break with Great Britain, the 514us2$46n $U46 05-27-98 16:42:00 PAGES OPLGxPGT 368 McINTYRE v. OHIO ELECTIONS COMM'N Thomas, J., concurring in judgment revolutionaries employed pseudonyms both to conceal their identity from Crown authorities and to impart a message. Often, writers would choose names to signal their point of view or to invoke specific classical and modern "crusaders in an agelong struggle against tyranny." A. Schlesinger, Pre- lude to Independence 35 (1958). Thus, leaders of the strug- gle for independence would adopt descriptive names such as "Common Sense," a "Farmer," or "A True Patriot," or his- torical ones such as "Cato" (a name used by many to refer to the Roman Cato and to Cato's letters), or "Mucius Scaevola." Id., at xii­xiii. The practice was even more prevalent dur- ing the great outpouring of political argument and commen- tary that accompanied the ratification of the Constitution. Besides "Publius," prominent Federalists signed their articles and pamphlets with names such as "An American Citizen," "Marcus," "A Landholder," "Americanus"; Anti- Federalists replied with the pseudonyms "Cato," "Centinel," "Brutus," the "Federal Farmer," and "The Impartial Exam- iner." See generally 1­2 Debate on the Constitution (B. Bai- lyn ed. 1993). The practice of publishing one's thoughts anonymously or under pseudonym was so widespread that only two major Federalist or Anti-Federalist pieces appear to have been signed by their true authors, and they may have had special reasons to do so.3 If the practice of publishing anonymous articles and pam- phlets fell into disuse after the Ratification, one might infer that the custom of anonymous political speech arose only in response to the unusual conditions of the 1776­1787 period. 3 See Mason, Objections to the Constitution, Virginia Journal, Nov. 22, 1787, 1 Debate on the Constitution 345 (B. Bailyn ed. 1993); Martin, The Genuine Information, Maryland Gazette, Dec. 28, 1787­Feb. 8, 1788, id., at 631. Both men may have made an exception to the general practice be- cause they both had attended the Philadelphia Convention, but had re- fused to sign the Constitution. As leaders of the fight against ratification, both men may have believed that they owed a personal explanation to their constituents of their decision not to sign. 514us2$46n $U46 05-27-98 16:42:00 PAGES OPLGxPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 334 (1995) 369 Thomas, J., concurring in judgment After all, the Revolution and the Ratification were not "elec- tions," per se, either for candidates or for discrete issues. Records from the first federal elections indicate, however, that anonymous political pamphlets and newspaper articles remained the favorite media for expressing views on candi- dates. In Pennsylvania, for example, writers for or against the Federalist and Anti-Federalist candidates wrote under the names "Numa," "Pompilius," "A Friend to Agriculture, Trade, and Good Laws," "A Federal Centinel," a "Freeman," "Centinel," "A Real Patriot to All True Federalists," "A Me- chanic," "Justice," "A German Federalist," and so on. See generally 1 Documentary History of the First Federal Elec- tions 1788­1790, pp. 246­362 (M. Jensen & R. Becker eds. 1976). This appears to have been the practice in all of the major States of which we have substantial records today. See 1 id., at 446­464 (Massachusetts); 2 id., at 108­122, 175­ 229 (Maryland); 2 id., at 387­397 (Virginia); 3 id., at 204­216, 436­493 (New York). It seems that actual names were used rarely, and usually only by candidates who wanted to explain their positions to the electorate. The use of anonymous writing extended to issues as well as candidates. The ratification of the Constitution was not the only issue discussed via anonymous writings in the press. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, for example, re- sorted to pseudonyms in the famous "Helvidius" and "Pa- cificus" debates over President Washington's declaration of neutrality in the war between the British and French. See Hamilton, Pacificus No. 1, June 29, 1793, in 15 Papers of Alex- ander Hamilton 33­43 (H. Syrett ed. 1969); Madison, Helvid- ius No. 1, Aug. 24, 1793, in 15 Papers of James Madison 66­73 (T. Mason, R. Rutland, J. Sisson eds. 1985). Anonymous writings continued in such Republican papers as the Aurora and Federalists organs such as the Gazette of the United States at least until the election of Thomas Jefferson. See generally J. Smith, Freedom's Fetters (1956). 514us2$46n $U46 05-27-98 16:42:00 PAGES OPLGxPGT 370 McINTYRE v. OHIO ELECTIONS COMM'N Thomas, J., concurring in judgment IV This evidence leads me to agree with the majority's result, but not its reasoning. The majority fails to seek the original understanding of the First Amendment, and instead at- tempts to answer the question in this case by resorting to three approaches. First, the majority recalls the historical practice of anonymous writing from Shakespeare's works to the Federalist Papers to Mark Twain. Ante, at 341, and n. 4, 342­343, and n. 6, 357. Second, it finds that anonymous speech has an expressive value both to the speaker and to society that outweighs public interest in disclosure. Third, it finds that § 3599.09(A) cannot survive strict scrutiny because it is a "content-based" restriction on speech. I cannot join the majority's analysis because it deviates from our settled approach to interpreting the Constitution and because it superimposes its modern theories concerning expression upon the constitutional text. Whether "great works of literature"-by Voltaire or George Eliot have been published anonymously should be irrelevant to our analysis, because it sheds no light on what the phrases "free speech" or "free press" meant to the people who drafted and ratified the First Amendment. Similarly, whether certain types of expression have "value" today has little significance; what is important is whether the Framers in 1791 believed anony- mous speech sufficiently valuable to deserve the protection of the Bill of Rights. And although the majority faithfully follows our approach to "content-based" speech regulations, we need not undertake this analysis when the original un- derstanding provides the answer. While, like Justice Scalia, I am loath to overturn a cen- tury of practice shared by almost all of the States, I believe the historical evidence from the framing outweighs recent tradition. When interpreting other provisions of the Con- stitution, this Court has believed itself bound by the text of the Constitution and by the intent of those who drafted and ratified it. It should hold itself to no less a standard when 514us2$46n $U46 05-27-98 16:42:00 PAGES OPLGxPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 334 (1995) 371 Scalia, J., dissenting interpreting the Speech and Press Clauses. After review- ing the weight of the historical evidence, it seems that the Framers understood the First Amendment to protect an author's right to express his thoughts on political candidates or issues in an anonymous fashion. Because the majority has adopted an analysis that is largely unconnected to the Constitution's text and history, I concur only in the judgment. Justice Scalia, with whom The Chief Justice joins, dissenting. At a time when both political branches of Government and both political parties reflect a popular desire to leave more decisionmaking authority to the States, today's decision moves in the opposite direction, adding to the legacy of in- flexible central mandates (irrevocable even by Congress) im- posed by this Court's constitutional jurisprudence. In an opinion which reads as though it is addressing some peculiar law like the Los Angeles municipal ordinance at issue in Tal- ley v. California, 362 U. S. 60 (1960), the Court invalidates a species of protection for the election process that exists, in a variety of forms, in every State except California, and that has a pedigree dating back to the end of the 19th century. Preferring the views of the English utilitarian philosopher John Stuart Mill, ante, at 357, to the considered judgment of the American people's elected representatives from coast to coast, the Court discovers a hitherto unknown right-to-be- unknown while engaging in electoral politics. I dissent from this imposition of free-speech imperatives that are demon- strably not those of the American people today, and that there is inadequate reason to believe were those of the soci- ety that begat the First Amendment or the Fourteenth. I The question posed by the present case is not the easiest sort to answer for those who adhere to the Court's (and the 514us2$46k $U46 05-27-98 16:42:00 PAGES OPLGxPGT 372 McINTYRE v. OHIO ELECTIONS COMM'N Scalia, J., dissenting society's) traditional view that the Constitution bears its original meaning and is unchanging. Under that view, "[o]n every question of construction, [we should] carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted; recol- lect the spirit manifested in the debates; and instead of try- ing [to find] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." T. Jefferson, Letter to William Johnson (June 12, 1823), in 15 Writings of Thomas Jefferson 439, 449 (A. Lipscomb ed. 1904). That technique is simple of applica- tion when government conduct that is claimed to violate the Bill of Rights or the Fourteenth Amendment is shown, upon investigation, to have been engaged in without objection at the very time the Bill of Rights or the Fourteenth Amend- ment was adopted. There is no doubt, for example, that laws against libel and obscenity do not violate "the freedom of speech" to which the First Amendment refers; they ex- isted and were universally approved in 1791. Application of the principle of an unchanging Constitution is also simple enough at the other extreme, where the government conduct at issue was not engaged in at the time of adoption, and there is ample evidence that the reason it was not engaged in is that it was thought to violate the right embodied in the con- stitutional guarantee. Racks and thumbscrews, well-known instruments for inflicting pain, were not in use because they were regarded as cruel punishments. The present case lies between those two extremes. Anonymous electioneering was not prohibited by law in 1791 or in 1868. In fact, it was widely practiced at the earlier date, an understandable legacy of the revolutionary era in which political dissent could produce governmental reprisal. I need not dwell upon the evidence of that, since it is de- scribed at length in today's concurrence. See ante, at 360­ 369 (Thomas, J., concurring in judgment). The practice of anonymous electioneering may have been less general in 1868, 514us2$46k $U46 05-27-98 16:42:00 PAGES OPLGxPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 334 (1995) 373 Scalia, J., dissenting when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, but at least as late as 1837 it was respectable enough to be engaged in by Abraham Lincoln. See 1 A. Beveridge, Abraham Lincoln 1809­1858, pp. 215­216 (1928); 1 Uncollected Works of Abra- ham Lincoln 155­161 (R. Wilson ed. 1947). But to prove that anonymous electioneering was used fre- quently is not to establish that it is a constitutional right. Quite obviously, not every restriction upon expression that did not exist in 1791 or in 1868 is ipso facto unconstitutional, or else modern election laws such as those involved in Bur- son v. Freeman, 504 U. S. 191 (1992), and Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1 (1976), would be prohibited, as would (to mention only a few other categories) modern antinoise regulation of the sort involved in Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U. S. 77 (1949), and Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U. S. 781 (1989), and modern parade-permitting regulation of the sort involved in Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U. S. 569 (1941). Evidence that anonymous electioneering was regarded as a constitutional right is sparse, and as far as I am aware evidence that it was generally regarded as such is nonexist- ent. The concurrence points to "freedom of the press" ob- jections that were made against the refusal of some Federal- ist newspapers to publish unsigned essays opposing the proposed Constitution (on the ground that they might be the work of foreign agents). See ante, at 364­366 (Thomas, J., concurring in judgment). But, of course, if every partisan cry of "freedom of the press" were accepted as valid, our Constitution would be unrecognizable; and if one were to generalize from these particular cries, the First Amendment would be not only a protection for newspapers, but a restric- tion upon them. Leaving aside, however, the fact that no governmental action was involved, the Anti-Federalists had a point, inasmuch as the editorial proscription of anonymity applied only to them, and thus had the vice of viewpoint discrimination. (Hence the comment by Philadelphiensis, 514us2$46k $U46 05-27-98 16:42:00 PAGES OPLGxPGT 374 McINTYRE v. OHIO ELECTIONS COMM'N Scalia, J., dissenting quoted in the concurrence: " `Here we see pretty plainly through [the Federalists'] excellent regulation of the press, how things are to be carried on after the adoption of the new constitution.' " Ante, at 365 (quoting Philadelphiensis, Essay I, Independent Gazetteer, Nov. 7, 1787, in 3 Complete Anti-Federalist 103 (H. Storing ed. 1981)).) The concurrence recounts other pre- and post-Revolution examples of defense of anonymity in the name of "freedom of the press," but not a single one involves the context of restrictions imposed in connection with a free, democratic election, which is all that is at issue here. For many of them, moreover, such as the 1735 Zenger trial, ante, at 361, the 1779 "Leonidas" controversy in the Continental Con- gress, ibid., and the 1779 action by the New Jersey Legisla- tive Council against Isaac Collins, ante, at 362, the issue of anonymity was incidental to the (unquestionably free-speech) issue of whether criticism of the government could be pun- ished by the state. Thus, the sum total of the historical evidence marshaled by the concurrence for the principle of constitutional enti- tlement to anonymous electioneering is partisan claims in the debate on ratification (which was almost like an election) that a viewpoint-based restriction on anonymity by newspaper editors violates freedom of speech. This absence of histori- cal testimony concerning the point before us is hardly re- markable. The issue of a governmental prohibition upon anonymous electioneering in particular (as opposed to a gov- ernment prohibition upon anonymous publication in general) simply never arose. Indeed, there probably never arose even the abstract question whether electoral openness and regularity was worth such a governmental restriction upon the normal right to anonymous speech. The idea of close government regulation of the electoral process is a more modern phenomenon, arriving in this country in the late 1800's. See Burson v. Freeman, supra, at 203­205. 514us2$46k $U46 05-27-98 16:42:00 PAGES OPLGxPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 334 (1995) 375 Scalia, J., dissenting What we have, then, is the most difficult case for deter- mining the meaning of the Constitution. No accepted exist- ence of governmental restrictions of the sort at issue here demonstrates their constitutionality, but neither can their nonexistence clearly be attributed to constitutional objec- tions. In such a case, constitutional adjudication necessarily involves not just history but judgment: judgment as to whether the government action under challenge is consonant with the concept of the protected freedom (in this case, the freedom of speech and of the press) that existed when the constitutional protection was accorded. In the present case, absent other indication, I would be inclined to agree with the concurrence that a society which used anonymous politi- cal debate so regularly would not regard as constitutional even moderate restrictions made to improve the election process. (I would, however, want further evidence of com- mon practice in 1868, since I doubt that the Fourteenth Amendment time-warped the post-Civil War States back to the Revolution.) But there is other indication, of the most weighty sort: the widespread and longstanding traditions of our peo- ple. Principles of liberty fundamental enough to have been embodied within constitutional guarantees are not readily erased from the Nation's consciousness. A governmental practice that has become general throughout the United States, and particularly one that has the validation of long, accepted usage, bears a strong presumption of con- stitutionality. And that is what we have before us here. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3599.09(A) (1988) was enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Ohio almost 80 years ago. See Act of May 27, 1915, 1915 Ohio Leg. Acts 350. Even at the time of its adoption, there was nothing unique or extraordinary about it. The earliest statute of this sort was adopted by Massachusetts in 1890, little more than 20 years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. No 514us2$46k $U46 05-27-98 16:42:00 PAGES OPLGxPGT 376 McINTYRE v. OHIO ELECTIONS COMM'N Scalia, J., dissenting less than 24 States had similar laws by the end of World War I,1 and today every State of the Union except California has one,2 as does the District of Columbia, see D. C. Code 1 See Act of June 19, 1915, No. 171, § 9, 1915 Ala. Acts 250, 254­255; Act of Mar. 12, 1917, ch. 47, § 1, 1917 Ariz. Sess. Laws 62, 62­63; Act of Apr. 2, 1913, No. 308, § 6, 1913 Ark. Gen. Acts 1252, 1255; Act of Mar. 15, 1901, ch. 138, § 1, 1901 Cal. Stats. 297; Act of June 6, 1913, ch. 6470, § 9, 1913 Fla. Laws 268, 272­273; Act of June 26, 1917, § 1, 1917 Ill. Laws 456, 456­457; Act of Mar. 14, 1911, ch. 137, § 1, 1911 Kan. Sess. Laws 221; Act of July 11, 1912, No. 213, § 14, 1912 La. Acts 447, 454; Act of June 3, 1890, ch. 381, 1890 Mass. Acts 342; Act of June 20, 1912, Ex. Sess. ch. 3, § 7, 1912 Minn. Laws 23, 26; Act of Apr. 21, 1906, S. B. No. 191, 1906 Miss. Gen. Laws 295 (enacting Miss. Code Ann. § 3728 (1906)); Act of Apr. 9, 1917, § 1, 1917 Mo. Laws 272, 273; Act of Nov. 1912, § 35, 1912 Mont. Laws 593, 608; Act of Mar. 31, 1913, ch. 282, § 34, 1913 Nev. Stats. 476, 486­487; Act of Apr. 21, 1915, ch. 169, § 7, 1915 N. H. Laws 234, 236; Act of Apr. 20, 1911, ch. 188, § 9, 1911 N. J. Laws 329, 334; Act of Mar. 12, 1913, ch. 164, § 1(k), 1913 N. C. Sess. Laws 259, 261; Act of May 27, 1915, 1915 Ohio Leg. Acts 350; Act of June 23, 1908, ch. 3, § 35, 1909 Ore. Laws 15, 30; Act of June 26, 1895, No. 275, 1895 Pa. Laws 389; Act of Mar. 13, 1917, ch. 92, § 23, 1917 Utah Laws 258, 267; Act of Mar. 12, 1909, ch. 82, § 8, 1909 Wash. Laws 169, 177­178; Act of Feb. 20, 1915, ch. 27, § 13, 1915 W. Va. Acts 246, 255; Act of July 11, 1911, ch. 650, §§ 94­14 to 94­16, 1911 Wis. Laws 883, 890. 2 See Ala. Code § 17­22A­13 (Supp. 1994); Alaska Stat. Ann. § 15.56.010 (1988); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 16­912 (Supp. 1994); Ark. Code Ann. § 7­1­ 103 (1993); Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1­13­108 (Supp. 1994); Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9­ 333w (Supp. 1994); Del. Code Ann., Tit. 15, §§ 8021, 8023 (1993); Fla. Stat. §§ 106.143 and 106.1437 (1992); Ga. Code Ann. § 21­2­415 (1993); Haw. Rev. Stat. § 11­215 (1988); Idaho Code § 67­6614A (Supp. 1994); Ill. Comp. Stat. § 5/29­14 (1993); Ind. Code § 3­14­1­4 (Supp. 1994); Iowa Code § 56.14 (1991); Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 25­2407 and 25­4156 (Supp. 1991); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 121.190 (Baldwin Supp. 1994); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 18:1463 (West Supp. 1994); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann., Tit. 21­A, § 1014 (1993); Md. Ann. Code, Art. 33, § 26­17 (1993); Mass. Gen. Laws § 41 (1990); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 169.247 (West 1989); Minn. Stat. § 211B.04 (1994); Miss. Code Ann. § 23­15­899 (1990); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 130.031 (Supp. 1994); Mont. Code Ann. § 13­35­225 (1993); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 49­1474.01 (1993); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 294A.320 (Supp. 1993); N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 664:14 (Supp. 1992); N. J. Stat. Ann. § 19:34­38.1 (West 1989); N. M. Stat. Ann. §§ 1­19­16 and 1­ 19­17 (1991); N. Y. Elec. Law § 14­106 (McKinney 1978); N. C. Gen. Stat. § 163­274 (Supp. 1994); N. D. Cent. Code § 16.1­10­04.1 (1981); Ohio Rev. 514us2$46k $U46 05-27-98 16:42:00 PAGES OPLGxPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 334 (1995) 377 Scalia, J., dissenting Ann. § 1­1420 (1992), and as does the Federal Government where advertising relating to candidates for federal office is concerned, see 2 U. S. C. § 441d(a). Such a universal 3 and long-established American legislative practice must be given precedence, I think, over historical and academic speculation regarding a restriction that assuredly does not go to the heart of free speech. It can be said that we ignored a tradition as old, and al- most as widespread, in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397 (1989), where we held unconstitutional a state law prohibiting dese- cration of the United States flag. See also United States v. Eichman, 496 U. S. 310 (1990). But those cases merely Code Ann. § 3599.09(A) (1988); Okla. Stat., Tit. 21, § 1840 (Supp. 1995); Ore. Rev. Stat. § 260.522 (1991); 25 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3258 (1994); R. I. Gen. Laws § 17­23­2 (1988); S. C. Code Ann. § 8­13­1354 (Supp. 1993); S. D. Comp. Laws Ann. § 12­25­4.1 (Supp. 1994); Tenn. Code Ann. § 2­19­120 (Supp. 1994); Tex. Elec. Code Ann. § 255.001 (Supp. 1995); Utah Code Ann. § 20­ 14­24 (Supp. 1994); Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 17, § 2022 (1982); Va. Code Ann. § 24.2­1014 (1993); Wash. Rev. Code § 42.17.510 (Supp. 1994); W. Va. Code § 3­8­12 (1994); Wis. Stat. § 11.30 (Supp. 1994); Wyo. Stat. § 22­25­110 (1992). Courts have declared some of these laws unconstitutional in recent years, relying upon our decision in Talley v. California, 362 U. S. 60 (1960). See, e. g., State v. Burgess, 543 So. 2d 1332 (La. 1989); State v. North Da- kota Ed. Assn., 262 N. W. 2d 731 (N. D. 1978); People v. Duryea, 76 Misc. 2d 948, 351 N. Y. S. 2d 978 (Sup.), aff'd, 44 App. Div. 2d 663, 354 N. Y. S. 2d 129 (1974). Other decisions, including all pre-Talley decisions I am aware of, have upheld the laws. See, e. g., Commonwealth v. Evans, 156 Pa. Super. 321, 40 A. 2d 137 (1944); State v. Freeman, 143 Kan. 315, 55 P. 2d 362 (1936); State v. Babst, 104 Ohio St. 167, 135 N. E. 525 (1922). 3 It might be accurate to say that, insofar as the judicially unconstrained judgment of American legislatures is concerned, approval of the law before us here is universal. California, although it had enacted an election dis- closure requirement as early as 1901, see Act of Mar. 15, 1901, ch. 138, § 1, 1901 Cal. Stats. 297, abandoned its law (then similar to Ohio's) in 1983, see Act of Sept. 11, 1983, ch. 668, 1983 Cal. Stats. 2621, after a California Court of Appeal, relying primarily on our decision in Talley, had declared the provision unconstitutional, see Schuster v. Imperial County Municipal Court, 109 Cal. App. 3d 887, 167 Cal. Rptr. 447 (1980), cert. denied, 450 U. S. 1042 (1981). 514us2$46k $U46 05-27-98 16:42:00 PAGES OPLGxPGT 378 McINTYRE v. OHIO ELECTIONS COMM'N Scalia, J., dissenting stand for the proposition that postadoption tradition cannot alter the core meaning of a constitutional guarantee. As we said in Johnson, "[i]f there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." 491 U. S., at 414. Prohibition of expression of contempt for the flag, whether by contemptuous words, see Street v. New York, 394 U. S. 576 (1969), or by burning the flag, came, we said, within that "bedrock principle." The law at issue here, by contrast, forbids the expression of no idea, but merely requires identi- fication of the speaker when the idea is uttered in the elec- toral context. It is at the periphery of the First Amend- ment, like the law at issue in Burson, where we took guidance from tradition in upholding against constitutional attack restrictions upon electioneering in the vicinity of polling places, see 504 U. S., at 204­206 (plurality opinion); id., at 214­216 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). II The foregoing analysis suffices to decide this case for me. Where the meaning of a constitutional text (such as "the freedom of speech") is unclear, the widespread and long- accepted practices of the American people are the best indication of what fundamental beliefs it was intended to enshrine. Even if I were to close my eyes to practice, however, and were to be guided exclusively by deductive analysis from our case law, I would reach the same result. Three basic questions must be answered to decide this case. Two of them are readily answered by our precedents; the third is readily answered by common sense and by a decent regard for the practical judgment of those more famil- iar with elections than we are. The first question is whether protection of the election process justifies limitations upon speech that cannot constitutionally be imposed generally. (If not, Talley v. California, which invalidated a flat ban on 514us2$46k $U46 05-27-98 16:42:00 PAGES OPLGxPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 334 (1995) 379 Scalia, J., dissenting all anonymous leafletting, controls the decision here.) Our cases plainly answer that question in the affirmative-in- deed, they suggest that no justification for regulation is more compelling than protection of the electoral process. "Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined." Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U. S. 1, 17 (1964). The State has a "compelling interest in preserving the integ- rity of its election process." Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Comm., 489 U. S. 214, 231 (1989). So significant have we found the interest in protecting the elec- toral process to be that we have approved the prohibition of political speech entirely in areas that would impede that process. Burson, supra, at 204­206 (plurality opinion). The second question relevant to our decision is whether a "right to anonymity" is such a prominent value in our consti- tutional system that even protection of the electoral process cannot be purchased at its expense. The answer, again, is clear: no. Several of our cases have held that in peculiar circumstances the compelled disclosure of a person's identity would unconstitutionally deter the exercise of First Amend- ment associational rights. See, e. g., Brown v. Socialist Workers '74 Campaign Comm. (Ohio), 459 U. S. 87 (1982); Bates v. Little Rock, 361 U. S. 516 (1960); NAACP v. Ala- bama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U. S. 449 (1958). But those cases did not acknowledge any general right to anonymity, or even any right on the part of all citizens to ignore the particular laws under challenge. Rather, they recognized a right to an exemption from otherwise valid disclosure requirements on the part of someone who could show a "reasonable probability" that the compelled disclosure would result in "threats, harassment, or reprisals from either Government officials or private parties." This last quota- tion is from Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S., at 74 (per curiam), which prescribed the safety valve of a similar exemption in upholding the disclosure requirements of the Federal Elec- tion Campaign Act. That is the answer our case law pro- 514us2$46k $U46 05-27-98 16:42:00 PAGES OPLGxPGT 380 McINTYRE v. OHIO ELECTIONS COMM'N Scalia, J., dissenting vides to the Court's fear about the "tyranny of the majority," ante, at 357, and to its concern that " `[p]ersecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anony- mously or not at all,' " ante, at 342 (quoting Talley, 362 U. S., at 64). Anonymity can still be enjoyed by those who require it, without utterly destroying useful disclosure laws. The record in this case contains not even a hint that Mrs. McIn- tyre feared "threats, harassment, or reprisals"; indeed, she placed her name on some of her fliers and meant to place it on all of them. See App. 12, 36­40. The existence of a generalized right of anonymity in speech was rejected by this Court in Lewis Publishing Co. v. Morgan, 229 U. S. 288 (1913), which held that newspapers desiring the privilege of second-class postage could be re- quired to provide to the Postmaster General, and to publish, a statement of the names and addresses of their editors, pub- lishers, business managers, and owners. We rejected the argument that the First Amendment forbade the require- ment of such disclosure. Id., at 299. The provision that gave rise to that case still exists, see 39 U. S. C. § 3685, and is still enforced by the Postal Service. It is one of several federal laws seemingly invalidated by today's opinion. The Court's unprecedented protection for anonymous speech does not even have the virtue of establishing a clear (albeit erroneous) rule of law. For after having announced that this statute, because it "burdens core political speech," requires " `exacting scrutiny' " and must be "narrowly tai- lored to serve an overriding state interest," ante, at 347 (or- dinarily the kiss of death), the opinion goes on to proclaim soothingly (and unhelpfully) that "a State's enforcement in- terest might justify a more limited identification require- ment," ante, at 353. See also ante, at 358 (Ginsburg, J., concurring) ("We do not . . . hold that the State may not in other, larger circumstances require the speaker to disclose its interest by disclosing its identity"). Perhaps, then, not 514us2$46k $U46 05-27-98 16:42:00 PAGES OPLGxPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 334 (1995) 381 Scalia, J., dissenting all the state statutes I have alluded to are invalid, but just some of them; or indeed maybe all of them remain valid in "larger circumstances"! It may take decades to work out the shape of this newly expanded right-to-speak-incognito, even in the elections field. And in other areas, of course, a whole new boutique of wonderful First Amendment litiga- tion opens its doors. Must a parade permit, for example, be issued to a group that refuses to provide its identity, or that agrees to do so only under assurance that the identity will not be made public? Must a municipally owned theater that is leased for private productions book anonymously sponsored presentations? Must a government periodical that has a "letters to the editor" column disavow the pol- icy that most newspapers have against the publication of anonymous letters? Must a public university that makes its facilities available for a speech by Louis Farrakhan or David Duke refuse to disclose the on-campus or off-campus group that has sponsored or paid for the speech? Must a municipal "public-access" cable channel permit anonymous (and masked) performers? The silliness that follows upon a generalized right to anonymous speech has no end. The third and last question relevant to our decision is whether the prohibition of anonymous campaigning is effec- tive in protecting and enhancing democratic elections. In answering this question no, the Justices of the majority set their own views-on a practical matter that bears closely upon the real-life experience of elected politicians and not upon that of unelected judges-up against the views of 49 (and perhaps all 50, see n. 4, supra) state legislatures and the Federal Congress. We might also add to the list on the other side the legislatures of foreign democracies: Australia, Canada, and England, for example, all have prohibitions upon anonymous campaigning. See, e. g., Commonwealth Elec- toral Act 1918, § 328 (Australia); Canada Elections Act, R. S. C., ch. E­2, § 261 (1985); Representation of the People Act, 1983, § 110 (England). How is it, one must wonder, that 514us2$46k $U46 05-27-98 16:42:00 PAGES OPLGxPGT 382 McINTYRE v. OHIO ELECTIONS COMM'N Scalia, J., dissenting all of these elected legislators, from around the country and around the world, could not see what six Justices of this Court see so clearly that they are willing to require the en- tire Nation to act upon it: that requiring identification of the source of campaign literature does not improve the quality of the campaign? The Court says that the State has not explained "why it can more easily enforce the direct bans on disseminating false documents against anonymous authors and distributors than against wrongdoers who might use false names and ad- dresses in an attempt to avoid detection." Ante, at 352­353. I am not sure what this complicated comparison means. I am sure, however, that (1) a person who is required to put his name to a document is much less likely to lie than one who can lie anonymously, and (2) the distributor of a leaflet which is unlawful because it is anonymous runs much more risk of immediate detection and punishment than the distrib- utor of a leaflet which is unlawful because it is false. Thus, people will be more likely to observe a signing requirement than a naked "no falsity" requirement; and, having observed that requirement, will then be significantly less likely to lie in what they have signed. But the usefulness of a signing requirement lies not only in promoting observance of the law against campaign false- hoods (though that alone is enough to sustain it). It lies also in promoting a civil and dignified level of campaign debate- which the State has no power to command, but ample power to encourage by such undemanding measures as a signature requirement. Observers of the past few national elections have expressed concern about the increase of character as- sassination-"mudslinging" is the colloquial term-engaged in by political candidates and their supporters to the detri- ment of the democratic process. Not all of this, in fact not much of it, consists of actionable untruth; most is innuendo, or demeaning characterization, or mere disclosure of items of personal life that have no bearing upon suitability for office. 514us2$46k $U46 05-27-98 16:42:01 PAGES OPLGxPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 334 (1995) 383 Scalia, J., dissenting Imagine how much all of this would increase if it could be done anonymously. The principal impediment against it is the reluctance of most individuals and organizations to be publicly associated with uncharitable and uncivil expression. Consider, moreover, the increased potential for "dirty tricks." It is not unheard-of for campaign operatives to cir- culate material over the name of their opponents or their opponents' supporters (a violation of election laws) in order to attract or alienate certain interest groups. See, e. g., B. Felknor, Political Mischief: Smear, Sabotage, and Reform in U. S. Elections 111­112 (1992) (fake United Mine Workers' newspaper assembled by the National Republican Congres- sional Committee); New York v. Duryea, 76 Misc. 2d 948, 351 N. Y. S. 2d 978 (Sup. 1974) (letters purporting to be from the "Action Committee for the Liberal Party" sent by Republi- cans). How much easier-and sanction free!-it would be to circulate anonymous material (for example, a really taste- less, though not actionably false, attack upon one's own can- didate) with the hope and expectation that it will be attrib- uted to, and held against, the other side. The Court contends that demanding the disclosure of the pamphleteer's identity is no different from requiring the dis- closure of any other information that may reduce the persua- siveness of the pamphlet's message. See ante, at 348­349. It cites Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U. S. 241 (1974), which held it unconstitutional to require a news- paper that had published an editorial critical of a particular candidate to furnish space for that candidate to reply. But it is not usual for a speaker to put forward the best arguments against himself, and it is a great imposition upon free speech to make him do so. Whereas it is quite usual-it is ex- pected-for a speaker to identify himself, and requiring that is (at least when there are no special circumstances present) virtually no imposition at all. We have approved much more onerous disclosure require- ments in the name of fair elections. In Buckley v. Valeo, 424 514us2$46k $U46 05-27-98 16:42:01 PAGES OPLGxPGT 384 McINTYRE v. OHIO ELECTIONS COMM'N Scalia, J., dissenting U. S. 1 (1976), we upheld provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act that required private individuals to report to the Federal Election Commission independent expenditures made for communications advocating the election or defeat of a candidate for federal office. Id., at 80. Our primary rationale for upholding this provision was that it served an "informational interest" by "increas[ing] the fund of informa- tion concerning those who support the candidates." Id., at 81. The provision before us here serves the same informa- tional interest, as well as more important interests, which I have discussed above. The Court's attempt to distinguish Buckley, see ante, at 356, would be unconvincing, even if it were accurate in its statement that the disclosure require- ment there at issue "reveals far less information" than re- quiring disclosure of the identity of the author of a specific campaign statement. That happens not to be accurate, since the provision there at issue required not merely "[d]isclosure of an expenditure and its use, without more." Ante, at 355. It required, among other things: "the identification of each person to whom expenditures have been made . . . within the calendar year in an ag- gregate amount or value in excess of $100, the amount, date, and purpose of each such expenditure and the name and address of, and office sought by, each candi- date on whose behalf such expenditure was made." 2 U. S. C. § 434(b)(9) (1970 ed., Supp. IV) (emphasis added). See also 2 U. S. C. § 434(e) (1970 ed., Supp. IV). (Both reproduced in Appendix to Buckley, supra, at 158, 160.) Surely in many if not most cases, this information will readily permit identification of the particular message that the would-be-anonymous campaigner sponsored. Besides which the burden of complying with this provision, which includes the filing of quarterly reports, is infinitely more onerous than Ohio's simple requirement for signature of 514us2$46k $U46 05-27-98 16:42:01 PAGES OPLGxPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 334 (1995) 385 Scalia, J., dissenting campaign literature. If Buckley remains the law, this is an easy case. * * * I do not know where the Court derives its perception that "anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dis- sent." Ante, at 357. I can imagine no reason why an anon- ymous leaflet is any more honorable, as a general matter, than an anonymous phone call or an anonymous letter. It facilitates wrong by eliminating accountability, which is ordi- narily the very purpose of the anonymity. There are of course exceptions, and where anonymity is needed to avoid "threats, harassment, or reprisals" the First Amendment will require an exemption from the Ohio law. Cf. NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U. S. 449 (1958). But to strike down the Ohio law in its general application-and sim- ilar laws of 49 other States and the Federal Government- on the ground that all anonymous communication is in our society traditionally sacrosanct, seems to me a distortion of the past that will lead to a coarsening of the future. I respectfully dissent. 514us2$47Z 05-29-98 20:17:01 PAGES OPINPGT 386 OCTOBER TERM, 1994 Syllabus STONE v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit No. 93­1199. Argued November 28, 1994-Decided April 19, 1995 In 1988, an Immigration Judge ordered petitioner Stone deported. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed on July 26, 1991, and de- nied Stone's motion to reopen and/or reconsider the deportation in Feb- ruary 1993. Shortly thereafter, he petitioned the Court of Appeals for review of both the deportation and reconsideration orders. The court dismissed the petition for want of jurisdiction to the extent that it sought review of the underlying deportation determination, holding that the filing of the reconsideration motion did not toll the running of the 90-day filing period for review of final deportation orders specified in § 106(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Held: A timely motion for reconsideration of a BIA decision does not toll the running of § 106(a)(1)'s 90-day period. Pp. 390­406. (a) The parties agree that a deportation order becomes final upon the BIA's dismissal of an appeal and that the 90-day appeal period started to run in this case on July 26, 1991. It is also clear that the Hobbs Administrative Orders Review Act, which Congress has directed gov- erns review of deportation orders, embraces a tolling rule: The timely filing of a motion to reconsider renders the underlying order nonfinal for purposes of judicial review. ICC v. Locomotive Engineers, 482 U. S. 270. That conventional tolling rule would apply to this case had Con- gress specified using the Hobbs Act to govern review of deportation orders without further qualification. Pp. 390­393. (b) However, Congress instead specified 10 exceptions to the use of Hobbs Act procedures, one of which is decisive here. Section 106(a)(6), added to the INA in 1990, provides that whenever a petitioner seeks review of an order under § 106, "any review sought with respect to a motion to reopen or reconsider such an order shall be consolidated with the review of the order." By its terms, § 106(a)(6) contemplates two petitions for review and directs the courts to consolidate the matters. The direction that the motion to reopen or reconsider is to be consoli- dated with the review of the underlying order, not the other way around, indicates that the action to review the underlying order remains active and pending before the court. Were a motion for reconsideration to render the underlying order nonfinal, there would be, in the normal 514us2$47Z 05-29-98 20:17:01 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 386 (1995) 387 Syllabus course, only one petition for review filed and hence nothing for the Ju- diciary to consolidate. Since it appears that only the no-tolling rule would give rise to two separate petitions for review simultaneously be- fore the courts, which it is plain § 106(a)(6) contemplates, it would seem that only that rule gives meaning to the section. Pp. 393­395. (c) Petitioner's construction of § 106(a)(6)-which presumes that a re- consideration motion renders the underlying order nonfinal if the motion is filed before a petition for review but that finality is unaffected if the reconsideration motion is filed after the petition for review-is unac- ceptable. It is implausible that Congress would direct different results in the two circumstances. Moreover, it is presumed that Congress in- tends its amendment of a statute to have real and substantial effect, yet under petitioner's construction the consolidation provision would have effect only in the rarest of circumstances. Pp. 395­398. (d) Underlying considerations of administrative and judicial efficiency, as well as fairness to the alien, support the conclusion that Congress intended to depart from the conventional tolling rule in deportation cases. While an appeal of a deportation order results in an automatic stay, a motion for agency reconsideration does not. Congress might not have wished to impose on aliens the Hobson's choice of petitioning for reconsideration at the risk of immediate deportation or forgoing recon- sideration and petitioning for review to obtain the automatic stay. In addition, the tolling rule's policy of delayed review would be at odds with Congress' fundamental purpose in enacting § 106, which was to abbreviate the judicial review process in order to prevent aliens from forestalling deportation by dilatory tactics in the courts. Pp. 398­401. (e) A consideration of the analogous practice of appellate court review of district court judgments confirms the correctness of this Court's con- struction of Congress' language. The filing of a motion for relief from judgment more than 10 days after judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)-the closest analogy to the petition for agency reconsid- eration here-does not affect the finality of a district court's judgment. If filed before the appeal is taken, it does not toll the running of the time to take an appeal; if filed after the notice of appeal, appellate court jurisdiction is not divested. Each case gives rise to two separate appel- late proceedings that can be consolidated. However, if a post-trial mo- tion that renders an underlying judgment nonfinal is filed before an appeal, it tolls the time for review, and if filed afterwards, it divests the appellate court of jurisdiction. Thus, it gives rise to only one appeal in which all matters are reviewed. In contrast, the hybrid tolling rule suggested by the dissent-that a reconsideration motion before the BIA renders the original order nonfinal if made before a petition for judicial review is filed but does not affect the finality of the order if filed after- 514us2$47Z 05-29-98 20:17:01 PAGES OPINPGT 388 STONE v. INS Opinion of the Court wards-has no analogue at all in the appellate court-district court con- text. Pp. 401­406. 13 F. 3d 934, affirmed. Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Stevens, Scalia, Thomas, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which O'Connor and Souter, JJ., joined, post, p. 406. Alan B. Morrison argued the cause for petitioner. On the briefs was David Eric Funke. Beth S. Brinkmann argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Solicitor General Days, Assist- ant Attorney General Hunger, and Deputy Solicitor Gen- eral Kneedler. Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court. We consider whether the filing of a timely motion for reconsideration of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals tolls the running of the 90-day period for seeking judicial review of the decision. I Petitioner, Marvin Stone, is a citizen of Canada and a busi- nessman and lawyer by profession. He entered the United States in 1977 as a nonimmigrant visitor for business and has since remained in the United States. On January 3, 1983, Stone was convicted of conspiracy and mail fraud, in violation of 18 U. S. C. §§ 371 and 1341. He served 18 months of a 3-year prison term. In March 1987, after his release, the Immigration and Naturalization Serv- ice (INS) served him with an order to show cause why he should not be deported as a nonimmigrant who had remained in the United States beyond the period authorized by law. In January 1988, after a series of hearings, an Immigra- tion Judge ordered Stone deported. The IJ concluded that under the regulations in effect when Stone entered the United States, an alien on a nonimmigrant for business visa 514us2$47l 05-29-98 20:17:01 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 386 (1995) 389 Opinion of the Court could remain in the country for an initial period not to exceed six months with the privilege of seeking extensions, which could be granted in 6-month increments. 8 CFR § 214.2 (b) (1977). The IJ ordered deportation under 8 U. S. C. § 1251(a)(2) (now § 1251(a)(1)(B) (1988 ed., Supp. V)) based on petitioner's testimony that he had remained in the United States since 1977 without seeking any extension. The IJ denied Stone's application for suspension of deportation under 8 U. S. C. § 1254(a)(1), concluding that Stone's convic- tion of mail fraud and 18-month incarceration barred him, as a matter of law, from establishing "good moral character" as required by § 1254. See § 1101(f)(7). Stone's administrative appeals were as follows: he ap- pealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which affirmed the IJ's determinations and dismissed the appeal on July 26, 1991; he filed a "Motion to Reopen and/or to Reconsider" with the BIA in August 1991; on February 3, 1993, some 17 months later, the BIA denied the reconsideration motion as frivolous. Judicial review was sought next. The record does not give the precise date, but, sometime in February or March 1993, Stone petitioned the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for review of both the July 26, 1991, deportation order and the February 3, 1993, order denying reconsidera- tion. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for want of jurisdiction to the extent the petition sought review of the July 26, 1991, order, the underlying deportation determina- tion. The court held that the filing of the reconsideration motion did not toll the running of the 90-day filing period for review of final deportation orders. 13 F. 3d 934, 938­939 (1994). We granted certiorari, 511 U. S. 1105 (1994), to re- solve a conflict among the Circuits on the question, compare Akrap v. INS, 966 F. 2d 267, 271 (CA7 1992), and Nocon v. INS, 789 F. 2d 1028, 1033 (CA3 1986) (agreeing that the filing of a reconsideration motion does not toll the statutory time limit for seeking review of a deportation order), with Fleary 514us2$47l 05-29-98 20:17:01 PAGES OPINPGT 390 STONE v. INS Opinion of the Court v. INS, 950 F. 2d 711, 713 (CA11 1992), Pierre v. INS, 932 F. 2d 418, 421 (CA5 1991) (per curiam), Attoh v. INS, 606 F. 2d 1273, 1275, n. 15 (CADC 1979), and Bregman v. INS, 351 F. 2d 401, 402­403 (CA9 1965) (holding that a petition to review a deportation order is timely if filed within the statu- tory period following the disposition of a timely filed recon- sideration motion). We now affirm. II A Section 106(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) specifies that "a petition for review [of a final depor- tation order] may be filed not later than 90 days after the date of the issuance of the final deportation order, or, in the case of an alien convicted of an aggravated felony, not later than 30 days after the issuance of such order." 8 U. S. C. § 1105a(a)(1) (1988 ed. and Supp. V). The clause per- taining to an "aggravated felony" is not a factor in the analy- sis, petitioner's offense not being within that defined term. See § 1101(a)(43). He had the benefit of the full 90-day filing period. There is no dispute that a deportation order "be- come[s] final upon dismissal of an appeal by the Board of Immigration Appeals," 8 CFR § 243.1 (1977), and, the parties agree, the 90-day period started on July 26, 1991. The parties disagree, however, regarding the effect that petitioner's later filing of a timely motion to reconsider had on the finality of the order. Petitioner contends that a timely motion to reconsider renders the underlying order nonfinal, and that a petition seeking review of both the order and the reconsideration denial is timely if filed (as this peti- tion was) within 90 days of the reconsideration denial. The INS argues that the finality and reviewability of an order are unaffected by the filing of a motion to reconsider or to reopen. In its view the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to review the denial of the motion to reconsider but not to review the original order. 514us2$47l 05-29-98 20:17:01 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 386 (1995) 391 Opinion of the Court We considered the timeliness of a review petition where there is a motion to reconsider or reopen an agency's order in ICC v. Locomotive Engineers, 482 U. S. 270 (1987). The Interstate Commerce Commission's governing statute pro- vided that, with certain exceptions, judicial review of ICC orders would be governed by the Hobbs Administrative Or- ders Review Act, 28 U. S. C. § 2341 et seq. See Locomotive Engineers, 482 U. S., at 277. We held that "the timely peti- tion for administrative reconsideration stayed the running of the Hobbs Act's limitation period until the petition had been acted upon by the Commission." Id., at 284. Our conclu- sion, we acknowledged, was in some tension with the lan- guage of both the Hobbs Act, which permits an aggrieved party to petition for review "within 60 days after [the] entry" of a final order, 28 U. S. C. § 2344, and of 49 U. S. C. § 10327(i), "which provides that, `[n]otwithstanding' the provision au- thorizing the Commission to reopen and reconsider its orders (§ 10327(g)), `an action of the Commission . . . is final on the date on which it is served, and a civil action to enforce, en- join, suspend, or set aside the action may be filed after that date.' " Locomotive Engineers, supra, at 284. We found the controlling language similar to the corresponding provi- sion of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U. S. C. § 704, which provides that "agency action otherwise final is final for the purposes of this section [entitled `Actions Reviewable'] whether or not there has been presented or determined an application for . . . any form of reconsidera- tio[n]"- "language [that] has long been construed . . . merely to relieve parties from the requirement of petitioning for re- hearing before seeking judicial review . . . but not to prevent petitions for reconsideration that are actually filed from ren- dering the orders under reconsideration nonfinal." Loco- motive Engineers, supra, at 284­285 (citation omitted). In support of that longstanding construction of the APA language, we cited dicta in two earlier cases, American Farm Lines v. Black Ball Freight Service, 397 U. S. 532, 541 514us2$47l 05-29-98 20:17:01 PAGES OPINPGT 392 STONE v. INS Opinion of the Court (1970); CAB v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 367 U. S. 316, 326­327 (1961), and the holding in Outland v. CAB, 284 F. 2d 224, 227 (CADC 1960), a decision cited with approval in both Black Ball and Delta. Outland justified treating orders as non- final for purposes of review during the pendency of a motion for reconsideration in terms of judicial economy: "[W]hen the party elects to seek a rehearing there is always a possibility that the order complained of will be modified in a way which renders judicial review unnecessary." Outland, supra, at 227. As construed in Locomotive Engineers both the APA and the Hobbs Act embrace a tolling rule: The timely filing of a motion to reconsider renders the underlying order nonfinal for purposes of judicial review. In consequence, pendency of reconsideration renders the underlying decision not yet final, and it is implicit in the tolling rule that a party who has sought rehearing cannot seek judicial review until the rehearing has concluded. 4 K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 26:12 (2d ed. 1988); United Transportation Union v. ICC, 871 F. 2d 1114, 1118 (CADC 1989); Bellsouth Corp. v. FCC, 17 F. 3d 1487, 1489­1490 (CADC 1994). Indeed, those Circuits that apply the tolling rule have so held. See Fleary, 950 F. 2d, at 711­712 (deportation order not review- able during pendency of motion to reopen); Hyun Joon Chung v. INS, 720 F. 2d 1471, 1474 (CA9 1984) (same). Section 106 of the INA provides that "[t]he procedure pre- scribed by, and all the provisions of chapter 158 of title 28, shall apply to, and shall be the sole and exclusive procedure for, the judicial review of all final orders of deportation . . . ." 8 U. S. C. § 1105a(a) (1988 ed. and Supp. V). The reference to chapter 158 of Title 28 is a reference to the Hobbs Act. In light of our construction of the Hobbs Act in Locomotive Engineers, had Congress used that Act to govern review of deportation orders without further qualification, it would follow that the so-called tolling rule applied. 514us2$47l 05-29-98 20:17:01 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 386 (1995) 393 Opinion of the Court The INS, however, proffers a different reading of Locomo- tive Engineers. Relying on our statement that the provi- sion of the APA, 5 U. S. C. § 704, has been construed "not to prevent petitions for reconsideration that are actually filed from rendering the orders under reconsideration nonfinal," 482 U. S., at 285 (emphasis supplied), the INS understands Locomotive Engineers to set forth merely a default rule from which agencies may choose to depart. It argues that it did so here. If the case turned on this theory, the question would arise whether an agency subject to either the APA or the Hobbs Act has the authority to specify whether the finality of its orders for purposes of judicial review is affected by the filing of a motion to reconsider. The question is not presented here. Both the Hobbs Act and the APA are congressional enactments, and Congress may alter or modify their appli- cation in the case of particular agencies. We conclude that in amending the INA Congress chose to depart from the ordinary judicial treatment of agency orders under reconsideration. B Congress directed that the Hobbs Act procedures would govern review of deportation orders, except for 10 specified qualifications. See 8 U. S. C. § 1105a(a). Two of those ex- ceptions are pertinent. The first, contained in § 106(a)(1) of the INA, provides an alien with 90 days to petition for re- view of a final deportation order (30 days for aliens convicted of an aggravated felony), instead of the Hobbs Act's 60-day period. See 8 U. S. C. § 1105a(a)(1) (1988 ed., Supp. V). The second and decisive exception is contained in § 106(a)(6), a provision added when Congress amended the INA in 1990. The section provides: "[W]henever a petitioner seeks review of an order under this section, any review sought with respect to a mo- tion to reopen or reconsider such an order shall be 514us2$47l 05-29-98 20:17:01 PAGES OPINPGT 394 STONE v. INS Opinion of the Court consolidated with the review of the order." 8 U. S. C. § 1105a(a)(6). By its terms, § 106(a)(6) contemplates two petitions for re- view and directs the courts to consolidate the matters. The words of the statute do not permit us to say that the filing of a petition for reconsideration or reopening dislodges the earlier proceeding reviewing the underlying order. The statute, in fact, directs that the motion to reopen or recon- sider is to be consolidated with the review of the order, not the other way around. This indicates to us that the action to review the underlying order remains active and pending before the court. We conclude that the statute is best un- derstood as reflecting an intent on the part of Congress that deportation orders are to be reviewed in a timely fashion after issuance, irrespective of the later filing of a motion to reopen or reconsider. Were a motion for reconsideration to render the underly- ing order nonfinal, there would be, in the normal course, only one petition for review filed and hence nothing for the judi- ciary to consolidate. As in Locomotive Engineers itself, re- view would be sought after denial of reconsideration, and both the underlying order and the denial of reconsideration would be reviewed in a single proceeding, insofar, at least, as denial of reconsideration would be reviewable at all. See Locomotive Engineers, 482 U. S., at 280. Indeed, the Ninth Circuit, which before the 1990 amendment had held that pendency of a reconsideration motion did render a deporta- tion order nonfinal, understood that the tolling rule contem- plates just one petition for review: "Congress visualized a single administrative proceeding in which all questions relat- ing to an alien's deportation would be raised and resolved, followed by a single petition in a court of appeals for judicial review . . . ." Yamada v. INS, 384 F. 2d 214, 218 (CA9 1967). The tolling rule is hard to square with the existence of two separate judicial review proceedings. 514us2$47l 05-29-98 20:17:01 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 386 (1995) 395 Opinion of the Court Under the no-tolling rule, by contrast, two separate peti- tions for review will exist in the normal course. An order would be final when issued, irrespective of the later filing of a reconsideration motion, and the aggrieved party would seek judicial review of the order within the specified period. Upon denial of reconsideration, the petitioner would file a separate petition to review that second final order. Because it appears that only the no-tolling rule could give rise to two separate petitions for review simultaneously before the courts, which it is plain § 106(a)(6) contemplates, it would seem that only that rule gives meaning to the section. Although the consolidation provision does not mention toll- ing, see post, at 408 (Breyer, J., dissenting), tolling would be the logical consequence if the statutory scheme provided for the nonfinality of orders upon the filing of a reconsidera- tion motion. Locomotive Engineers' conclusion as to tolling followed as a necessary consequence from its conclusion about finality. Finality is the antecedent question, and as to that matter the consolidation provision speaks volumes. All would agree that the provision envisions two petitions for review. See post, at 408 (Breyer, J., dissenting). Because only "final deportation order[s]" may be reviewed, 8 U. S. C. § 1105a(a)(1), it follows by necessity that the provision re- quires for its operation the existence of two separate final orders, the petitions for review of which could be consoli- dated. The two orders cannot remain final and hence the subject of separate petitions for review if the filing of the reconsideration motion rendered the original order nonfinal. It follows that the filing of the reconsideration motion does not toll the time to petition for review. By speaking to fi- nality, the consolidation provision does say quite a bit about tolling. Recognizing this problem, petitioner at oral argument sought to give meaning to § 106(a)(6) by offering a different version of what often might occur. Petitioner envisioned an alien who petitioned for review of a final deportation order, 514us2$47l 05-29-98 20:17:01 PAGES OPINPGT 396 STONE v. INS Opinion of the Court and, while the petition was still pending, went back to the agency to seek its reconsideration or, if new evidence had arisen, reopening. If, upon denial of reconsideration or re- opening, the alien sought review, and the review of the origi- nal order were still pending, § 106(a)(6) would apply and the two petitions would be consolidated. The dissent relies on the same assumed state of events. See post, at 409­410. That construct, however, is premised on a view of finality quite inconsistent with the tolling rule petitioner himself proposes. If, as petitioner advocates, the filing of a timely petition for reconsideration before seeking judicial review renders the underlying order nonfinal, so that a reviewing court would lack jurisdiction to review the order until after disposition of the reconsideration motion, one wonders how a court retains jurisdiction merely because the petitioner de- lays the reconsideration motions until after filing the petition for judicial review of the underlying order. The policy sup- porting the nonfinality rule-that "when the party elects to seek a rehearing there is always a possibility that the order complained of will be modified in a way which renders judi- cial review unnecessary," Outland, 284 F. 2d, at 227-applies with equal force where the party seeks agency rehearing after filing a petition for judicial review. Indeed, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, whose deci- sion in Outland we cited in support of our construction in Locomotive Engineers, has so held in the years following our decision. See Wade v. FCC, 986 F. 2d 1433, 1434 (1993) (per curiam) ("The danger of wasted judicial effort . . . arises whether a party seeks agency reconsideration before, simul- taneous with, or after filing an appeal or petition for judicial review") (citations omitted). The Wade holding rested on, and is consistent with, our decision in a somewhat analogous context that the filing of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 motion to alter or amend a district court's judgment strips the appellate court of jurisdiction, whether the Rule 59 mo- tion is filed before or after the notice of appeal. See Griggs 514us2$47l 05-29-98 20:17:01 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 386 (1995) 397 Opinion of the Court v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U. S. 56, 61 (1982) (per curiam). Our decision, based on a construction of Fed- eral Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4), noted the "theoreti- cal inconsistency" of permitting the district court to retain jurisdiction to decide the Rule 59 motion while treating the notice of appeal as "adequate for purposes of beginning the appeals process." Griggs, supra, at 59. We need not confirm the correctness of the Wade decision, but neither should we go out of our way to say it is incorrect, as petitioner and the dissent would have us do. The incon- sistency in petitioner's construction of § 106(a)(6) is the same inconsistency that we noted in Griggs. Petitioner assumes that a reconsideration motion renders the underlying order nonfinal if the motion is filed before a petition for review, but that finality is unaffected if the reconsideration motion is filed one day after the petition for review. It is implausible that Congress would direct different results in the two cir- cumstances. At any rate, under petitioner's construction the consolidation provision would have effect only in the rarest of circumstances. When Congress acts to amend a statute, we presume it intends its amendment to have real and substantial effect. See Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U. S. 330, 339 (1979) (Court must construe statute to give effect, if possible, to every provision); Moskal v. United States, 498 U. S. 103, 109­111 (1990) (same). Had Congress intended review of INS orders to proceed in a manner no different from review of other agencies, as petitioner appears to argue, there would have been no reason for Congress to have included the consoli- dation provision. The reasonable construction is that the amendment was enacted as an exception, not just to state an already existing rule. Section 106(a)(6) is an explicit excep- tion to the general applicability of the Hobbs Act procedures, so it must be construed as creating a procedure different from normal practice under the Act. We conclude, as did the Court of Appeals, see 13 F. 3d, at 938, and the Seventh 514us2$47l 05-29-98 20:17:01 PAGES OPINPGT 398 STONE v. INS Opinion of the Court Circuit, see Akrap, 966 F. 2d, at 271, that the consolidation provision Congress inserted when it amended the Act in 1990 is best understood as reflecting its expectation that in the particular context of INS deportation orders the normal toll- ing rule will not apply. C Underlying considerations of administrative and judicial efficiency, as well as fairness to the alien, support our conclu- sion that Congress intended to depart from the conventional tolling rule in deportation cases. Deportation orders are self-executing orders, not depend- ent upon judicial enforcement. This accounts for the auto- matic stay mechanism, the statutory provision providing that service of the petition for review of the deportation order stays the deportation absent contrary direction from the court or the alien's aggravated felony status. See 8 U. S. C. § 1105a(a)(3). The automatic stay would be all but a neces- sity for preserving the jurisdiction of the court, for the agency might not otherwise refrain from enforcement. In- deed, the INA provides that "nothing in this section [Judicial review of orders of deportation and exclusion] shall be con- strued to require the Attorney General to defer deportation of an alien after the issuance of a deportation order because of the right of judicial review of the order granted by this section." 8 U. S. C. § 1105a(a)(8) (1988 ed., Supp. V). And it has been the longstanding view of the INS, a view we presume Congress understood when it amended the Act in 1990, that a motion for reconsideration does not serve to stay the deportation order. 8 CFR § 3.8 (1977). Cf. Delta Air Lines, 367 U. S., at 325­327 (certificate of public convenience and necessity effective when issued though not final for pur- poses of judicial review because of pendency of reconsidera- tion motion). Were the tolling rule to apply here, aliens subject to de- portation orders might well face a Hobson's choice: petition for agency reconsideration at the risk of immediate deporta- 514us2$47l 05-29-98 20:17:01 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 386 (1995) 399 Opinion of the Court tion, or forgo reconsideration and petition for review to ob- tain the automatic stay. The choice is a hard one in depor- tation cases, in that the consequences of deportation are so final, unlike orders in some other administrative contexts. Once an alien has been deported, the courts lack jurisdic- tion to review the deportation order's validity. See 8 U. S. C. § 1105a(c). This choice is one Congress might not have wished to impose on the alien. An alien who had filed for agency reconsideration might seek to avoid immediate deportation by seeking a judicial stay. At oral argument, petitioner suggested a habeas cor- pus action as one solution to the dilemma. Even on the as- sumption that a habeas corpus action would be available, see § 1105a(a) (Exclusiveness of procedure), the solution is unsat- isfactory. In evaluating those stay applications the courts would be required to assess the probability of the alien's pre- vailing on review, turning the stay proceedings into collat- eral previews of the eventual petitions for review-indeed a preview now implicating the district court, not just the court of appeals. By inviting duplicative review in multiple courts, the normal tolling rule would frustrate, rather than promote, its stated goal of judicial economy. From an even more fundamental standpoint, the policies of the tolling rule are at odds with Congress' policy in adopt- ing the judicial review provisions of the INA. The tolling rule reflects a preference to postpone judicial review to en- sure completion of the administrative process. Reconsider- ation might eliminate the need for judicial intervention, and the resultant saving in judicial resources ought not to be diminished by premature adjudication. By contrast, Con- gress' "fundamental purpose" in enacting § 106 of the INA was "to abbreviate the process of judicial review . . . in order to frustrate certain practices . . . whereby persons subject to deportation were forestalling departure by dilatory tactics in the courts." Foti v. INS, 375 U. S. 217, 224 (1963). Con- gress' concern reflected the reality that "in a deportation 514us2$47l 05-29-98 20:17:01 PAGES OPINPGT 400 STONE v. INS Opinion of the Court proceeding . . . as a general matter, every delay works to the advantage of the deportable alien who wishes merely to remain in the United States." INS v. Doherty, 502 U. S. 314, 321­325 (1992). Congress' intent in adopting and then amending the INA was to expedite both the initiation and the completion of the judicial review process. The tolling rule's policy of delayed review would be at odds with the congressional purpose. The dissent does not dispute that a principal purpose of the 1990 amendments to the INA was to expedite petitions for review and to redress the related problem of successive and frivolous administrative appeals and motions. In the Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101­649, 104 Stat. 5048, Congress took five steps to reduce or eliminate these abuses. First, it directed the Attorney General to promulgate regula- tions limiting the number of reconsideration and reopening motions that an alien could file. § 545(b). Second, it in- structed the Attorney General to promulgate regulations specifying the maximum time period for the filing of those motions, hinting that a 20-day period would be appropriate. See ibid. Third, Congress cut in half the time for seeking judicial review of the final deportation order, from 180 to 90 days. See ibid. Fourth, Congress directed the Attorney General to define "frivolous behavior for which attorneys may be sanctioned" in connection with administrative ap- peals and motions. See § 545(a). In the dissent's view, a fifth measure, the consolidation provision, was added for no apparent reason and bears no relation to the other amend- ments Congress enacted at the same time. It is more plausi- ble that when Congress took the first four steps to solve a problem, the fifth-the consolidation provision-was also part of the solution, and not a step in the other direction. By envisioning that a final deportation order will remain final and reviewable for 90 days from the date of its issuance irrespective of the later filing of a reconsideration motion, Congress' amendment eliminates much if not all of the incen- 514us2$47l 05-29-98 20:17:01 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 386 (1995) 401 Opinion of the Court tive to file a meritless reconsideration motion, and, like the other amendments adopted at the same time, expedites the time within which the judicial review process of the deporta- tion order begins. D A consideration of the analogous practice of appellate court review of district court judgments confirms the cor- rectness of our construction of Congress' language. The closest analogy to the INS' discretionary petition for agency reconsideration is the motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The effect of Rule 60(b) motions (at least when made more than 10 days after judgment, an exception discussed below), on the finality and appealability of district court judgments is comparable to the effect of reconsideration motions on INS orders. With the exception noted, the filing of a Rule 60(b) motion does not toll the running of the time for taking an appeal, see Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 60(b); 11 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Prac- tice and Procedure § 2871 (1973) (Wright & Miller), and the pendency of the motion before the district court does not affect the continuity of a prior-taken appeal. See ibid. And last but not least, the pendency of an appeal does not affect the district court's power to grant Rule 60 relief. See Standard Oil Co. of Cal. v. United States, 429 U. S. 17, 18­19 (1976) (per curiam); Wright & Miller § 2873 (1994 Supp.). A litigant faced with an unfavorable district court judgment must appeal that judgment within the time allotted by Fed- eral Rule of Appellate Procedure 4, whether or not the liti- gant first files a Rule 60(b) motion (where the Rule 60 motion is filed more than 10 days following judgment). Either be- fore or after filing his appeal, the litigant may also file a Rule 60(b) motion for relief with the district court. The denial of the motion is appealable as a separate final order, and if the original appeal is still pending it would seem that the court of appeals can consolidate the proceedings. In each of these respects, the practice of litigants under Rule 60(b) is, under 514us2$47l 05-29-98 20:17:01 PAGES OPINPGT 402 STONE v. INS Opinion of the Court our construction, identical to that of aliens who file motions for reconsideration before the BIA. In each case two sepa- rate postdecision appeals are filed. For reasons not relevant here, in 1991 the Rules of Appel- late Procedure were amended to provide that Rule 60(b) mo- tions filed within 10 days of a district court's judgment do toll the time for taking an appeal. See Fed. Rule App. Proc. 4(a)(4)(F). That amendment added Rule 60(b) motions filed within 10 days of judgment to a list of other post-trial mo- tions that toll the running of the time for appeal, a list that includes Rule 59 motions to alter or amend a judgment. See Fed. Rule App. Proc. 4(a)(4)(C). A consideration of this pro- vision of the appellate rules is quite revealing. The list of post-trial motions that toll the time for appeal is followed, and hence qualified, by the language interpreted in Griggs, language that provides in express terms that these motions also serve to divest the appellate court of jurisdiction where the motions are filed after appeal is taken. The language of Rule 4 undermines the dissent's reliance on a presumption that appellate court jurisdiction once as- serted is not divested by further proceedings at the trial or agency level. See post, at 410. Indeed, the practice is most often to the contrary where appellate court review of district court judgments subject to post-trial motions is concerned. See Fed. Rule App. Proc. 4(a)(4) (specifying that the majority of postjudgment motions filed with the district court divest the appellate court of jurisdiction that had once existed). A district court judgment subject to one of these enumerated motions, typified by Rule 59, is reviewable only after, and in conjunction with, review of the denial of the post-trial mo- tion, and just one appeal pends before the appellate court at any one time. In short, the Rules of Appellate Procedure evince a con- sistent and coherent view of the finality and appealability of district court judgments subject to post-trial motions. The majority of post-trial motions, such as Rule 59, render the 514us2$47l 05-29-98 20:17:01 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 386 (1995) 403 Opinion of the Court underlying judgment nonfinal both when filed before an ap- peal is taken (thus tolling the time for taking an appeal), and when filed after the notice of appeal (thus divesting the appellate court of jurisdiction). Other motions, such as Rule 60(b) motions filed more than 10 days after judgment, do not affect the finality of a district court's judgment, either when filed before the appeal (no tolling), or afterwards (appellate court jurisdiction not divested). Motions that do toll the time for taking appeal give rise to only one appeal in which all matters are reviewed; motions that do not toll the time for taking an appeal give rise to two separate appellate pro- ceedings that can be consolidated. E Our colleagues in dissent agree that the consolidation pro- vision envisions the existence of two separate petitions for review. See post, at 408. To give the provision meaning while at the same time concluding that the tolling rule ap- plies, the dissent is compelled to conclude that a reconsidera- tion motion before the BIA renders the original order non- final if made before a petition for judicial review is filed but does not affect the finality of the order if filed afterwards. See post, at 413­414. The hybrid tolling rule the dissent suggests has no analogue at all in the appellate court-district court context. On the contrary, as we have just observed, the uniform principle where appellate review of district court judgments is concerned is that motions that toll produce but one appeal, motions that do not toll produce two. It is only by creating this new hybrid that the dissent can give meaning to the consolidation provision, and avoid the Hobson's choice for the alien. While litigants who practice before the district courts and the BIA will have familiarity with both types of post-trial motions discussed above, and will have no difficulty practicing under the rule we announce today, practitioners would have no familiarity with the hy- 514us2$47l 05-29-98 20:17:01 PAGES OPINPGT 404 STONE v. INS Opinion of the Court brid tolling rule the dissent is compelled to devise in order to give the consolidation provision meaning. It is worthwhile pausing to consider just how many steps the dissent must take to reconcile the consolidation provision with the tolling rule it prefers. The dissent's construction would require that the Court conclude, without any briefing, that our decision in Griggs does not apply to agency review. The dissent would as well disrupt administrative law in gen- eral by overturning the practice of the Court of Appeals with the most experience reviewing agency decisions when faced with agency reconsideration motions made after petition for review (the District of Columbia Circuit), thereby resolving a circuit split without any briefing or argument. See post, at 412. Our construction avoids each of these extraordinary steps. It creates a practice parallel to that of appellate courts reviewing district court judgments subject to pending Rule 60(b) motions filed more than 10 days after judgment and requires us to take no firm position on whether Griggs applies to agency review where tolling does occur. But the full import of our decision in Griggs, and the con- comitant problem addressed in Wade, are in some sense sec- ondary to our fundamental point of dispute with the dissent. In our view the consolidation provision reflects Congress' in- tent to depart from the normal tolling rule in this context, whereas on the dissent's view it does not. Congress itself was explicit in stating that the consolidation provision is an exception to the applicability of the Hobbs Act procedures, see supra, at 393, and it took the deliberate step of amending the Act in 1990 to add the provision. The challenge for the dissent is not, then, just to give the consolidation provision some work to do that is consistent with the tolling rule, but to give it some work as an exception to the applicability of the Hobbs Act procedures, a meaning that explains why Con- gress might have taken trouble to add it. The dissent's con- struction of the consolidation provision gives it effect, if any, only in what must be those rare instances where aliens first 514us2$47l 05-29-98 20:17:01 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 386 (1995) 405 Opinion of the Court petition for judicial review and then seek agency reconsider- ation. And, more important, its construction cannot account for Congress' decision to amend the Act in 1990 to provide that the Hobbs Act procedures, which in the normal course include the tolling rule, shall apply "except" for the consoli- dation provision. F Whatever assessment Congress might have made in enact- ing the judicial review provisions of the INA in the first in- stance, we conclude from the consolidation provision added in 1990 that it envisioned two separate petitions filed to re- view two separate final orders. To be sure, it would have been preferable for Congress to have spoken with greater clarity. Judicial review provisions, however, are jurisdic- tional in nature and must be construed with strict fidelity to their terms. As we have explained: "Section 106(a) is intended exclusively to prescribe and regulate a portion of the jurisdiction of the federal courts. As a jurisdictional statute, it must be construed both with precision and with fidelity to the terms by which Congress has expressed its wishes." Cheng Fan Kwok v. INS, 392 U. S. 206, 212 (1968). This is all the more true of statutory provisions specifying the timing of review, for those time limits are, as we have often stated, "mandatory and jurisdictional," Missouri v. Jenkins, 495 U. S. 33, 45 (1990), and are not subject to equita- ble tolling. See Fed. Rule App. Proc. 26(b). * * * The consolidation provision in § 106(a)(6) reflects Congress' understanding that a deportation order is final, and review- able, when issued. Its finality is not affected by the subse- quent filing of a motion to reconsider. The order being final when issued, an alien has 90 days from that date to seek review. The alien, if he chooses, may also seek agency re- 514us2$47l 05-29-98 20:17:01 PAGES OPINPGT 406 STONE v. INS Breyer, J., dissenting consideration of the order and seek review of the disposition upon reconsideration within 90 days of its issuance. Where the original petition is still before the court, the court shall consolidate the two petitions. See 8 U. S. C. § 1105a(a)(6) (1988 ed., Supp. V). Because Stone's petition was filed more than 90 days after the issuance of the BIA's July 26, 1991, decision, the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to review that order. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. It is so ordered. Justice Breyer, with whom Justice O'Connor and Justice Souter join, dissenting. The majority reads § 106(a) of the Immigration and Na- tionality Act (INA), 8 U. S. C. § 1105a(a) (1988 ed., Supp. V), as creating an exception to the ordinary legal rules that gov- ern the interaction of (1) motions for agency reconsideration with (2) time limits for appeals. In my view, the statute does not create such an exception. And, reading it to do so risks unnecessary complexity in the technical, but important, matter of how one petitions a court for judicial review of an adverse agency decision. For these reasons, I dissent. This Court, in ICC v. Locomotive Engineers, 482 U. S. 270 (1987), considered the interaction between reconsideration motions and appeal time limits when one wants to petition a court of appeals to review an adverse judgment of an admin- istrative agency (which I shall call an "agency/court" appeal). The Court held that this interaction resembled that which takes place between (1) an appeal from a district court judg- ment to a court of appeals (which I shall call a "court/court" appeal) and (2) certain motions for district court reconsidera- tion, namely, those filed soon after entry of the district court judgment. See Fed. Rule App. Proc. 4(a)(4). The relevant statute (commonly called the Hobbs Act) said that a petition for review of a final agency order may be filed in the court 514us2$47q 05-29-98 20:17:01 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 386 (1995) 407 Breyer, J., dissenting of appeals "within 60 days after its entry." 28 U. S. C. § 2344. The Court concluded, on the basis of precedent, that the filing of a proper petition for reconsideration, "within the period allotted for judicial review of the original order . . . tolls the period for judicial review of the original order." 482 U. S., at 279. That order can "be appealed to the courts . . . after the petition for reconsideration is denied." Ibid. See also id., at 284­285. In my view, we should interpret the INA as calling for tolling, just as we interpreted the Hobbs Act in Locomotive Engineers. For one thing, the appeals time limit language in the INA is similar to that in the Hobbs Act. Like the Hobbs Act, the INA does not mention tolling explicitly; it simply says that "a petition for review may be filed not later than 90 days after the date of the issuance of the final depor- tation order." INA § 106(a)(1), 8 U. S. C. § 1105a(a)(1) (1988 ed., Supp. V). More importantly, the INA explicitly states that the "procedure prescribed by, and all the provisions of [the Hobbs Act, 28 U. S. C. § 2341 et seq.,] shall apply to, and shall be the sole and exclusive procedure for, the judicial re- view of all final orders of deportation." INA § 106(a), 8 U. S. C. § 1105a(a). This statutory phrase is not conclusive because it is followed by several exceptions, one of which is the subsection setting the "[t]ime for filing [a] petition" for review. INA § 106(a)(1), 8 U. S. C. § 1105a(a)(1). But, the context suggests that the reason for calling the latter clause an exception lies in the number of days permitted for filing- 90 in the INA, as opposed to 60 in the Hobbs Act. Nothing in the language of § 106(a) (which was amended three years after Locomotive Engineers, see Immigration Act of 1990, § 545(b), 104 Stat. 5065) suggests any further exception in respect to tolling. Finally, interpreting the INA and the Hobbs Act consist- ently makes it easier for the bar to understand, and to follow, these highly technical rules. With consistent rules, a non- immigration-specialist lawyer (say, a lawyer used to working 514us2$47q 05-29-98 20:17:01 PAGES OPINPGT 408 STONE v. INS Breyer, J., dissenting in the ordinary agency/court context) who seeks reconsidera- tion of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision is less likely to lose his client's right to appeal simply through inadvertence. The majority reaches a different conclusion because it believes that one subsection of the INA, § 106(a)(6), is incon- sistent with the ordinary Locomotive Engineers tolling rule. That subsection says that "whenever a petitioner seeks [(1)] review of [a final de- portation] order . . . any [(2)] review sought with respect to a motion to reopen or reconsider such an order shall be consolidated with the review of the order." 8 U. S. C. § 1105a(a)(6) (1988 ed., Supp. V). This "consolidation" subsection, however, says nothing about tolling. Indeed, it does not address, even in a general way, the timing of petitions for judicial review; it just says what must happen when two reviews make it separately to the court of appeals and are on the court's docket at the same time (i. e., they must be consolidated). And, the legislative history is likewise silent on the matter. See, e. g., H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 101­955, pp. 132­133 (1990). Given that § 106(a)(6) was enacted only three years after Locomotive Engineers, it seems unlikely that Congress consciously created a significantly different approach to the review- deadline/reconsideration-petition problem (with the conse- quent risk of confusing lawyers) in so indirect a manner. Nevertheless, the majority believes this subsection is inconsistent with the ordinary Locomotive Engineers tolling rule because application of the ordinary tolling rule would normally lead an alien to appeal both (1) the original depor- tation order and (2) a denial of agency reconsideration, in a single petition, after the denial takes place. Thus, in the majority's view, one could never find (1) a petition to review an original deportation order and (2) a petition to review a denial of a motion to reconsider that order, properly together 514us2$47q 05-29-98 20:17:01 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 386 (1995) 409 Breyer, J., dissenting in the court of appeals at the same time. And, for that rea- son, there would be nothing to "consolidate" under the stat- ute. An opposite rule (one which denies tolling) would, in the majority's view, sometimes produce (simultaneously) both (1) an initial appeal from the original order and (2) an appeal from a denial of reconsideration (if the reconsidera- tion motion were decided, and the second appeal taken, before the court could decide the initial appeal). The "no- tolling" rule would therefore sometimes produce two ap- peals, ready for consolidation. The majority concludes that it must infer this "no-tolling" rule in order to give the "con- solidation" subsection some work to do and thereby make it legally meaningful. I do not believe it necessary, however, to create a special exception from the ordinary Locomotive Engineers tolling rule in order to make the "consolidation" subsection mean- ingful, for even under that ordinary tolling rule, the "consoli- dation" subsection will have work to do. Consider the fol- lowing case: The BIA enters a final deportation order on Day Zero. The alien files a timely petition for review in a court of appeals on Day 50. Circumstances suddenly change-say, in the alien's home country-and on Day 70 the alien then files a motion to reopen with the agency. (The majority says such a filing "must be" a "rare" happening, ante, at 404, but I do not see why. New circumstances justifying reopening or reconsideration might arise at any time. Indeed, this sit- uation must arise with some frequency, since INS regula- tions expressly recognize that a motion to reopen or recon- sider may be filed after judicial review has been sought. See, e. g., 8 CFR § 3.8(a) (1994) (requiring that motions to reopen or reconsider state whether the validity of the order to be reopened has been, or is, the subject of a judicial pro- ceeding).) The agency denies the reconsideration motion on Day 100. The alien then appeals that denial on Day 110. In this case, the court of appeals would have before it two appeals: the appeal filed on Day 50 and the appeal filed on 514us2$47q 05-29-98 20:17:01 PAGES OPINPGT 410 STONE v. INS Breyer, J., dissenting Day 110. The "consolidation" subsection tells the court of appeals to consolidate those two appeals and decide them together. (In fact, the alien might well have informed the court of appeals, say on Day 70, about the reconsideration motion, in which case the court, unless it thought the motion a frivolous stalling device, might have postponed decision on the merits of the initial appeal, awaiting the results of the reconsideration decision, an appeal from which it could then consolidate with the initial appeal. See, e. g., Gebremichael v. INS, 10 F. 3d 28, 33, n. 13 (CA1 1993) (decision on appeal stayed until the agency resolved alien's motion for reconsid- eration; initial appeal then consolidated with the appeal from the denial of rehearing).) In this example, the subsection would have meaning as an "exception" to the Hobbs Act, cf. ante, at 404­405, since nothing in the Hobbs Act requires the consolidation of court reviews. The majority understands this counterexample, but re- jects it, for fear of creating both a conceptual and a preceden- tial problem. Neither of those perceived problems, how- ever, is significant. The conceptual problem the majority fears arises out of the fact that, under the ordinary tolling rule, the filing of a petition for reconsideration is deemed to render an otherwise "final" initial (but not-yet-appealed) order "nonfinal" for purposes of court review. Hence, one may not appeal the merits of that initial order until the dis- trict court or agency finally decides the reconsideration peti- tion. The majority believes that the reconsideration peti- tion in the counterexample above (a petition filed after an appeal is taken from the initial order) also renders "non- final," and hence not properly appealable, the initial order, removing the initial appeal from the court of appeals, and thereby leaving nothing to consolidate. The answer to this conceptual argument lies in the "gen- eral principle" that "jurisdiction, once vested, is not divested, although a state of things should arrive in which original jurisdiction could not be exercised." United States v. The 514us2$47q 05-29-98 20:17:01 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 386 (1995) 411 Breyer, J., dissenting Little Charles, 26 F. Cas. 979, 982 (No. 15,612) (CC Va. 1818) (Marshall, C. J., Circuit Justice), quoted in Republic Nat. Bank of Miami v. United States, 506 U. S. 80 (1992). The first appeal, as of Day 50, has reached the court of appeals. Thus, conceptually speaking, one should not consider a later filed motion for reconsideration as having "divested" the court of jurisdiction. And, practically speaking, it makes sense to leave the appeal there, permitting the court of ap- peals to decide it, or to delay it, as circumstances dictate (say, depending upon the extent to which effort and resources al- ready have been expended in prosecuting and deciding the appeal). After all, we have long recognized that courts have inherent power to stay proceedings and "to control the dispo- sition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants." Landis v. North American Co., 299 U. S. 248, 254 (1936); cf. 28 U. S. C. § 1367(c)(3) (1988 ed., Supp. V) (providing that district court may, but need not, decline to exercise supplemental jurisdic- tion over a claim when it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction). The precedential problem, in the majority's view, arises out of Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U. S. 56 (1982) (per curiam), a court/court case in which this Court held that the filing of a reconsideration motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 caused an earlier filed notice of appeal to " `self-destruc[t],' " 459 U. S., at 61, despite the fact that the earlier-filed notice had "vested" the Court of Appeals with "jurisdiction." Were the same principle to apply in the agency/court context, then the reconsideration motion filed on Day 70 would cause the earlier filed petition for review, filed on Day 50, to "self-destruct," leaving nothing for the court of appeals to consolidate with an eventual appeal from an agency denial of a reconsideration motion (on Day 100). Griggs, however, does not apply in the agency/court con- text. This Court explicitly rested its decision in Griggs upon the fact that a specific Federal Rule of Appellate Proce- 514us2$47q 05-29-98 20:17:01 PAGES OPINPGT 412 STONE v. INS Breyer, J., dissenting dure, Rule 4(a)(4), provides for the "self-destruction." That Rule says that upon the filing of, say, a Rule 59 motion to amend a district court judgment, a "notice of appeal filed before the disposition of [e. g., that Rule 59 motion] shall have no effect." By its terms, Rule 4(a)(4) applies only in the court/court context; and, to my knowledge, there is no com- parable provision applicable in agency/court contexts such as this one. In the absence of such a provision, Griggs explic- itly adds that the "district courts and courts of appeals would both have had the power to modify the same judgment," 459 U. S., at 60 (emphasis added)-as I believe the agency and the Court of Appeals have here. I recognize that at least one Court of Appeals has adopted an agency/court rule analogous to the "self-destruct" rule set forth in Rule 4(a)(4). Wade v. FCC, 986 F. 2d 1433, 1434 (CADC 1993) (per curiam); see also Losh v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 87, 89 (1993). But see Berroteran-Melendez v. INS, 955 F. 2d 1251, 1254 (CA9 1992) (court retains jurisdiction when motion to reopen is filed after the filing of a petition for judicial review); Lozada v. INS, 857 F. 2d 10, 12 (CA1 1988) (court retained jurisdiction over petition for review notwithstanding later filed motion to reopen, but held case in abeyance pending agency's decision on the motion). That court's conclusion, however, was based upon a single obser- vation: that "[t]he danger of wasted judicial effort that at- tends the simultaneous exercise of judicial and agency juris- diction arises whether a party seeks agency reconsideration before, simultaneous with, or after filing an appeal." Wade, supra, at 1434 (citations omitted) (referring to the danger that the agency's ruling might change the order being appealed, thereby mooting the appeal and wasting any ap- pellate effort expended). While this observation is true enough, it does not justify the "self-destruct" rule, because it fails to take into account other important factors, namely, (a) the principle that jurisdiction, once vested, is generally not divested, and (b) the fact that, in some cases (say, when 514us2$47q 05-29-98 20:17:01 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 386 (1995) 413 Breyer, J., dissenting briefing and argument already have been completed in the court of appeals) judicial economy may actually weigh against stripping the court of jurisdiction. On this last point, it is significant that under the Federal Rules, the mo- tions to revise or reopen court judgments that cause an ear- lier filed appeal to "self-destruct" must be filed within a few days after the entry of judgment. See, e. g., Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 4(a)(4) (10 days). The agency rules before us, in con- trast, permit a motion for reconsideration (or reopening) well after the entry of the agency's final order. See 8 CFR § 3.8(a) (1994) (no time limit on motion for reconsideration filed with BIA). See also, e. g., 10 CFR § 2.734(a)(1) (1995) (Nuclear Regulatory Commission may consider untimely mo- tion to reopen where "grave issue" raised). This timing dif- ference means that it is less likely in the court/court context than in the agency/court context that "self-destruction" of an earlier filed notice of appeal would interrupt (and there- fore waste) a court of appeals review already well underway. Consequently, this Court should not simply assume that the court/court rule applies in the agency/court context. The majority ultimately says we ought not decide whether the "self-destruct" rule applies in the agency/court context. Ante, at 397, 404. But, the decision cannot be avoided. That is because the majority's basic argument-that a toll- ing rule would deprive the consolidation subsection of mean- ing-depends upon the assumption that the "self-destruct" rule does apply. And, for the reasons stated above, that as- sumption is not supported by any statutory or rule-based authority. Because this matter is so complicated, an analogy to the court/court context may help. In that context, in a normal civil case, a losing party has 30 days to file an appeal (60, if the Government is a party). Fed. Rule App. Proc. 4(a)(1). The Rules then distinguish between two kinds of reconsider- ation motions: those filed within 10 days (including motions for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Proce- 514us2$47q 05-29-98 20:17:01 PAGES OPINPGT 414 STONE v. INS Breyer, J., dissenting dure 60(b)), which toll the time for appeal, and those filed after 10 days (in the main, other Rule 60(b) motions), which do not toll the time for appeal. See Fed. Rule App. Proc. 4(a)(4). When a party files a motion of the first sort (which I shall call an "immediate" reconsideration motion), a pre- viously filed notice of appeal "self-destructs." Ibid. When a party files a motion of the second sort (which I shall call a "distant" reconsideration motion), a previously filed notice of appeal remains valid. A complex set of rules creates this system, and lawyers normally refer to those rules in order to understand what they are supposed to do. See Fed. Rule App. Proc. 4(a) (and Rules of Civil Procedure cited therein). Agency reconsideration motions are sometimes like "im- mediate" court reconsideration motions, filed soon after entry of a final order, but sometimes they are like "distant" reconsideration motions, filed long after entry of a final order. (Petitioner in this case filed his motion 35 days after entry of an order that he had 90 days to appeal.) The prob- lem before us is that we lack precise rules, comparable to the Federal Rules of Appellate and Civil Procedure, that distin- guish (for appeal preserving purposes) between the "immedi- ate" and the "distant" reconsideration motion. We therefore must read an immigration statute, silent on these matters, in one of three possible ways: (1) as creating rules that make Federal Rules-type distinctions; (2) in effect, as analogiz- ing an agency reconsideration motion to the "distant" court reconsideration motion (and denying tolling); or (3) in ef- fect, as analogizing an agency reconsideration motion to the "immediate" court reconsideration motion (and permitting tolling). The first possibility is a matter for the appropriate Rules Committees, not this Court. Those bodies can focus directly upon the interaction of reconsideration motions and appellate time limits; they can consider relevant similarities and differ- ences between agency/court and court/court appeals; and they can consider the relevance of special, immigration- 514us2$47q 05-29-98 20:17:01 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 386 (1995) 415 Breyer, J., dissenting related circumstances, such as the fact that the filing of a petition for review from a "final" deportation order auto- matically stays deportation, INA § 106(a)(3), 8 U. S. C. § 1105a(a)(3) (1988 ed., Supp. V). The second possibility (that adopted by the majority) creates a serious risk of unfair loss of a right to appeal, because it is inconsistent with Loco- motive Engineers (thereby multiplying complexity). And, it has no basis in the INA, which generally incorporates the procedures of the Hobbs Act and the text and history of which simply do not purport to make an exception denying tolling. The third possibility, in my view, is the best of the three, for it promotes uniformity in practice among the agen- cies; it is consistent with the Hobbs Act, whose procedures the INA generally adopts; and it thereby helps to avoid in- advertent or unfair loss of the right to appeal. The upshot is that Locomotive Engineers, Griggs, the lan- guage of the immigration statute before us, the language of the Federal Rules, and various practical considerations to- gether argue for an interpretation of INA § 106(a) that both (1) permits the filing of a motion for reconsideration to toll the time for petitioning for judicial review (when no petition for review has yet been filed), and (2) permits court review that has already "vested" in the court of appeals to continue there (when the petition for review was filed prior to the filing of the motion for reconsideration). This interpretation simply requires us to read the language of the INA as this Court read the Hobbs Act in Locomotive Engineers. It would avoid creating any "Hobson's choice" for the alien, cf. ante, at 398­399, for an alien could both appeal (thereby ob- taining an automatic stay of deportation, INA § 106(a)(3), 8 U. S. C. § 1105a(a)(3)), and then also petition for reconsidera- tion. And, it would avoid entrapping the unwary lawyer who did not immediately file a petition for court review, thinking that a reconsideration petition would toll the appeal time limit as it does in other agency/court contexts. 514us2$47q 05-29-98 20:17:01 PAGES OPINPGT 416 STONE v. INS Breyer, J., dissenting This approach does not undermine Congress' goal of expe- diting the deportation-order review process. Although the court of appeals might postpone decision of an appeal pend- ing the agency's decision on a later filed motion to reopen or reconsider, it need not do so. If the motion is frivolous, or made for purposes of delay, the INS can call that fact to the court's attention. And, of course, the agency can simply decide the motion quickly. The alien could prevent the court of appeals from acting by not filing an appeal from the original order, but, instead (as here) simply filing a reconsid- eration motion. That motion would toll the time for taking an appeal. But, the fact that the alien would lose the benefit of the automatic stay would act as a check on aliens filing frivolous reconsideration motions (without filing an appeal) solely for purposes of delay. The majority, and the parties, compare and contrast the tolling and nontolling rules in various court-efficiency and delay-related aspects. But, on balance, these considerations do not argue strongly for one side or the other. When Con- gress amended the INA in 1990 (adding, among other things, the consolidation subsection) it did hope to diminish delays. But, the statute explicitly set forth several ways of directly achieving this objective. See, e. g., Immigration Act of 1990, § 545(a), 104 Stat. 5063 (creating INA § 242B(d), 8 U. S. C. § 1252b(d), directing the Attorney General to issue regula- tions providing for summary dismissal of, and attorney sanc- tions for, frivolous administrative appeals); § 545(b)(1) (re- ducing time for petitioning for review from 6 months to 90 days); § 545(d)(1) (directing the Attorney General to issue regulations limiting the number of motions to reopen and to reconsider an alien may file and setting a maximum time period for the filing of such motions); § 545(d)(2) (directing the Attorney General to do the same with respect to the number and timing of administrative appeals). Signifi- cantly, the statute did not list an antitolling rule as one of those ways. At the same time, Congress enacted certain 514us2$47q 05-29-98 20:17:01 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 386 (1995) 417 Breyer, J., dissenting measures apparently designed to make the deportation- order review process more efficient. See, e. g., § 545(d)(2) (asking the Attorney General to issue regulations specifying that the administrative appeal of a deportation order must be consolidated with the appeal of all motions to reopen or reconsider that order; providing for the filing of appellate and reply briefs; and identifying the items to be included in the notice of administrative appeal). In light of these last mentioned provisions, the consolidation subsection would seem consistent with Congress' purposes in 1990 even with- out an implicit no-tolling rule. Indeed, the Attorney General has construed one of these last mentioned 1990 amendments as authorizing, in a some- what analogous situation, a tolling provision roughly similar to that in Locomotive Engineers. In § 545(d)(2) of the 1990 Act, Congress asked the Attorney General to issue regula- tions with respect to "the consolidation of motions to reopen or to reconsider [an Immigration Judge's deportation order] with the appeal [to the BIA] of [that] order." 104 Stat. 5066 (emphasis added). In response, the Attorney General has proposed a regulation saying, among other things, that "[a] motion to reopen a decision rendered by an Immigration Judge . . . that is pending when an appeal [to the BIA] is filed . . . shall be deemed a motion to remand [the administrative appeal] for further proceedings before the Immigration Judge . . . . Such motion . . . shall be consolidated with, and considered by the Board [later] in connection with, the ap- peal to the Board . . . ." 59 Fed. Reg. 29386, 29388 (1994) (proposed new 8 CFR § 3.2(c)(4)). See also 59 Fed. Reg., at 29387 (proposed new § 3.2(b) (parallel provision for motions to reconsider)). This approach, which is comparable to the Locomotive Engineers tolling rule, would govern the inter- action of administrative appeals and motions to reopen the decision of an Immigration Judge. It seems logical that Congress might want the same rule to govern the analogous situation concerning the interaction of petitions for judicial 514us2$47q 05-29-98 20:17:01 PAGES OPINPGT 418 STONE v. INS Breyer, J., dissenting review and motions to reconsider or reopen a decision of the BIA. One final point. The INS argues that the Court should defer to one of its regulations, 8 CFR § 243.1 (1994), which, it says, interprets INA § 106(a) as eliminating the tolling rule. See, e. g., Shalala v. Guernsey Memorial Hospital, ante, at 94­95; Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 843 (1984). The regulation in question, however, says nothing about tolling. To the con- trary, it simply defines "final order of deportation," using language very similar to the language this Court, in Locomo- tive Engineers, interpreted as embodying the tolling rule. Compare the regulation here at issue, 8 CFR § 243.1 (1994) ("[A]n order of deportation . . . shall become final upon [the BIA's] dismissal of an appeal" from the order of a single im- migration judge), with the language at issue in Locomotive Engineers, 49 U. S. C. § 10327(i) ("[A]n action of the [Inter- state Commerce] Commission . . . is final on the date on which it is served"). A lawyer reading the regulation sim- ply would not realize that the INS intended to create an unmentioned exception to a critically important technical procedure. Moreover, the INS itself has apparently inter- preted the regulation somewhat differently at different times. Compare Brief for Respondent 13­17 (arguing that the regulation embodies a no-tolling rule) with Chu v. INS, 875 F. 2d 777, 779 (CA9 1989) (in which INS argued that a reconsideration motion makes the initial order nonfinal, and thereby implies tolling). See, e. g., Thomas Jefferson Univ. v. Shalala, 512 U. S. 504, 514­515 (1994) (inconsistent in- terpretation entitled to "considerably less deference" than consistently held agency view). For these reasons, I do not accept the INS' claim that its silent regulation creates a "no tolling" rule. I would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals. 514us2$48z 05-27-98 17:22:45 PAGES OPINPGT OCTOBER TERM, 1994 419 Syllabus KYLES v. WHITLEY, WARDEN certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit No. 93­7927. Argued November 7, 1994-Decided April 19, 1995 Petitioner Kyles was convicted of first-degree murder by a Louisiana jury and sentenced to death. Following the affirmance of his conviction and sentence on direct appeal, it was revealed on state collateral review that the State had never disclosed certain evidence favorable to him. That evidence included, inter alia, (1) contemporaneous eyewitness state- ments taken by the police following the murder; (2) various statements made to the police by an informant known as "Beanie," who was never called to testify; and (3) a computer printout of license numbers of cars parked at the crime scene on the night of the murder, which did not list the number of Kyles's car. The state trial court nevertheless denied relief, and the State Supreme Court denied Kyles's application for dis- cretionary review. He then sought relief on federal habeas, claiming, among other things, that his conviction was obtained in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83, 87, which held that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment. The Federal District Court denied relief, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed. Held:1. Under United States v. Bagley, 473 U. S. 667, four aspects of mate- riality for Brady purposes bear emphasis. First, favorable evidence is material, and constitutional error results from its suppression by the government, if there is a "reasonable probability" that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Thus, a showing of materiality does not require demon- stration by a preponderance that disclosure of the suppressed evidence would have resulted ultimately in the defendant's acquittal. 473 U. S., at 682, 685. United States v. Agurs, 427 U. S. 97, 112­113, distin- guished. Second, Bagley materiality is not a sufficiency of evidence test. One does not show a Brady violation by demonstrating that some of the inculpatory evidence should have been excluded, but by showing that the favorable evidence could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict. Third, contrary to the Fifth Circuit's assumption, once a reviewing court applying Bagley has found constitutional error, there is no need for fur- ther harmless-error review, since the constitutional standard for materi- 514us2$48z 05-27-98 17:22:45 PAGES OPINPGT 420 KYLES v. WHITLEY Syllabus ality under Bagley imposes a higher burden than the harmless-error standard of Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U. S. 619, 623. Fourth, the state's disclosure obligation turns on the cumulative effect of all sup- pressed evidence favorable to the defense, not on the evidence consid- ered item by item. 473 U. S., at 675, and n. 7. Thus, the prosecutor, who alone can know what is undisclosed, must be assigned the responsi- bility to gauge the likely net effect of all such evidence and make disclo- sure when the point of "reasonable probability" is reached. Moreover, that responsibility remains regardless of any failure by the police to bring favorable evidence to the prosecutor's attention. To hold other- wise would amount to a serious change of course from the Brady line of cases. As the more likely reading of the Fifth Circuit's opinion shows a series of independent materiality evaluations, rather than the cumula- tive evaluation required by Bagley, it is questionable whether that court evaluated the significance of the undisclosed evidence in this case under the correct standard. Pp. 432­441. 2. Because the net effect of the state-suppressed evidence favoring Kyles raises a reasonable probability that its disclosure would have produced a different result at trial, the conviction cannot stand, and Kyles is entitled to a new trial. Pp. 441­454. (a) A review of the suppressed statements of eyewitnesses-whose testimony identifying Kyles as the killer was the essence of the State's case-reveals that their disclosure not only would have resulted in a markedly weaker case for the prosecution and a markedly stronger one for the defense, but also would have substantially reduced or destroyed the value of the State's two best witnesses. Pp. 441­445. (b) Similarly, a recapitulation of the suppressed statements made to the police by Beanie-who, by the State's own admission, was essen- tial to its investigation and, indeed, "made the case" against Kyles- reveals that they were replete with significant inconsistencies and af- firmatively self-incriminating assertions, that Beanie was anxious to see Kyles arrested for the murder, and that the police had a remarkably uncritical attitude toward Beanie. Disclosure would therefore have raised opportunities for the defense to attack the thoroughness and even the good faith of the investigation, and would also have allowed the defense to question the probative value of certain crucial physical evi- dence. Pp. 445­449. (c) While the suppression of the prosecution's list of the cars at the crime scene after the murder does not rank with the failure to disclose the other evidence herein discussed, the list would have had some value as exculpation of Kyles, whose license plate was not included thereon, and as impeachment of the prosecution's arguments to the jury that the killer left his car at the scene during the investigation and that a grainy 514us2$48z 05-27-98 17:22:45 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 419 (1995) 421 Opinion of the Court photograph of the scene showed Kyles's car in the background. It would also have lent support to an argument that the police were ir- responsible in relying on inconsistent statements made by Beanie. Pp. 450­451. (d) Although not every item of the State's case would have been directly undercut if the foregoing Brady evidence had been disclosed, it is significant that the physical evidence remaining unscathed would, by the State's own admission, hardly have amounted to overwhelming proof that Kyles was the murderer. While the inconclusiveness of that evidence does not prove Kyles's innocence, and the jury might have found the unimpeached eyewitness testimony sufficient to convict, con- fidence that the verdict would have been the same cannot survive a recap of the suppressed evidence and its significance for the prosecu- tion. Pp. 451­454. 5 F. 3d 806, reversed and remanded. Souter, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens, O'Connor, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Ginsburg and Breyer, JJ., joined, post, p. 454. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Kennedy and Thomas, JJ., joined, post, p. 456. James S. Liebman argued the cause for petitioner. On the briefs were George W. Healy III, Nicholas J. Trenticosta, Denise Leboeuf, and Gerard A. Rault, Jr. Jack Peebles argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Harry F. Connick. Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court. After his first trial in 1984 ended in a hung jury, petitioner Curtis Lee Kyles was tried again, convicted of first-degree murder, and sentenced to death. On habeas review, we fol- low the established rule that the state's obligation under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (1963), to disclose evidence favorable to the defense, turns on the cumulative effect of all such evidence suppressed by the government, and we hold that the prosecutor remains responsible for gauging that ef- fect regardless of any failure by the police to bring favorable evidence to the prosecutor's attention. Because the net ef- fect of the evidence withheld by the State in this case raises 514us2$48m 05-27-98 17:22:45 PAGES OPINPGT 422 KYLES v. WHITLEY Opinion of the Court a reasonable probability that its disclosure would have produced a different result, Kyles is entitled to a new trial. I Following the mistrial when the jury was unable to reach a verdict, Kyles's subsequent conviction and sentence of death were affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Kyles, 513 So. 2d 265 (La. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U. S. 1027 (1988). On state collateral review, the trial court denied relief, but the Supreme Court of Louisiana remanded for an evidentiary hearing on Kyles's claims of newly discovered evidence. During this state-court proceeding, the defense was first able to present certain evidence, favorable to Kyles, that the State had failed to disclose before or during trial. The state trial court nevertheless denied relief, and the State Supreme Court denied Kyles's application for discretionary review. State ex rel. Kyles v. Butler, 566 So. 2d 386 (La. 1990). Kyles then filed a petition for habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, which denied the petition. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed by a divided vote. 5 F. 3d 806 (1993). As we explain, infra, at 440­441, there is reason to question whether the Court of Appeals evaluated the significance of undisclosed evidence under the correct standard. Because "[o]ur duty to search for constitutional error with painstak- ing care is never more exacting than it is in a capital case," Burger v. Kemp, 483 U. S. 776, 785 (1987),1 we granted certio- rari, 511 U. S. 1051 (1994), and now reverse. 1 The dissent suggests that Burger is not authority for error correction in capital cases, at least when two previous reviewing courts have found no error. Post, at 457. We explain, infra, at 440­441, that this is not a case of simple error correction. As for the significance of prior review, Burger cautions that this Court should not "substitute speculation" for the "considered opinions" of two lower courts. 483 U. S., at 785. No one could disagree that "speculative" claims do not carry much weight against careful evidentiary review by two prior courts. There is nothing specula- tive, however, about Kyles's Brady claim. 514us2$48m 05-27-98 17:22:45 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 419 (1995) 423 Opinion of the Court II A The record indicates that, at about 2:20 p.m. on Thurs- day, September 20, 1984, 60-year-old Dolores Dye left the Schwegmann Brothers' store (Schwegmann's) on Old Gen- tilly Road in New Orleans after doing some food shopping. As she put her grocery bags into the trunk of her red Ford LTD, a man accosted her and after a short struggle drew a revolver, fired into her left temple, and killed her. The gunman took Dye's keys and drove away in the LTD. New Orleans police took statements from six eyewit- nesses,2 who offered various descriptions of the gunman. They agreed that he was a black man, and four of them said that he had braided hair. The witnesses differed signifi- cantly, however, in their descriptions of height, age, weight, build, and hair length. Two reported seeing a man of 17 or 18, while another described the gunman as looking as old as 28. One witness described him as 5'4" or 5'5", medium build, 140­150 pounds; another described the man as slim and close to six feet. One witness said he had a mustache; none of the others spoke of any facial hair at all. One witness said the murderer had shoulder-length hair; another described the hair as "short." Since the police believed the killer might have driven his own car to Schwegmann's and left it there when he drove off in Dye's LTD, they recorded the license numbers of the cars remaining in the parking lots around the store at 9:15 p.m. on the evening of the murder. Matching these numbers with registration records produced the names and addresses of the owners of the cars, with a notation of any owner's police 2 The record reveals that statements were taken from Edward Williams and Lionel Plick, both waiting for a bus nearby; Isaac Smallwood, Willie Jones, and Henry Williams, all working in the Schwegmann's parking lot at the time of the murder; and Robert Territo, driving a truck waiting at a nearby traffic light at the moment of the shooting, who gave a statement to police on Friday, the day after the murder. 514us2$48m 05-27-98 17:22:45 PAGES OPINPGT 424 KYLES v. WHITLEY Opinion of the Court record. Despite this list and the eyewitness descriptions, the police had no lead to the gunman until the Saturday eve- ning after the shooting. At 5:30 p.m., on September 22, a man identifying himself as James Joseph called the police and reported that on the day of the murder he had bought a red Thunderbird from a friend named Curtis, whom he later identified as petitioner, Curtis Kyles. He said that he had subsequently read about Dye's murder in the newspapers and feared that the car he purchased was the victim's. He agreed to meet with the police. A few hours later, the informant met New Orleans Detec- tive John Miller, who was wired with a hidden body micro- phone, through which the ensuing conversation was re- corded. See App. 221­257 (transcript). The informant now said his name was Joseph Banks and that he was called Beanie. His actual name was Joseph Wallace.3 His story, as well as his name, had changed since his earlier call. In place of his original account of buying a Thunderbird from Kyles on Thursday, Beanie told Miller that he had not seen Kyles at all on Thursday, id., at 249­ 250, and had bought a red LTD the previous day, Friday, id., at 221­222, 225. Beanie led Miller to the parking lot of a nearby bar, where he had left the red LTD, later identified as Dye's. Beanie told Miller that he lived with Kyles's brother-in-law (later identified as Johnny Burns),4 whom Beanie repeatedly called his "partner." Id., at 221. Beanie described Kyles as slim, about 6-feet tall, 24 or 25 years old, with a "bush" hairstyle. Id., at 226, 252. When asked if Kyles ever wore 3 Because the informant had so many aliases, we will follow the conven- tion of the court below and refer to him throughout this opinion as Beanie. 4 Johnny Burns is the brother of a woman known as Pinky Burns. A number of trial witnesses referred to the relationship between Kyles and Pinky Burns as a common-law marriage (Louisiana's civil law notwith- standing). Kyles is the father of several of Pinky Burns's children. 514us2$48m 05-27-98 17:22:45 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 419 (1995) 425 Opinion of the Court his hair in plaits, Beanie said that he did but that he "had a bush" when Beanie bought the car. Id., at 249. During the conversation, Beanie repeatedly expressed con- cern that he might himself be a suspect in the murder. He explained that he had been seen driving Dye's car on Friday evening in the French Quarter, admitted that he had changed its license plates, and worried that he "could have been charged" with the murder on the basis of his possession of the LTD. Id., at 231, 246, 250. He asked if he would be put in jail. Id., at 235, 246. Miller acknowledged that Beanie's possession of the car would have looked suspicious, id., at 247, but reassured him that he "didn't do anything wrong," id., at 235. Beanie seemed eager to cast suspicion on Kyles, who alleg- edly made his living by "robbing people," and had tried to kill Beanie at some prior time. Id., at 228, 245, 251. Beanie said that Kyles regularly carried two pistols, a .38 and a .32, and that if the police could "set him up good," they could "get that same gun" used to kill Dye. Id., at 228­229. Beanie rode with Miller and Miller's supervisor, Sgt. James Eaton, in an unmarked squad car to Desire Street, where he pointed out the building containing Kyles's apartment. Id., at 244­246. Beanie told the officers that after he bought the car, he and his "partner" (Burns) drove Kyles to Schwegmann's about 9 p.m. on Friday evening to pick up Kyles's car, described as an orange four-door Ford.5 Id., at 221, 223, 231­232, 242. When asked where Kyles's car had been parked, Beanie re- plied that it had been "[o]n the same side [of the lot] where the woman was killed at." Id., at 231. The officers later drove Beanie to Schwegmann's, where he indicated the space where he claimed Kyles's car had been parked. Beanie went on to say that when he and Burns had brought Kyles to pick 5 According to photographs later introduced at trial, Kyles's car was actually a Mercury and, according to trial testimony, a two-door model. Tr. 210 (Dec. 7, 1984). 514us2$48m 05-27-98 17:22:45 PAGES OPINPGT 426 KYLES v. WHITLEY Opinion of the Court up the car, Kyles had gone to some nearby bushes to retrieve a brown purse, id., at 253­255, which Kyles subsequently hid in a wardrobe at his apartment. Beanie said that Kyles had "a lot of groceries" in Schwegmann's bags and a new baby's potty "in the car." Id., at 254­255. Beanie told Eaton that Kyles's garbage would go out the next day and that if Kyles was "smart" he would "put [the purse] in [the] garbage." Id., at 257. Beanie made it clear that he expected some re- ward for his help, saying at one point that he was not "doing all of this for nothing." Id., at 246. The police repeatedly assured Beanie that he would not lose the $400 he paid for the car. Id., at 243, 246. After the visit to Schwegmann's, Eaton and Miller took Beanie to a police station where Miller interviewed him again on the record, which was transcribed and signed by Beanie, using his alias "Joseph Banks." See id., at 214­220. This statement, Beanie's third (the telephone call being the first, then the recorded conversation), repeats some of the essentials of the second one: that Beanie had purchased a red Ford LTD from Kyles for $400 on Friday evening; that Kyles had his hair "combed out" at the time of the sale; and that Kyles carried a .32 and a .38 with him "all the time." Portions of the third statement, however, embellished or contradicted Beanie's preceding story and were even inter- nally inconsistent. Beanie reported that after the sale, he and Kyles unloaded Schwegmann's grocery bags from the trunk and back seat of the LTD and placed them in Kyles's own car. Beanie said that Kyles took a brown purse from the front seat of the LTD and that they then drove in sepa- rate cars to Kyles's apartment, where they unloaded the gro- ceries. Id., at 216­217. Beanie also claimed that, a few hours later, he and his "partner" Burns went with Kyles to Schwegmann's, where they recovered Kyles's car and a "big brown pocket book" from "next to a building." Id., at 218. Beanie did not explain how Kyles could have picked up his car and recovered the purse at Schwegmann's, after Beanie 514us2$48m 05-27-98 17:22:45 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 419 (1995) 427 Opinion of the Court had seen Kyles with both just a few hours earlier. The po- lice neither noted the inconsistencies nor questioned Beanie about them. Although the police did not thereafter put Kyles under surveillance, Tr. 94 (Dec. 6, 1984), they learned about events at his apartment from Beanie, who went there twice on Sun- day. According to a fourth statement by Beanie, this one given to the chief prosecutor in November (between the first and second trials), he first went to the apartment about 2 p.m., after a telephone conversation with a police officer who asked whether Kyles had the gun that was used to kill Dye. Beanie stayed in Kyles's apartment until about 5 p.m., when he left to call Detective John Miller. Then he returned about 7 p.m. and stayed until about 9:30 p.m., when he left to meet Miller, who also asked about the gun. According to this fourth statement, Beanie "rode around" with Miller until 3 a.m. on Monday, September 24. Sometime during those same early morning hours, detectives were sent at Sgt. Ea- ton's behest to pick up the rubbish outside Kyles's building. As Sgt. Eaton wrote in an interoffice memorandum, he had "reason to believe the victims [sic] personal papers and the Schwegmann's bags will be in the trash." Record, Defend- ant's Exh. 17. At 10:40 a.m., Kyles was arrested as he left the apartment, which was then searched under a warrant. Behind the kitchen stove, the police found a .32-caliber revolver contain- ing five live rounds and one spent cartridge. Ballistics tests later showed that this pistol was used to murder Dye. In a wardrobe in a hallway leading to the kitchen, the officers found a homemade shoulder holster that fit the murder weapon. In a bedroom dresser drawer, they discovered two boxes of ammunition, one containing several .32-caliber rounds of the same brand as those found in the pistol. Back in the kitchen, various cans of cat and dog food, some of them of the brands Dye typically purchased, were found in Schwegmann's sacks. No other groceries were identified as 514us2$48m 05-27-98 17:22:45 PAGES OPINPGT 428 KYLES v. WHITLEY Opinion of the Court possibly being Dye's, and no potty was found. Later that afternoon at the police station, police opened the rubbish bags and found the victim's purse, identification, and other personal belongings wrapped in a Schwegmann's sack. The gun, the LTD, the purse, and the cans of pet food were dusted for fingerprints. The gun had been wiped clean. Several prints were found on the purse and on the LTD, but none was identified as Kyles's. Dye's prints were not found on any of the cans of pet food. Kyles's prints were found, however, on a small piece of paper taken from the front passenger-side floorboard of the LTD. The crime laboratory recorded the paper as a Schwegmann's sales slip, but without noting what had been printed on it, which was obliterated in the chemical process of lifting the fingerprints. A second Schwegmann's receipt was found in the trunk of the LTD, but Kyles's prints were not found on it. Beanie's finger- prints were not compared to any of the fingerprints found. Tr. 97 (Dec. 6, 1984). The lead detective on the case, John Dillman, put together a photo lineup that included a photograph of Kyles (but not of Beanie) and showed the array to five of the six eyewit- nesses who had given statements. Three of them picked the photograph of Kyles; the other two could not confidently identify Kyles as Dye's assailant. B Kyles was indicted for first-degree murder. Before trial, his counsel filed a lengthy motion for disclosure by the State of any exculpatory or impeachment evidence. The prosecu- tion responded that there was "no exculpatory evidence of any nature," despite the government's knowledge of the fol- lowing evidentiary items: (1) the six contemporaneous eye- witness statements taken by police following the murder; (2) records of Beanie's initial call to the police; (3) the tape re- cording of the Saturday conversation between Beanie and officers Eaton and Miller; (4) the typed and signed statement 514us2$48m 05-27-98 17:22:45 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 419 (1995) 429 Opinion of the Court given by Beanie on Sunday morning; (5) the computer print- out of license numbers of cars parked at Schwegmann's on the night of the murder, which did not list the number of Kyles's car; (6) the internal police memorandum calling for the seizure of the rubbish after Beanie had suggested that the purse might be found there; and (7) evidence linking Beanie to other crimes at Schwegmann's and to the unrelated murder of one Patricia Leidenheimer, committed in January before the Dye murder. At the first trial, in November, the heart of the State's case was eyewitness testimony from four people who were at the scene of the crime (three of whom had previously picked Kyles from the photo lineup). Kyles maintained his innocence, offered supporting witnesses, and supplied an alibi that he had been picking up his children from school at the time of the murder. The theory of the defense was that Kyles had been framed by Beanie, who had planted evidence in Kyles's apartment and his rubbish for the purposes of shifting suspicion away from himself, removing an impedi- ment to romance with Pinky Burns, and obtaining reward money. Beanie did not testify as a witness for either the defense or the prosecution. Because the State withheld evidence, its case was much stronger, and the defense case much weaker, than the full facts would have suggested. Even so, after four hours of deliberation, the jury became deadlocked on the issue of guilt, and a mistrial was declared. After the mistrial, the chief trial prosecutor, Cliff Strider, interviewed Beanie. See App. 258­262 (notes of interview). Strider's notes show that Beanie again changed important elements of his story. He said that he went with Kyles to retrieve Kyles's car from the Schwegmann's lot on Thursday, the day of the murder, at some time between 5 and 7:30 p.m., not on Friday, at 9 p.m., as he had said in his second and third statements. (Indeed, in his second statement, Beanie said that he had not seen Kyles at all on Thursday. Id., at 514us2$48m 05-27-98 17:22:46 PAGES OPINPGT 430 KYLES v. WHITLEY Opinion of the Court 249­250.) He also said, for the first time, that when they had picked up the car they were accompanied not only by Johnny Burns but also by Kevin Black, who had testified for the defense at the first trial. Beanie now claimed that after getting Kyles's car they went to Black's house, retrieved a number of bags of groceries, a child's potty, and a brown purse, all of which they took to Kyles's apartment. Beanie also stated that on the Sunday after the murder he had been at Kyles's apartment two separate times. Notwithstanding the many inconsistencies and variations among Beanie's statements, neither Strider's notes nor any of the other notes and transcripts were given to the defense. In December 1984, Kyles was tried a second time. Again, the heart of the State's case was the testimony of four eye- witnesses who positively identified Kyles in front of the jury. The prosecution also offered a blown-up photograph taken at the crime scene soon after the murder, on the basis of which the prosecutors argued that a seemingly two-toned car in the background of the photograph was Kyles's. They repeat- edly suggested during cross-examination of defense wit- nesses that Kyles had left his own car at Schwegmann's on the day of the murder and had retrieved it later, a theory for which they offered no evidence beyond the blown-up photo- graph. Once again, Beanie did not testify. As in the first trial, the defense contended that the eye- witnesses were mistaken. Kyles's counsel called several individuals, including Kevin Black, who testified to seeing Beanie, with his hair in plaits, driving a red car similar to the victim's about an hour after the killing. Tr. 209 (Dec. 7, 1984). Another witness testified that Beanie, with his hair in braids, had tried to sell him the car on Thursday evening, shortly after the murder. Id., at 234­235. Another witness testified that Beanie, with his hair in a "Jheri curl," had at- tempted to sell him the car on Friday. Id., at 249­251. One witness, Beanie's "partner," Burns, testified that he had seen Beanie on Sunday at Kyles's apartment, stooping down near 514us2$48m 05-27-98 17:22:46 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 419 (1995) 431 Opinion of the Court the stove where the gun was eventually found, and the de- fense presented testimony that Beanie was romantically in- terested in Pinky Burns. To explain the pet food found in Kyles's apartment, there was testimony that Kyles's family kept a dog and cat and often fed stray animals in the neighborhood. Finally, Kyles again took the stand. Denying any involve- ment in the shooting, he explained his fingerprints on the cash register receipt found in Dye's car by saying that Beanie had picked him up in a red car on Friday, September 21, and had taken him to Schwegmann's, where he purchased transmission fluid and a pack of cigarettes. He suggested that the receipt may have fallen from the bag when he re- moved the cigarettes. On rebuttal, the prosecutor had Beanie brought into the courtroom. All of the testifying eyewitnesses, after view- ing Beanie standing next to Kyles, reaffirmed their previous identifications of Kyles as the murderer. Kyles was con- victed of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. Beanie received a total of $1,600 in reward money. See Tr. of Hearing on Post-Conviction Relief 19­20 (Feb. 24, 1989); id., at 114 (Feb. 20, 1989). Following direct appeal, it was revealed in the course of state collateral review that the State had failed to disclose evidence favorable to the defense. After exhausting state remedies, Kyles sought relief on federal habeas, claiming, among other things, that the evidence withheld was material to his defense and that his conviction was thus obtained in violation of Brady. Although the United States District Court denied relief and the Fifth Circuit affirmed,6 Judge 6 Pending appeal, Kyles filed a motion under Federal Rules of Civil Pro- cedure 60(b)(2) and (6) to reopen the District Court judgment. In that motion, he charged that one of the eyewitnesses who testified against him at trial committed perjury. In the witness's accompanying affidavit, Dar- lene Kersh (formerly Cahill), the only such witness who had not given a contemporaneous statement, swears that she told the prosecutors and 514us2$48m 05-27-98 17:22:46 PAGES OPINPGT 432 KYLES v. WHITLEY Opinion of the Court King dissented, writing that "[f]or the first time in my four- teen years on this court . . . I have serious reservations about whether the State has sentenced to death the right man." 5 F. 3d, at 820. III The prosecution's affirmative duty to disclose evidence fa- vorable to a defendant can trace its origins to early 20th- century strictures against misrepresentation and is of course most prominently associated with this Court's decision in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (1963). See id., at 86 (rely- ing on Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103, 112 (1935), and Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U. S. 213, 215­216 (1942)). Brady held "that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favor- able to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution." 373 U. S., at 87; see Moore v. Illinois, 408 U. S. 786, 794­795 detectives she did not have an opportunity to view the assailant's face and could not identify him. Nevertheless, Kersh identified Kyles untruth- fully, she says, after being "told by some people . . . [who] I think . . . were district attorneys and police, that the murderer would be the guy seated at the table with the attorney and that that was the one I should identify as the murderer. One of the people there was at the D. A.'s table at the trial. To the best of my knowledge there was only one black man sitting at the counsel table and I pointed him out as the one I had seen shoot the lady." Kersh claims to have agreed to the State's wishes only after the police and district attorneys assured her that "all the other evidence pointed to [Kyles] as the killer." Affidavit of Darlene Kersh 5, 7. The District Court denied the motion as an abuse of the writ, although its order was vacated by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit with instructions to deny the motion on the ground that a petitioner may not use a Rule 60(b) motion to raise constitutional claims not included in the original habeas petition. That ruling is not before us. After denial of his Rule 60(b) motion, Kyles again sought state collateral review on the basis of Kersh's affidavit. The Supreme Court of Louisiana granted dis- cretionary review and ordered the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing; all state proceedings are currently stayed pending our review of Kyles's federal habeas petition. 514us2$48m 05-27-98 17:22:46 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 419 (1995) 433 Opinion of the Court (1972). In United States v. Agurs, 427 U. S. 97 (1976), how- ever, it became clear that a defendant's failure to request favorable evidence did not leave the Government free of all obligation. There, the Court distinguished three situations in which a Brady claim might arise: first, where previously undisclosed evidence revealed that the prosecution intro- duced trial testimony that it knew or should have known was perjured, 427 U. S., at 103­104; 7 second, where the Govern- ment failed to accede to a defense request for disclosure of some specific kind of exculpatory evidence, id., at 104­107; and third, where the Government failed to volunteer ex- culpatory evidence never requested, or requested only in a general way. The Court found a duty on the part of the Government even in this last situation, though only when suppression of the evidence would be "of sufficient signifi- cance to result in the denial of the defendant's right to a fair trial." Id., at 108. In the third prominent case on the way to current Brady law, United States v. Bagley, 473 U. S. 667 (1985), the Court disavowed any difference between exculpatory and impeach- ment evidence for Brady purposes, and it abandoned the dis- tinction between the second and third Agurs circumstances, i. e., the "specific-request" and "general- or no-request" situa- tions. Bagley held that regardless of request, favorable evi- dence is material, and constitutional error results from its suppression by the government, "if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the de- fense, the result of the proceeding would have been differ- 7 The Court noted that "a conviction obtained by the knowing use of perjured testimony is fundamentally unfair, and must be set aside if there is any reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury." Agurs, 427 U. S., at 103 (footnote omitted). As the ruling pertaining to Kersh's affidavit is not before us, we do not consider the question whether Kyles's conviction was obtained by the knowing use of perjured testimony and our decision today does not ad- dress any claim under the first Agurs category. See n. 6, supra. 514us2$48m 05-27-98 17:22:46 PAGES OPINPGT 434 KYLES v. WHITLEY Opinion of the Court ent." 473 U. S., at 682 (opinion of Blackmun, J.); id., at 685 (White, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Four aspects of materiality under Bagley bear emphasis. Although the constitutional duty is triggered by the poten- tial impact of favorable but undisclosed evidence, a show- ing of materiality does not require demonstration by a pre- ponderance that disclosure of the suppressed evidence would have resulted ultimately in the defendant's acquittal (whether based on the presence of reasonable doubt or ac- ceptance of an explanation for the crime that does not incul- pate the defendant). Id., at 682 (opinion of Blackmun, J.) (adopting formulation announced in Strickland v. Washing- ton, 466 U. S. 668, 694 (1984)); Bagley, supra, at 685 (White, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (same); see 473 U. S., at 680 (opinion of Blackmun, J.) (Agurs "rejected a standard that would require the defendant to demonstrate that the evidence if disclosed probably would have resulted in acquittal"); cf. Strickland, supra, at 693 ("[W]e believe that a defendant need not show that counsel's deficient con- duct more likely than not altered the outcome in the case"); Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U. S. 157, 175 (1986) ("[A] defendant need not establish that the attorney's deficient performance more likely than not altered the outcome in order to establish prejudice under Strickland"). Bagley's touchstone of mate- riality is a "reasonable probability" of a different result, and the adjective is important. The question is not whether the defendant would more likely than not have received a differ- ent verdict with the evidence, but whether in its absence he received a fair trial, understood as a trial resulting in a ver- dict worthy of confidence. A "reasonable probability" of a different result is accordingly shown when the government's evidentiary suppression "undermines confidence in the out- come of the trial." Bagley, 473 U. S., at 678. The second aspect of Bagley materiality bearing emphasis here is that it is not a sufficiency of evidence test. A defend- ant need not demonstrate that after discounting the incul- 514us2$48m 05-27-98 17:22:46 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 419 (1995) 435 Opinion of the Court patory evidence in light of the undisclosed evidence, there would not have been enough left to convict. The possibility of an acquittal on a criminal charge does not imply an insuf- ficient evidentiary basis to convict. One does not show a Brady violation by demonstrating that some of the inculpa- tory evidence should have been excluded, but by showing that the favorable evidence could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine con- fidence in the verdict.8 Third, we note that, contrary to the assumption made by the Court of Appeals, 5 F. 3d, at 818, once a reviewing court applying Bagley has found constitutional error there is no need for further harmless-error review. Assuming, argu- endo, that a harmless-error enquiry were to apply, a Bagley error could not be treated as harmless, since "a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the de- fense, the result of the proceeding would have been differ- ent," 473 U. S., at 682 (opinion of Blackmun, J.); id., at 685 (White, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment), necessarily entails the conclusion that the suppression must have had " `substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict,' " Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U. S. 619, 623 (1993), quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U. S. 750, 776 (1946). This is amply confirmed by the devel- opment of the respective governing standards. Although 8 This rule is clear, and none of the Brady cases has ever suggested that sufficiency of evidence (or insufficiency) is the touchstone. And yet the dissent appears to assume that Kyles must lose because there would still have been adequate evidence to convict even if the favorable evidence had been disclosed. See post, at 463 (possibility that Beanie planted evidence "is perfectly consistent" with Kyles's guilt), ibid. ("[T]he jury could well have believed [portions of the defense theory] and yet have condemned petitioner because it could not believe that all four of the eyewitnesses were similarly mistaken"), post, at 468 (the Brady evidence would have left two prosecution witnesses "totally untouched"), 469 (Brady evidence "can be logically separated from the incriminating evidence that would have remained unaffected"). 514us2$48m 05-27-98 17:22:46 PAGES OPINPGT 436 KYLES v. WHITLEY Opinion of the Court Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18, 24 (1967), held that a conviction tainted by constitutional error must be set aside unless the error complained of "was harmless beyond a rea- sonable doubt," we held in Brecht that the standard of harm- lessness generally to be applied in habeas cases is the Kot- teakos formulation (previously applicable only in reviewing nonconstitutional errors on direct appeal), Brecht, supra, at 622­623. Under Kotteakos a conviction may be set aside only if the error "had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict." Kotteakos, supra, at 776. Agurs, however, had previously rejected Kotteakos as the standard governing constitutional disclo- sure claims, reasoning that "the constitutional standard of materiality must impose a higher burden on the defendant." Agurs, 427 U. S., at 112. Agurs thus opted for its formula- tion of materiality, later adopted as the test for prejudice in Strickland, only after expressly noting that this standard would recognize reversible constitutional error only when the harm to the defendant was greater than the harm suffi- cient for reversal under Kotteakos. In sum, once there has been Bagley error as claimed in this case, it cannot subse- quently be found harmless under Brecht.9 The fourth and final aspect of Bagley materiality to be stressed here is its definition in terms of suppressed evidence considered collectively, not item by item.10 As Justice Blackmun emphasized in the portion of his opinion written for the Court, the Constitution is not violated every time the 9 See also Hill v. Lockhart, 28 F. 3d 832, 839 (CA8 1994) ("[I]t is unneces- sary to add a separate layer of harmless-error analysis to an evaluation of whether a petitioner in a habeas case has presented a constitutionally significant claim for ineffective assistance of counsel"). 10 The dissent accuses us of overlooking this point and of assuming that the favorable significance of a given item of undisclosed evidence is enough to demonstrate a Brady violation. We evaluate the tendency and force of the undisclosed evidence item by item; there is no other way. We evalu- ate its cumulative effect for purposes of materiality separately and at the end of the discussion, at Part IV­D, infra. 514us2$48m 05-27-98 17:22:46 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 419 (1995) 437 Opinion of the Court government fails or chooses not to disclose evidence that might prove helpful to the defense. 473 U. S., at 675, and n. 7. We have never held that the Constitution demands an open file policy (however such a policy might work out in practice), and the rule in Bagley (and, hence, in Brady) re- quires less of the prosecution than the ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, which call generally for prosecutorial dis- closures of any evidence tending to exculpate or mitigate. See ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, Prosecution Func- tion and Defense Function 3­3.11(a) (3d ed. 1993) ("A prose- cutor should not intentionally fail to make timely disclosure to the defense, at the earliest feasible opportunity, of the existence of all evidence or information which tends to ne- gate the guilt of the accused or mitigate the offense charged or which would tend to reduce the punishment of the ac- cused"); ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8(d) (1984) ("The prosecutor in a criminal case shall . . . make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or informa- tion known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense"). While the definition of Bagley materiality in terms of the cumulative effect of suppression must accordingly be seen as leaving the government with a degree of discretion, it must also be understood as imposing a corresponding burden. On the one side, showing that the prosecution knew of an item of favorable evidence unknown to the defense does not amount to a Brady violation, without more. But the prose- cution, which alone can know what is undisclosed, must be assigned the consequent responsibility to gauge the likely net effect of all such evidence and make disclosure when the point of "reasonable probability" is reached. This in turn means that the individual prosecutor has a duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to the others acting on the government's behalf in the case, including the police. But whether the prosecutor succeeds or fails in meeting this obli- gation (whether, that is, a failure to disclose is in good faith 514us2$48m 05-27-98 17:22:46 PAGES OPINPGT 438 KYLES v. WHITLEY Opinion of the Court or bad faith, see Brady, 373 U. S., at 87), the prosecution's responsibility for failing to disclose known, favorable evi- dence rising to a material level of importance is inescapable. The State of Louisiana would prefer an even more lenient rule. It pleads that some of the favorable evidence in issue here was not disclosed even to the prosecutor until after trial, Brief for Respondent 25, 27, 30, 31, and it suggested below that it should not be held accountable under Bagley and Brady for evidence known only to police investigators and not to the prosecutor.11 To accommodate the State in this manner would, however, amount to a serious change of course from the Brady line of cases. In the State's favor it may be said that no one doubts that police investigators sometimes fail to inform a prosecutor of all they know. But neither is there any serious doubt that "procedures and regu- lations can be established to carry [the prosecutor's] burden and to insure communication of all relevant information on each case to every lawyer who deals with it." Giglio v. United States, 405 U. S. 150, 154 (1972). Since, then, the prosecutor has the means to discharge the government's Brady responsibility if he will, any argument for excusing a prosecutor from disclosing what he does not happen to know about boils down to a plea to substitute the police for the prosecutor, and even for the courts themselves, as the final arbiters of the government's obligation to ensure fair trials. Short of doing that, we were asked at oral argument to raise the threshold of materiality because the Bagley stand- ard "makes it difficult . . . to know" from the "perspective [of the prosecutor at] trial . . . exactly what might become impor- tant later on." Tr. of Oral Arg. 33. The State asks for "a certain amount of leeway in making a judgment call" as to the disclosure of any given piece of evidence. Ibid. 11 The State's counsel retreated from this suggestion at oral argument, conceding that the State is "held to a disclosure standard based on what all State officers at the time knew." Tr. of Oral Arg. 40. 514us2$48m 05-27-98 17:22:46 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 419 (1995) 439 Opinion of the Court Uncertainty about the degree of further "leeway" that might satisfy the State's request for a "certain amount" of it is the least of the reasons to deny the request. At bottom, what the State fails to recognize is that, with or without more leeway, the prosecution cannot be subject to any disclo- sure obligation without at some point having the responsibil- ity to determine when it must act. Indeed, even if due proc- ess were thought to be violated by every failure to disclose an item of exculpatory or impeachment evidence (leaving harmless error as the government's only fallback), the prose- cutor would still be forced to make judgment calls about what would count as favorable evidence, owing to the very fact that the character of a piece of evidence as favorable will often turn on the context of the existing or potential evidentiary record. Since the prosecutor would have to ex- ercise some judgment even if the State were subject to this most stringent disclosure obligation, it is hard to find merit in the State's complaint over the responsibility for judgment under the existing system, which does not tax the prosecutor with error for any failure to disclose, absent a further show- ing of materiality. Unless, indeed, the adversary system of prosecution is to descend to a gladiatorial level unmitigated by any prosecutorial obligation for the sake of truth, the government simply cannot avoid responsibility for knowing when the suppression of evidence has come to portend such an effect on a trial's outcome as to destroy confidence in its result. This means, naturally, that a prosecutor anxious about tacking too close to the wind will disclose a favorable piece of evidence. See Agurs, 427 U. S., at 108 ("[T]he prudent prosecutor will resolve doubtful questions in favor of disclo- sure"). This is as it should be. Such disclosure will serve to justify trust in the prosecutor as "the representative . . . of a sovereignty . . . whose interest . . . in a criminal prose- cution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done." Berger v. United States, 295 U. S. 78, 88 (1935). 514us2$48m 05-27-98 17:22:46 PAGES OPINPGT 440 KYLES v. WHITLEY Opinion of the Court And it will tend to preserve the criminal trial, as distinct from the prosecutor's private deliberations, as the chosen forum for ascertaining the truth about criminal accusations. See Rose v. Clark, 478 U. S. 570, 577­578 (1986); Estes v. Texas, 381 U. S. 532, 540 (1965); United States v. Leon, 468 U. S. 897, 900­901 (1984) (recognizing general goal of estab- lishing "procedures under which criminal defendants are `ac- quitted or convicted on the basis of all the evidence which exposes the truth' " (quoting Alderman v. United States, 394 U. S. 165, 175 (1969)). The prudence of the careful prosecu- tor should not therefore be discouraged. There is room to debate whether the two judges in the majority in the Court of Appeals made an assessment of the cumulative effect of the evidence. Although the majority's Brady discussion concludes with the statement that the court was not persuaded of the reasonable probability that Kyles would have obtained a favorable verdict if the jury had been "exposed to any or all of the undisclosed materials," 5 F. 3d, at 817, the opinion also contains repeated references dismissing particular items of evidence as immaterial and so suggesting that cumulative materiality was not the touch- stone. See, e. g., id., at 812 ("We do not agree that this statement made the transcript material and so mandated disclosure . . . . Beanie's statement . . . is itself not deci- sive"), 814 ("The nondisclosure of this much of the transcript was insignificant"), 815 ("Kyles has not shown on this basis that the three statements were material"), 815 ("In light of the entire record . . . we cannot conclude that [police reports relating to discovery of the purse in the trash] would, in rea- sonable probability, have moved the jury to embrace the the- ory it otherwise discounted"), 816 ("We are not persuaded that these notes [relating to discovery of the gun] were mate- rial"), 816 ("[W]e are not persuaded that [the printout of the license plate numbers] would, in reasonable probability, have induced reasonable doubt where the jury did not find it. . . . the rebuttal of the photograph would have made no differ- 514us2$48m 05-27-98 17:22:46 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 419 (1995) 441 Opinion of the Court ence"). The result reached by the Fifth Circuit majority is compatible with a series of independent materiality evalua- tions, rather than the cumulative evaluation required by Bagley, as the ensuing discussion will show. IV In this case, disclosure of the suppressed evidence to com- petent counsel would have made a different result reason- ably probable. A As the District Court put it, "the essence of the State's case" was the testimony of eyewitnesses, who identified Kyles as Dye's killer. 5 F. 3d, at 853 (Appendix A). Disclo- sure of their statements would have resulted in a markedly weaker case for the prosecution and a markedly stronger one for the defense. To begin with, the value of two of those witnesses would have been substantially reduced or destroyed. The State rated Henry Williams as its best witness, who testified that he had seen the struggle and the actual shoot- ing by Kyles. The jury would have found it helpful to probe this conclusion in the light of Williams's contemporaneous statement, in which he told the police that the assailant was "a black male, about 19 or 20 years old, about 5'4" or 5'5", 140 to 150 pounds, medium build" and that "his hair looked like it was platted." App. 197. If cross-examined on this de- scription, Williams would have had trouble explaining how he could have described Kyles, 6-feet tall and thin, as a man more than half a foot shorter with a medium build.12 In- deed, since Beanie was 22 years old, 5'5" tall, and 159 pounds, 12 The record makes numerous references to Kyles being approximately six feet tall and slender; photographs in the record tend to confirm these descriptions. The description of Beanie in the text comes from his police file. Record photographs of Beanie also depict a man possessing a me- dium build. 514us2$48m 05-27-98 17:22:46 PAGES OPINPGT 442 KYLES v. WHITLEY Opinion of the Court the defense would have had a compelling argument that Williams's description pointed to Beanie but not to Kyles.13 The trial testimony of a second eyewitness, Isaac Small- wood, was equally damning to Kyles. He testified that Kyles was the assailant, and that he saw him struggle with Dye. He said he saw Kyles take a ".32, a small black gun" out of his right pocket, shoot Dye in the head, and drive off in her LTD. When the prosecutor asked him whether he actually saw Kyles shoot Dye, Smallwood answered "Yeah." Tr. 41­48 (Dec. 6, 1984). Smallwood's statement taken at the parking lot, however, was vastly different. Immediately after the crime, Small- 13 The defense could have further underscored the possibility that Beanie was Dye's killer through cross-examination of the police on their failure to direct any investigation against Beanie. If the police had dis- closed Beanie's statements, they would have been forced to admit that their informant Beanie described Kyles as generally wearing his hair in a "bush" style (and so wearing it when he sold the car to Beanie), whereas Beanie wore his in plaits. There was a considerable amount of such Brady evidence on which the defense could have attacked the investiga- tion as shoddy. The police failed to disclose that Beanie had charges pending against him for a theft at the same Schwegmann's store and was a primary suspect in the January 1984 murder of Patricia Leidenheimer, who, like Dye, was an older woman shot once in the head during an armed robbery. (Even though Beanie was a primary suspect in the Leiden- heimer murder as early as September, he was not interviewed by the police about it until after Kyles's second trial in December. Beanie con- fessed his involvement in the murder, but was never charged in connection with it.) These were additional reasons for Beanie to ingratiate himself with the police and for the police to treat him with a suspicion they did not show. Indeed, notwithstanding Justice Scalia's suggestion that Beanie would have been "stupid" to inject himself into the investigation, post, at 461, the Brady evidence would have revealed at least two motives for Beanie to come forward: he was interested in reward money and he was worried that he was already a suspect in Dye's murder (indeed, he had been seen driving the victim's car, which had been the subject of newspa- per and television reports). See supra, at 425­426. For a discussion of further Brady evidence to attack the investigation, see especially Part IV­B, infra. 514us2$48m 05-27-98 17:22:46 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 419 (1995) 443 Opinion of the Court wood claimed that he had not seen the actual murder and had not seen the assailant outside the vehicle. "I heard a lound [sic] pop," he said. "When I looked around I saw a lady laying on the ground, and there was a red car coming toward me." App. 189. Smallwood said that he got a look at the culprit, a black teenage male with a mustache and shoulder-length braided hair, as the victim's red Thunderbird passed where he was standing. When a police investigator specifically asked him whether he had seen the assailant outside the car, Smallwood answered that he had not; the gunman "was already in the car and coming toward me." Id., at 188­190. A jury would reasonably have been troubled by the adjust- ments to Smallwood's original story by the time of the sec- ond trial. The struggle and shooting, which earlier he had not seen, he was able to describe with such detailed clarity as to identify the murder weapon as a small black .32-caliber pistol, which, of course, was the type of weapon used. His description of the victim's car had gone from a "Thunder- bird" to an "LTD"; and he saw fit to say nothing about the assailant's shoulder-length hair and moustache, details noted by no other eyewitness. These developments would have fueled a withering cross-examination, destroying confidence in Smallwood's story and raising a substantial implication that the prosecutor had coached him to give it.14 14 The implication of coaching would have been complemented by the fact that Smallwood's testimony at the second trial was much more precise and incriminating than his testimony at the first, which produced a hung jury. At the first trial, Smallwood testified that he looked around only after he heard something go off, that Dye was already on the ground, and that he "watched the guy get in the car." Tr. 50­51 (Nov. 26, 1984). When asked to describe the killer, Smallwood stated that he "just got a glance of him from the side" and "couldn't even get a look in the face." Id., at 52, 54. The State contends that this change actually cuts in its favor under Brady, since it provided Kyles's defense with grounds for impeachment 514us2$48m 05-27-98 17:22:46 PAGES OPINPGT 444 KYLES v. WHITLEY Opinion of the Court Since the evolution over time of a given eyewitness's de- scription can be fatal to its reliability, cf. Manson v. Brath- waite, 432 U. S. 98, 114 (1977) (reliability depends in part on the accuracy of prior description); Neil v. Biggers, 409 U. S. 188, 199 (1972) (reliability of identification following imper- missibly suggestive lineup depends in part on accuracy of witness's prior description), the Smallwood and Williams identifications would have been severely undermined by use of their suppressed statements. The likely damage is best understood by taking the word of the prosecutor, who con- tended during closing arguments that Smallwood and Wil- liams were the State's two best witnesses. See Tr. of Clos- ing Arg. 49 (Dec. 7, 1984) (After discussing Territo's and Kersh's testimony: "Isaac Smallwood, have you ever seen a better witness[?] . . . What's better than that is Henry Williams. . . . Henry Williams was the closest of them all without any need to disclose Smallwood's statement. Brief for Respond- ent 17­18. This is true, but not true enough; inconsistencies between the two bodies of trial testimony provided opportunities for chipping away on cross-examination but not for the assault that was warranted. While Smallwood's testimony at the first trial was similar to his contemporane- ous account in some respects (for example, he said he looked around only after he heard the gunshot and that Dye was already on the ground), it differed in one of the most important: Smallwood's version at the first trial already included his observation of the gunman outside the car. Defense counsel was not, therefore, clearly put on notice that Smallwood's capacity to identify the killer's body type was open to serious attack; even less was he informed that Smallwood had answered "no" when asked if he had seen the killer outside the car. If Smallwood had in fact seen the gunman only after the assailant had entered Dye's car, as he said in his original state- ment, it would have been difficult if not impossible for him to notice two key characteristics distinguishing Kyles from Beanie, their heights and builds. Moreover, in the first trial, Smallwood specifically stated that the killer's hair was "kind of like short . . . knotted up on his head." Tr. 60 (Nov. 26, 1984). This description was not inconsistent with his testimony at the second trial but directly contradicted his statement at the scene of the murder that the killer had shoulder-length hair. The dissent says that Smallwood's testimony would have been "barely affected" by the expected impeachment, post, at 468; that would have been a brave jury argument. 514us2$48m 05-27-98 17:22:46 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 419 (1995) 445 Opinion of the Court right here"). Nor, of course, would the harm to the State's case on identity have been confined to their testimony alone. The fact that neither Williams nor Smallwood could have provided a consistent eyewitness description pointing to Kyles would have undercut the prosecution all the more be- cause the remaining eyewitnesses called to testify (Territo and Kersh) had their best views of the gunman only as he fled the scene with his body partly concealed in Dye's car. And even aside from such important details, the effective impeachment of one eyewitness can call for a new trial even though the attack does not extend directly to others, as we have said before. See Agurs, 427 U. S., at 112­113, n. 21. B Damage to the prosecution's case would not have been con- fined to evidence of the eyewitnesses, for Beanie's various statements would have raised opportunities to attack not only the probative value of crucial physical evidence and the circumstances in which it was found, but the thoroughness and even the good faith of the investigation, as well. By the State's own admission, Beanie was essential to its investiga- tion and, indeed, "made the case" against Kyles. Tr. of Clos- ing Arg. 13 (Dec. 7, 1984). Contrary to what one might hope for from such a source, however, Beanie's statements to the police were replete with inconsistencies and would have al- lowed the jury to infer that Beanie was anxious to see Kyles arrested for Dye's murder. Their disclosure would have re- vealed a remarkably uncritical attitude on the part of the police. If the defense had called Beanie as an adverse witness, he could not have said anything of any significance without being trapped by his inconsistencies. A short recapitulation of some of them will make the point. In Beanie's initial meeting with the police, and in his signed statement, he said he bought Dye's LTD and helped Kyles retrieve his car from the Schwegmann's lot on Friday. In his first call to the po- 514us2$48m 05-27-98 17:22:46 PAGES OPINPGT 446 KYLES v. WHITLEY Opinion of the Court lice, he said he bought the LTD on Thursday, and in his con- versation with the prosecutor between trials it was again on Thursday that he said he helped Kyles retrieve Kyles's car. Although none of the first three versions of this story men- tioned Kevin Black as taking part in the retrieval of the car and transfer of groceries, after Black implicated Beanie by his testimony for the defense at the first trial, Beanie changed his story to include Black as a participant. In Beanie's several accounts, Dye's purse first shows up vari- ously next to a building, in some bushes, in Kyles's car, and at Black's house. Even if Kyles's lawyer had followed the more conservative course of leaving Beanie off the stand, though, the defense could have examined the police to good effect on their knowl- edge of Beanie's statements and so have attacked the relia- bility of the investigation in failing even to consider Beanie's possible guilt and in tolerating (if not countenancing) serious possibilities that incriminating evidence had been planted. See, e. g., Bowen v. Maynard, 799 F. 2d 593, 613 (CA10 1986) ("A common trial tactic of defense lawyers is to discredit the caliber of the investigation or the decision to charge the defendant, and we may consider such use in assessing a pos- sible Brady violation"); Lindsey v. King, 769 F. 2d 1034, 1042 (CA5 1985) (awarding new trial of prisoner convicted in Loui- siana state court because withheld Brady evidence "carried within it the potential . . . for the . . . discrediting . . . of the police methods employed in assembling the case").15 15 The dissent, post, at 464, suggests that for jurors to count the sloppi- ness of the investigation against the probative force of the State's evidence would have been irrational, but of course it would have been no such thing. When, for example, the probative force of evidence depends on the circum- stances in which it was obtained and those circumstances raise a possibil- ity of fraud, indications of conscientious police work will enhance probative force and slovenly work will diminish it. See discussion of purse and gun, infra, at 447­449. 514us2$48m 05-27-98 17:22:46 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 419 (1995) 447 Opinion of the Court By demonstrating the detectives' knowledge of Beanie's affirmatively self-incriminating statements, the defense could have laid the foundation for a vigorous argument that the police had been guilty of negligence. In his initial meet- ing with police, Beanie admitted twice that he changed the license plates on the LTD. This admission enhanced the suspiciousness of his possession of the car; the defense could have argued persuasively that he was no bona fide purchaser. And when combined with his police record, evidence of prior criminal activity near Schwegmann's, and his status as a sus- pect in another murder, his devious behavior gave reason to believe that he had done more than buy a stolen car. There was further self-incrimination in Beanie's statement that Kyles's car was parked in the same part of the Schwegmann's lot where Dye was killed. Beanie's apparent awareness of the specific location of the murder could have been based, as the State contends, on television or newspaper reports, but perhaps it was not. Cf. App. 215 (Beanie saying that he knew about the murder because his brother-in-law had seen it "on T. V. and in the paper" and had told Beanie). Since the police admittedly never treated Beanie as a suspect, the defense could thus have used his statements to throw the reliability of the investigation into doubt and to sully the credibility of Detective Dillman, who testified that Beanie was never a suspect, Tr. 103­105, 107 (Dec. 6, 1984), and that he had "no knowledge" that Beanie had changed the license plate, id., at 95. The admitted failure of the police to pursue these pointers toward Beanie's possible guilt could only have magnified the effect on the jury of explaining how the purse and the gun happened to be recovered. In Beanie's original recorded statement, he told the police that "[Kyles's] garbage goes out tomorrow," and that "if he's smart he'll put [the purse] in [the] garbage." App. 257. These statements, along with the internal memorandum stating that the police had "reason to believe" Dye's personal effects and Schwegmann's bags 514us2$48m 05-27-98 17:22:46 PAGES OPINPGT 448 KYLES v. WHITLEY Opinion of the Court would be in the garbage, would have supported the defense's theory that Beanie was no mere observer, but was determin- ing the investigation's direction and success. The potential for damage from using Beanie's statement to undermine the ostensible integrity of the investigation is only confirmed by the prosecutor's admission at one of Kyles's postconviction hearings, that he did not recall a single instance before this case when police had searched and seized garbage on the street in front of a residence, Tr. of Hearing on Post- Conviction Relief 113 (Feb. 20, 1989), and by Detective John Miller's admission at the same hearing that he thought at the time that it "was a possibility" that Beanie had planted the incriminating evidence in the garbage, Tr. of Hearing on Post-Conviction Relief 51 (Feb. 24, 1989). If a police officer thought so, a juror would have, too.16 To the same effect would have been an enquiry based on Beanie's apparently revealing remark to police that "if you can set [Kyles] up good, you can get that same gun." 17 App. 228­229. While the jury might have understood that Beanie meant simply that if the police investigated Kyles, they would probably find the murder weapon, the jury could also have taken Beanie to have been making the more sinister 16 The dissent, rightly, does not contend that Beanie would have had a hard time planting the purse in Kyles's garbage. See post, at 471 (arguing that it would have been difficult for Beanie to plant the gun and homemade holster). All that would have been needed was for Beanie to put the purse into a trash bag out on the curb. See Tr. 97, 101 (Dec. 6, 1984) (testimony of Detective Dillman; garbage bags were seized from "a common garbage area" on the street in "the early morning hours when there wouldn't be anyone on the street"). 17 The dissent, post, at 461­462, argues that it would have been stupid for Beanie to have tantalized the police with the prospect of finding the gun one day before he may have planted it. It is odd that the dissent thinks the Brady reassessment requires the assumption that Beanie was shrewd and sophisticated: the suppressed evidence indicates that within a period of a few hours after he first called police Beanie gave three differ- ent accounts of Kyles's recovery of the purse (and gave yet another about a month later). 514us2$48m 05-27-98 17:22:46 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 419 (1995) 449 Opinion of the Court suggestion that the police "set up" Kyles, and the defense could have argued that the police accepted the invitation. The prosecutor's notes of his interview with Beanie would have shown that police officers were asking Beanie the whereabouts of the gun all day Sunday, the very day when he was twice at Kyles's apartment and was allegedly seen by Johnny Burns lurking near the stove, where the gun was later found.18 Beanie's same statement, indeed, could have been used to cap an attack on the integrity of the investiga- tion and on the reliability of Detective Dillman, who testified on cross-examination that he did not know if Beanie had been at Kyles's apartment on Sunday. Tr. 93, 101 (Dec. 6, 1984).19 18 The dissent would rule out any suspicion because Beanie was said to have worn a "tank-top" shirt during his visits to the apartment, post, at 471; we suppose that a small handgun could have been carried in a man's trousers, just as a witness for the State claimed the killer had carried it, Tr. 52 (Dec. 6, 1984) (Williams). Similarly, the record photograph of the homemade holster indicates that the jury could have found it to be con- structed of insubstantial leather or cloth, duct tape, and string, concealable in a pocket. 19 In evaluating the weight of all these evidentiary items, it bears men- tion that they would not have functioned as mere isolated bits of good luck for Kyles. Their combined force in attacking the process by which the police gathered evidence and assembled the case would have comple- mented, and have been complemented by, the testimony actually offered by Kyles's friends and family to show that Beanie had framed Kyles. Ex- posure to Beanie's own words, even through cross-examination of the po- lice officers, would have made the defense's case more plausible and re- duced its vulnerability to credibility attack. Johnny Burns, for example, was subjected to sharp cross-examination after testifying that he had seen Beanie change the license plate on the LTD, that he walked in on Beanie stooping near the stove in Kyles's kitchen, that he had seen Beanie with handguns of various calibers, including a .32, and that he was testifying for the defense even though Beanie was his "best friend." Tr. 260, 262­ 263, 279, 280 (Dec. 7, 1984). On each of these points, Burns's testimony would have been consistent with the withheld evidence: that Beanie had spoken of Burns to the police as his "partner," had admitted to changing the LTD's license plate, had attended Sunday dinner at Kyles's apartment, and had a history of violent crime, rendering his use of guns more likely. With this information, the defense could have challenged the prosecution's 514us2$48m 05-27-98 17:22:46 PAGES OPINPGT 450 KYLES v. WHITLEY Opinion of the Court C Next to be considered is the prosecution's list of the cars in the Schwegmann's parking lot at mid-evening after the murder. While its suppression does not rank with the fail- ure to disclose the other evidence discussed here, it would have had some value as exculpation and impeachment, and it counts accordingly in determining whether Bagley's stand- ard of materiality is satisfied. On the police's assumption, argued to the jury, that the killer drove to the lot and left his car there during the heat of the investigation, the list without Kyles's registration would obviously have helped Kyles and would have had some value in countering an argu- ment by the prosecution that a grainy enlargement of a pho- tograph of the crime scene showed Kyles's car in the back- ground. The list would also have shown that the police either knew that it was inconsistent with their informant's second and third statements (in which Beanie described re- trieving Kyles's car after the time the list was compiled) or never even bothered to check the informant's story against known fact. Either way, the defense would have had fur- ther support for arguing that the police were irresponsible in relying on Beanie to tip them off to the location of evidence damaging to Kyles. The State argues that the list was neither impeachment nor exculpatory evidence because Kyles could have moved his car before the list was created and because the list does good faith on at least some of the points of cross-examination mentioned and could have elicited police testimony to blunt the effect of the attack on Burns. Justice Scalia suggests that we should "gauge" Burns's credibility by observing that the state judge presiding over Kyles's postconviction proceeding did not find Burns's testimony in that proceeding to be convinc- ing, and by noting that Burns has since been convicted for killing Beanie. Post, at 471­472. Of course neither observation could possibly have af- fected the jury's appraisal of Burns's credibility at the time of Kyles's trials. 514us2$48m 05-27-98 17:22:46 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 419 (1995) 451 Opinion of the Court not purport to be a comprehensive listing of all the cars in the Schwegmann's lot. Such argument, however, confuses the weight of the evidence with its favorable tendency, and even if accepted would work against the State, not for it. If the police had testified that the list was incomplete, they would simply have underscored the unreliability of the inves- tigation and complemented the defense's attack on the failure to treat Beanie as a suspect and his statements with a pre- sumption of fallibility. But however the evidence would have been used, it would have had some weight and its tend- ency would have been favorable to Kyles. D In assessing the significance of the evidence withheld, one must of course bear in mind that not every item of the State's case would have been directly undercut if the Brady evi- dence had been disclosed. It is significant, however, that the physical evidence remaining unscathed would, by the State's own admission, hardly have amounted to overwhelm- ing proof that Kyles was the murderer. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 56 ("The heart of the State's case was eye-witness identifica- tion"); see also Tr. of Hearing on Post-Conviction Relief 117 (Feb. 20, 1989) (testimony of chief prosecutor Strider) ("The crux of the case was the four eye-witnesses"). Ammunition and a holster were found in Kyles's apartment, but if the jury had suspected the gun had been planted the significance of these items might have been left in doubt. The fact that pet food was found in Kyles's apartment was consistent with the testimony of several defense witnesses that Kyles owned a dog and that his children fed stray cats. The brands of pet food found were only two of the brands that Dye typi- cally bought, and these two were common, whereas the one specialty brand that was found in Dye's apartment after her murder, Tr. 180 (Dec. 7, 1984), was not found in Kyles's apart- ment, id., at 188. Although Kyles was wrong in describing the cat food as being on sale the day he said he bought it, he 514us2$48m 05-27-98 17:22:46 PAGES OPINPGT 452 KYLES v. WHITLEY Opinion of the Court was right in describing the way it was priced at Schweg- mann's market, where he commonly shopped.20 Similarly undispositive is the small Schwegmann's receipt on the front passenger floorboard of the LTD, the only physi- cal evidence that bore a fingerprint identified as Kyles's. Kyles explained that Beanie had driven him to Schweg- mann's on Friday to buy cigarettes and transmission fluid, and he theorized that the slip must have fallen out of the bag when he removed the cigarettes. This explanation is consistent with the location of the slip when found and with its small size. The State cannot very well argue that the fingerprint ties Kyles to the killing without also explaining how the 2-inch-long register slip could have been the receipt for a week's worth of groceries, which Dye had gone to Schwegmann's to purchase. Id., at 181­182.21 20 Kyles testified that he believed the pet food to have been on sale be- cause "they had a little sign there that said three for such and such, two for such and such at a cheaper price. It wasn't even over a dollar." Tr. 341 (Dec. 7, 1984). When asked about the sign, Kyles said it "wasn't big. . . [i]t was a little bitty piece of slip . . . on the shelf." Id., at 342. Subsequently, the prices were revealed as in fact being "[t]hree for 89 [cents]" and "two for 77 [cents]," id., at 343, which comported exactly with Kyles's earlier description. The director of advertising at Schwegmann's testified that the items purchased by Kyles had not been on sale, but also explained that the multiple pricing was thought to make the products "more attractive" to the customer. Id., at 396. The advertising director stated that store policy was to not have signs on the shelves, but he also admitted that salespeople sometimes disregarded the policy and put signs up anyway, and that he could not say for sure whether there were signs up on the day Kyles said he bought the pet food. Id., at 398­399. The dissent suggests, post, at 473, that Kyles must have been so "very poor" as to be unable to purchase the pet food. The total cost of the 15 cans of pet food found in Kyles's apartment would have been $5.67. See Tr. 188, 395 (Dec. 7, 1984). Rather than being "damning," post, at 472, the pet food evidence was thus equivocal and, in any event, was not the crux of the prosecution's case, as the State has conceded. See supra, at 451 and this page. 21 The State's counsel admitted at oral argument that its case depended on the facially implausible notion that Dye had not made her typical weekly grocery purchases on the day of the murder (if she had, the receipt 514us2$48m 05-27-98 17:22:46 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 419 (1995) 453 Opinion of the Court The inconclusiveness of the physical evidence does not, to be sure, prove Kyles's innocence, and the jury might have found the eyewitness testimony of Territo and Kersh suffi- cient to convict, even though less damning to Kyles than that of Smallwood and Williams.22 But the question is not whether the State would have had a case to go to the jury if it had disclosed the favorable evidence, but whether we can be confident that the jury's verdict would have been the same. Confidence that it would have been cannot survive a recap of the suppressed evidence and its significance for the prosecution. The jury would have been entitled to find (a) that the investigation was limited by the police's un- critical readiness to accept the story and suggestions of an informant whose accounts were inconsistent to the point, for example, of including four different versions of the discovery of the victim's purse, and whose own behavior was enough to raise suspicions of guilt; (b) that the lead police detective who testified was either less than wholly candid or less than fully informed; (c) that the informant's behavior raised suspicions that he had planted both the murder weapon and the victim's purse in the places they were found; (d) that one of the four eyewitnesses crucial to the State's case had given a description that did not match the defendant and better described the informant; (e) that another eyewitness had been coached, since he had first stated that he had not seen the killer outside the getaway car, or the killing itself, whereas at trial he would have been longer), but that she had indeed made her typical weekly purchases of pet food (hence the presence of the pet food in Kyles's apart- ment, which the State claimed were Dye's). Tr. of Oral Arg. 53­54. 22 See supra, at 445. On remand, of course, the State's case will be weaker still, since the prosecution is unlikely to rely on Kersh, who now swears that she committed perjury at the two trials when she identified Kyles as the murderer. See n. 6, supra. 514us2$48m 05-27-98 17:22:46 PAGES OPINPGT 454 KYLES v. WHITLEY Stevens, J., concurring claimed to have seen the shooting, described the murder weapon exactly, and omitted portions of his initial de- scription that would have been troublesome for the case; (f) that there was no consistency to eyewitness descrip- tions of the killer's height, build, age, facial hair, or hair length. Since all of these possible findings were precluded by the prosecution's failure to disclose the evidence that would have supported them, "fairness" cannot be stretched to the point of calling this a fair trial. Perhaps, confidence that the ver- dict would have been the same could survive the evidence impeaching even two eyewitnesses if the discoveries of gun and purse were above suspicion. Perhaps those suspicious circumstances would not defeat confidence in the verdict if the eyewitnesses had generally agreed on a description and were free of impeachment. But confidence that the verdict would have been unaffected cannot survive when suppressed evidence would have entitled a jury to find that the eyewit- nesses were not consistent in describing the killer, that two out of the four eyewitnesses testifying were unreliable, that the most damning physical evidence was subject to suspicion, that the investigation that produced it was insufficiently probing, and that the principal police witness was insuffi- ciently informed or candid. This is not the "massive" case envisioned by the dissent, post, at 475; it is a significantly weaker case than the one heard by the first jury, which could not even reach a verdict. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer join, concurring. As the Court has explained, this case presents an impor- tant legal issue. See ante, at 440­441. Because Justice 514us2$48i 05-27-98 17:22:46 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 419 (1995) 455 Stevens, J., concurring Scalia so emphatically disagrees, I add this brief response to his criticism of the Court's decision to grant certiorari. Proper management of our certiorari docket, as Justice Scalia notes, see post, at 456­460, precludes us from hear- ing argument on the merits of even a "substantial per- centage" of the capital cases that confront us. Compare Coleman v. Balkcom, 451 U. S. 949 (1981) (Stevens, J., concurring in denial of certiorari), with id., at 956 (Rehn- quist, J., dissenting). Even aside from its legal importance, however, this case merits "favored treatment," cf. post, at 457, for at least three reasons. First, the fact that the jury was unable to reach a verdict at the conclusion of the first trial provides strong reason to believe the significant errors that occurred at the second trial were prejudicial. Second, cases in which the record reveals so many instances of the state's failure to disclose exculpatory evidence are extremely rare. Even if I shared Justice Scalia's appraisal of the evidence in this case-which I do not-I would still believe we should independently review the record to ensure that the prosecution's blatant and repeated violations of a well- settled constitutional obligation did not deprive petitioner of a fair trial. Third, despite my high regard for the diligence and craftsmanship of the author of the majority opinion in the Court of Appeals, my independent review of the case left me with the same degree of doubt about petitioner's guilt expressed by the dissenting judge in that court. Our duty to administer justice occasionally requires busy judges to engage in a detailed review of the particular facts of a case, even though our labors may not provide posterity with a newly minted rule of law. The current popularity of capital punishment makes this "generalizable principle," post, at 460, especially important. Cf. Harris v. Alabama, 513 U. S. 504, 519­520, and n. 5 (1995) (Stevens, J., dissent- ing). I wish such review were unnecessary, but I cannot agree that our position in the judicial hierarchy makes it in- appropriate. Sometimes the performance of an unpleasant 514us2$48i 05-27-98 17:22:46 PAGES OPINPGT 456 KYLES v. WHITLEY Scalia, J., dissenting duty conveys a message more significant than even the most penetrating legal analysis. Justice Scalia, with whom The Chief Justice, Jus- tice Kennedy, and Justice Thomas join, dissenting. In a sensible system of criminal justice, wrongful con- viction is avoided by establishing, at the trial level, lines of procedural legality that leave ample margins of safety (for example, the requirement that guilt be proved beyond a reasonable doubt)-not by providing recurrent and repeti- tive appellate review of whether the facts in the record show those lines to have been narrowly crossed. The defect of the latter system was described, with characteristic candor, by Justice Jackson: "Whenever decisions of one court are reviewed by an- other, a percentage of them are reversed. That reflects a difference in outlook normally found between person- nel comprising different courts. However, reversal by a higher court is not proof that justice is thereby better done." Brown v. Allen, 344 U. S. 443, 540 (1953) (opin- ion concurring in result). Since this Court has long shared Justice Jackson's view, today's opinion-which considers a fact-bound claim of error rejected by every court, state and federal, that previously heard it-is, so far as I can tell, wholly unprecedented. The Court has adhered to the policy that, when the petitioner claims only that a concededly correct view of the law was incorrectly applied to the facts, certiorari should generally (i. e., except in cases of the plainest error) be denied. United States v. Johnston, 268 U. S. 220, 227 (1925). That policy has been observed even when the fact-bound assess- ment of the federal court of appeals has differed from that of the district court, Sumner v. Mata, 449 U. S. 539, 543 (1981); and under what we have called the "two-court rule," the policy has been applied with particular rigor when dis- 514us2$48k 05-27-98 17:22:46 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 419 (1995) 457 Scalia, J., dissenting trict court and court of appeals are in agreement as to what conclusion the record requires. See, e. g., Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co., 336 U. S. 271, 275 (1949). How much the more should the policy be honored in this case, a federal habeas proceeding where not only both lower federal courts but also the state courts on postconviction review have all reviewed and rejected precisely the fact- specific claim before us. Cf. 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d) (requiring federal habeas courts to accord a presumption of correctness to state-court findings of fact); Sumner, supra, at 550, n. 3. Instead, however, the Court not only grants certiorari to consider whether the Court of Appeals (and all the previous courts that agreed with it) was correct as to what the facts showed in a case where the answer is far from clear, but in the process of such consideration renders new findings of fact and judgments of credibility appropriate to a trial court of original jurisdiction. See, e. g., ante, at 425 ("Beanie seemed eager to cast suspicion on Kyles"); ante, at 441, n. 12 ("Rec- ord photographs of Beanie . . . depict a man possessing a medium build"); ante, at 449, n. 18 ("the record photograph of the homemade holster indicates . . ."). The Court says that we granted certiorari "[b]ecause `[o]ur duty to search for constitutional error with painstaking care is never more exacting than it is in a capital case,' Burger v. Kemp, 483 U. S. 776, 785 (1987)." Ante, at 422. The cita- tion is perverse, for the reader who looks up the quoted opin- ion will discover that the very next sentence confirms the traditional practice from which the Court today glaringly de- parts: "Nevertheless, when the lower courts have found that [no constitutional error occurred], . . . deference to the shared conclusion of two reviewing courts prevent[s] us from substi- tuting speculation for their considered opinions." Burger v. Kemp, 483 U. S. 776, 785 (1987). The greatest puzzle of today's decision is what could have caused this capital case to be singled out for favored treat- ment. Perhaps it has been randomly selected as a symbol, 514us2$48k 05-27-98 17:22:46 PAGES OPINPGT 458 KYLES v. WHITLEY Scalia, J., dissenting to reassure America that the United States Supreme Court is reviewing capital convictions to make sure no factual error has been made. If so, it is a false symbol, for we assuredly do not do that. At, and during the week preceding, our Feb- ruary 24 Conference, for example, we considered and dis- posed of 10 petitions in capital cases, from seven States. We carefully considered whether the convictions and sentences in those cases had been obtained in reliance upon correct principles of federal law; but if we had tried to consider, in addition, whether those correct principles had been applied, not merely plausibly, but accurately, to the particular facts of each case, we would have done nothing else for the week. The reality is that responsibility for factual accuracy, in capi- tal cases as in other cases, rests elsewhere-with trial judges and juries, state appellate courts, and the lower federal courts; we do nothing but encourage foolish reliance to pre- tend otherwise. Straining to suggest a legal error in the decision below that might warrant review, the Court asserts that "[t]here is room to debate whether the two judges in the majority in the Court of Appeals made an assessment of the cumulative effect of the evidence," ante, at 440. In support of this it quotes isolated sentences of the opinion below that suppos- edly "dismiss[ed] particular items of evidence as immaterial," ibid. This claim of legal error does not withstand minimal scrutiny. The Court of Appeals employed precisely the same legal standard that the Court does. Compare 5 F. 3d 806, 811 (CA5 1993) ("We apply the [United States v.] Bag- ley[, 473 U. S. 667 (1985),] standard here by examining whether it is reasonably probable that, had the undisclosed information been available to Kyles, the result would have been different"), with ante, at 441 ("In this case, disclosure of the suppressed evidence to competent counsel would have made a different result reasonably probable"). Nor did the Court of Appeals announce a rule of law, that might have precedential force in later cases, to the effect that Bagley 514us2$48k 05-27-98 17:22:46 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 419 (1995) 459 Scalia, J., dissenting requires a series of independent materiality evaluations; in fact, the court said just the contrary. See 5 F. 3d, at 817 ("[W]e are not persuaded that it is reasonably probable that the jury would have found in Kyles' favor if exposed to any or all of the undisclosed materials") (emphasis added). If the decision is read, shall we say, cumulatively, it is clear beyond cavil that the court assessed the cumulative effect of the Brady evidence in the context of the whole record. See 5 F. 3d, at 807 (basing its rejection of petitioner's claim on "a complete reading of the record"); id., at 811 ("Rather than reviewing the alleged Brady materials in the abstract, we will examine the evidence presented at trial and how the extra materials would have fit"); id., at 813 ("We must bear [the eyewitness testimony] in mind while assessing the prob- able effect of other undisclosed information"). It is, in other words, the Court itself which errs in the manner that it ac- cuses the Court of Appeals of erring: failing to consider the material under review as a whole. The isolated snippets it quotes from the decision merely do what the Court's own opinion acknowledges must be done: to "evaluate the tend- ency and force of the undisclosed evidence item by item; there is no other way." Ante, at 436, n. 10. Finally, the Court falls back on this: "The result reached by the Fifth Circuit majority is compatible with a series of independent materiality evaluations, rather than the cumulative evalua- tion required by Bagley," ante, at 441. In other words, even though the Fifth Circuit plainly enunciated the correct legal rule, since the outcome it reached would not properly follow from that rule, the Fifth Circuit must in fact (and unbe- knownst to itself) have been applying an incorrect legal rule. This effectively eliminates all distinction between mistake in law and mistake in application. What the Court granted certiorari to review, then, is not a decision on an issue of federal law that conflicts with a decision of another federal or state court; nor even a decision announcing a rule of federal law that because of its novelty 514us2$48k 05-27-98 17:22:46 PAGES OPINPGT 460 KYLES v. WHITLEY Scalia, J., dissenting or importance might warrant review despite the lack of a conflict; nor yet even a decision that patently errs in its ap- plication of an old rule. What we have here is an intensely fact-specific case in which the court below unquestionably applied the correct rule of law and did not unquestionably err-precisely the type of case in which we are most inclined to deny certiorari. But despite all of that, I would not have dissented on the ground that the writ of certiorari should be dismissed as improvidently granted. Since the majority is as aware of the limits of our capacity as I am, there is little fear that the grant of certiorari in a case of this sort will often be repeated-which is to say little fear that today's grant has any generalizable principle behind it. I am still forced to dissent, however, because, having improvidently decided to review the facts of this case, the Court goes on to get the facts wrong. Its findings are in my view clearly erroneous, cf. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 52(a), and the Court's ver- dict would be reversed if there were somewhere further to appeal. I Before proceeding to detailed consideration of the evi- dence, a few general observations about the Court's method- ology are appropriate. It is fundamental to the discovery rule of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (1963), that the mate- riality of a failure to disclose favorable evidence "must be evaluated in the context of the entire record." United States v. Agurs, 427 U. S. 97, 112 (1976). It is simply not enough to show that the undisclosed evidence would have allowed the defense to weaken, or even to "destro[y]," ante, at 441, the particular prosecution witnesses or items of prosecution evidence to which the undisclosed evidence re- lates. It is petitioner's burden to show that in light of all the evidence, including that untainted by the Brady viola- tion, it is reasonably probable that a jury would have enter- tained a reasonable doubt regarding petitioner's guilt. See United States v. Bagley, 473 U. S. 667, 682 (1985); Agurs, 514us2$48k 05-27-98 17:22:46 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 419 (1995) 461 Scalia, J., dissenting supra, at 112­113. The Court's opinion fails almost entirely to take this principle into account. Having spent many pages assessing the effect of the Brady material on two prosecution witnesses and a few items of prosecution evi- dence, ante, at 441­451, it dismisses the remainder of the evidence against Kyles in a quick page-and-a-half, ante, at 451­453. This partiality is confirmed in the Court's attempt to "recap . . . the suppressed evidence and its significance for the prosecution," ante, at 453 (emphasis added), which omits the required comparison between that evidence and the evi- dence that was disclosed. My discussion of the record will present the half of the analysis that the Court omits, empha- sizing the evidence concededly unaffected by the Brady vio- lation which demonstrates the immateriality of the violation. In any analysis of this case, the desperate implausibility of the theory that petitioner put before the jury must be kept firmly in mind. The first half of that theory-designed to neutralize the physical evidence (Mrs. Dye's purse in his gar- bage, the murder weapon behind his stove)-was that peti- tioner was the victim of a "frame-up" by the police informer and evil genius, Beanie. Now it is not unusual for a guilty person who knows that he is suspected of a crime to try to shift blame to someone else; and it is less common, but not unheard of, for a guilty person who is neither suspected nor subject to suspicion (because he has established a perfect alibi), to call attention to himself by coming forward to point the finger at an innocent person. But petitioner's theory is that the guilty Beanie, who could plausibly be accused of the crime (as petitioner's brief amply demonstrates), but who was not a suspect any more than Kyles was (the police as yet had no leads, see ante, at 424), injected both Kyles and himself into the investigation in order to get the innocent Kyles convicted.1 If this were not stupid enough, the 1 The Court tries to explain all this by saying that Beanie mistakenly thought that he had become a suspect. The only support it provides for this is the fact that, after having come forward with the admission that 514us2$48k 05-27-98 17:22:46 PAGES OPINPGT 462 KYLES v. WHITLEY Scalia, J., dissenting wicked Beanie is supposed to have suggested that the police search his victim's premises a full day before he got around to planting the incriminating evidence on the premises. The second half of petitioner's theory was that he was the victim of a quadruple coincidence, in which four eyewit- nesses to the crime mistakenly identified him as the mur- derer-three picking him out of a photo array without hesi- tation, and all four affirming their identification in open court after comparing him with Beanie. The extraordinary mis- take petitioner had to persuade the jury these four witnesses made was not simply to mistake the real killer, Beanie, for the very same innocent third party (hard enough to believe), but in addition to mistake him for the very man Beanie had chosen to frame-the last and most incredible level of coinci- dence. However small the chance that the jury would be- lieve any one of those improbable scenarios, the likelihood that it would believe them all together is far smaller. The Court concludes that it is "reasonably probable" the undis- closed witness interviews would have persuaded the jury of petitioner's implausible theory of mistaken eyewitness testi- mony, and then argues that it is "reasonably probable" the undisclosed information regarding Beanie would have per- suaded the jury of petitioner's implausible theory regarding the incriminating physical evidence. I think neither of those conclusions is remotely true, but even if they were the Court would still be guilty of a fallacy in declaring victory on each implausibility in turn, and thus victory on the whole, he had driven the dead woman's car, Beanie repeatedly inquired whether he himself was a suspect. See ante, at 442, n. 13. Of course at that point he well should have been worried about being a suspect. But there is no evidence that he erroneously considered himself a suspect beforehand. Moreover, even if he did, the notion that a guilty person would, on the basis of such an erroneous belief, come forward for the reward or in order to "frame" Kyles (rather than waiting for the police to approach him first) is quite simply implausible. 514us2$48k 05-27-98 17:22:46 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 419 (1995) 463 Scalia, J., dissenting without considering the infinitesimal probability of the jury's swallowing the entire concoction of implausibility squared. This basic error of approaching the evidence piecemeal is also what accounts for the Court's obsessive focus on the credibility or culpability of Beanie, who did not even testify at trial and whose credibility or innocence the State has never once avowed. The Court's opinion reads as if either petitioner or Beanie must be telling the truth, and any evi- dence tending to inculpate or undermine the credibility of the one would exculpate or enhance the credibility of the other. But the jury verdict in this case said only that peti- tioner was guilty of the murder. That is perfectly consist- ent with the possibilities that Beanie repeatedly lied, ante, at 445, that he was an accessory after the fact, cf. ante, at 445­446, or even that he planted evidence against petitioner, ante, at 448. Even if the undisclosed evidence would have allowed the defense to thoroughly impeach Beanie and to suggest the above possibilities, the jury could well have be- lieved all of those things and yet have condemned petitioner because it could not believe that all four of the eyewitnesses were similarly mistaken.2 Of course even that much rests on the premise that compe- tent counsel would run the terrible risk of calling Beanie, a witness whose "testimony almost certainly would have incul- pated [petitioner]" and whom "any reasonable attorney would perceive . . . as a `loose cannon.' " 5 F. 3d, at 818. Perhaps because that premise seems so implausible, the Court retreats to the possibility that petitioner's counsel, 2 There is no basis in anything I have said for the Court's charge that "the dissent appears to assume that Kyles must lose because there would still have been adequate [i. e., sufficient] evidence to convict even if the favorable evidence had been disclosed." Ante, at 435, n. 8. I do assume, indeed I expressly argue, that petitioner must lose because there was, is, and will be overwhelming evidence to convict, so much evidence that disclosure would not "have made a different result reasonably probable." Ante, at 441. 514us2$48k 05-27-98 17:22:46 PAGES OPINPGT 464 KYLES v. WHITLEY Scalia, J., dissenting even if not calling Beanie to the stand, could have used the evidence relating to Beanie to attack "the reliability of the investigation." Ante, at 446. But that is distinctly less ef- fective than substantive evidence bearing on the guilt or in- nocence of the accused. In evaluating Brady claims, we as- sume jury conduct that is both rational and obedient to the law. We do not assume that even though the whole mass of the evidence, both disclosed and undisclosed, shows peti- tioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury will punish sloppy investigative techniques by setting the defendant free. Neither Beanie nor the police were on trial in this case. Petitioner was, and no amount of collateral evidence could have enabled his counsel to move the mountain of direct evidence against him. II The undisclosed evidence does not create a " `reasonable probability' of a different result." Ante, at 434 (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U. S., at 682). To begin with the eyewitness testimony: Petitioner's basic theory at trial was that the State's four eyewitnesses happened to mistake Beanie, the real killer, for petitioner, the man whom Beanie was simultaneously trying to frame. Police officers testified to the jury, and petitioner has never disputed, that three of the four eyewitnesses (Territo, Smallwood, and Williams) were shown a photo lineup of six young men four days after the shooting and, without aid or duress, identified petitioner as the murderer; and that all of them, plus the fourth eyewit- ness, Kersh, reaffirmed their identifications at trial after petitioner and Beanie were made to stand side by side. Territo, the first eyewitness called by the State, was wait- ing at a red light in a truck 30 or 40 yards from the Schweg- mann's parking lot. He saw petitioner shoot Mrs. Dye, start her car, drive out onto the road, and pull up just behind Ter- rito's truck. When the light turned green petitioner pulled 514us2$48k 05-27-98 17:22:46 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 419 (1995) 465 Scalia, J., dissenting beside Territo and stopped while waiting to make a turn. Petitioner looked Territo full in the face. Territo testified, "I got a good look at him. If I had been in the passenger seat of the little truck, I could have reached out and not even stretched my arm out, I could have grabbed hold of him." Tr. 13­14 (Dec. 6, 1984). Territo also testified that a detec- tive had shown him a picture of Beanie and asked him if the picture "could have been the guy that did it. I told him no." Id., at 24. The second eyewitness, Kersh, also saw petitioner shoot Mrs. Dye. When asked whether she got "a good look" at him as he drove away, she answered "yes." Id., at 32. She also answered "yes" to the question whether she "got to see the side of his face," id., at 31, and said that while petitioner was stopped she had driven to within reach- ing distance of the driver's-side door of Mrs. Dye's car and stopped there. Id., at 34. The third eyewitness, Small- wood, testified that he saw petitioner shoot Mrs. Dye, walk to the car, and drive away. Id., at 42. Petitioner drove slowly by, within a distance of 15 or 25 feet, id., at 43­45, and Smallwood saw his face from the side. Id., at 43. The fourth eyewitness, Williams, who had been working outside the parking lot, testified that "the gentleman came up the side of the car," struggled with Mrs. Dye, shot her, walked around to the driver's side of the car, and drove away. Id., at 52. Williams not only "saw him before he shot her," id., at 54, but watched petitioner drive slowly by "within less than ten feet." Ibid. When asked "[d]id you get an op- portunity to look at him good?", Williams said, "I did." Id., at 55. The Court attempts to dispose of this direct, unqualified, and consistent eyewitness testimony in two ways. First, by relying on a theory so implausible that it was apparently not suggested by petitioner's counsel until the oral-argument- cum-evidentiary-hearing held before us, perhaps because it is a theory that only the most removed appellate court could 514us2$48k 05-27-98 17:22:46 PAGES OPINPGT 466 KYLES v. WHITLEY Scalia, J., dissenting love. This theory is that there is a reasonable probability that the jury would have changed its mind about the eyewit- ness identification because the Brady material would have permitted the defense to argue that the eyewitnesses only got a good look at the killer when he was sitting in Mrs. Dye's car, and thus could identify him, not by his height and build, but only by his face. Never mind, for the moment, that this is factually false, since the Brady material showed that only one of the four eyewitnesses, Smallwood, did not see the killer outside the car.3 And never mind, also, the dubious premise that the build of a man 6-feet tall (like peti- tioner) is indistinguishable, when seated behind the wheel, from that of a man less than 51 2-feet tall (like Beanie). To assert that unhesitant and categorical identification by four witnesses who viewed the killer, close-up and with the sun high in the sky, would not eliminate reasonable doubt if it were based only on facial characteristics, and not on height and build, is quite simply absurd. Facial features are the primary means by which human beings recognize one an- other. That is why police departments distribute "mug" shots of wanted felons, rather than Ivy-League-type posture pictures; it is why bank robbers wear stockings over their faces instead of floor-length capes over their shoulders; it is why the Lone Ranger wears a mask instead of a poncho; and it is why a criminal defense lawyer who seeks to destroy an 3 Smallwood and Williams were the only eyewitnesses whose testimony was affected by the Brady material, and Williams's was affected not be- cause it showed he did not observe the killer standing up, but to the con- trary because it showed that his estimates of height and weight based on that observation did not match Kyles. The other two witnesses did ob- serve the killer in full. Territo testified that he saw the killer running up to Mrs. Dye before the struggle began, and that after the struggle he watched the killer bend down, stand back up, and then "stru[t]" over to the car. Tr. 12 (Dec. 6, 1984). Kersh too had a clear opportunity to ob- serve the killer's body type; she testified that she saw the killer and Mrs. Dye arguing, and that she watched him walk around the back of the car after Mrs. Dye had fallen. Id., at 29­30. 514us2$48k 05-27-98 17:22:46 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 419 (1995) 467 Scalia, J., dissenting identifying witness by asking "You admit that you saw only the killer's face?" will be laughed out of the courtroom. It would be different, of course, if there were evidence that Kyles's and Beanie's faces looked like twins, or at least bore an unusual degree of resemblance. That facial resemblance would explain why, if Beanie committed the crime, all four witnesses picked out Kyles at first (though not why they con- tinued to pick him out when he and Beanie stood side-by-side in court), and would render their failure to observe the height and build of the killer relevant. But without evi- dence of facial similarity, the question "You admit that you saw only the killer's face?" draws no blood; it does not ex- plain any witness's identification of petitioner as the killer. While the assumption of facial resemblance between Kyles and Beanie underlies all of the Court's repeated references to the partial concealment of the killer's body from view, see, e. g., ante, at 442­443, 443­444, n. 14, 445, the Court never actually says that such resemblance exists. That is because there is not the slightest basis for such a statement in the record. No court has found that Kyles and Beanie bear any facial resemblance. In fact, quite the opposite: every federal and state court that has reviewed the record photographs, or seen the two men, has found that they do not resemble each other in any respect. See 5 F. 3d, at 813 ("Comparing photographs of Kyles and Beanie, it is evident that the for- mer is taller, thinner, and has a narrower face"); App. 181 (District Court opinion) ("The court examined all of the pic- tures used in the photographic line-up and compared Kyles' and Beanie's pictures; it finds that they did not resemble one another"); id., at 36 (state trial court findings on postconvic- tion review) ("[Beanie] clearly and distinctly did not resem- ble the defendant in this case") (emphasis in original). The District Court's finding controls because it is not clearly er- roneous, Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 52(a), and the state court's finding, because fairly supported by the record, must be pre- sumed correct on habeas review. See 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d). 514us2$48k 05-27-98 17:22:46 PAGES OPINPGT 468 KYLES v. WHITLEY Scalia, J., dissenting The Court's second means of seeking to neutralize the im- pressive and unanimous eyewitness testimony uses the same "build-is-everything" theory to exaggerate the effect of the State's failure to disclose the contemporaneous statement of Henry Williams. That statement would assuredly have per- mitted a sharp cross-examination, since it contained estima- tions of height and weight that fit Beanie better than peti- tioner. Ante, at 441­442. But I think it is hyperbole to say that the statement would have "substantially reduced or destroyed" the value of Williams' testimony. Ante, at 441. Williams saw the murderer drive slowly by less than 10 feet away, Tr. 54 (Dec. 6, 1984), and unhesitatingly picked him out of the photo lineup. The jury might well choose to give greater credence to the simple fact of identification than to the difficult estimation of height and weight. The Court spends considerable time, see ante, at 443, showing how Smallwood's testimony could have been dis- credited to such a degree as to "rais[e] a substantial implica- tion that the prosecutor had coached him to give it." Ibid. Perhaps so, but that is all irrelevant to this appeal, since all of that impeaching material (except the "facial identification" point I have discussed above) was available to the defense independently of the Brady material. See ante, at 443­444, n. 14. In sum, the undisclosed statements, credited with ev- erything they could possibly have provided to the defense, leave two prosecution witnesses (Territo and Kersh) totally untouched; one prosecution witness (Smallwood) barely af- fected (he saw "only" the killer's face); and one prosecution witness (Williams) somewhat impaired (his description of the killer's height and weight did not match Kyles). We must keep all this in due perspective, remembering that the rele- vant question in the materiality inquiry is not how many points the defense could have scored off the prosecution wit- nesses, but whether it is reasonably probable that the new evidence would have caused the jury to accept the basic the- sis that all four witnesses were mistaken. I think it plainly 514us2$48k 05-27-98 17:22:46 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 419 (1995) 469 Scalia, J., dissenting is not. No witness involved in the case ever identified any- one but petitioner as the murderer. Their views of the crime and the escaping criminal were obtained in bright day- light from close at hand; and their identifications were reaf- firmed before the jury. After the side-by-side comparison between Beanie and Kyles, the jury heard Territo say that there was "[n]o doubt in my mind" that petitioner was the murderer, Tr. 378 (Dec. 7, 1984); heard Kersh say "I know it was him. . . . I seen his face and I know the color of his skin. I know it. I know it's him," id., at 383; heard Smallwood say "I'm positive . . . [b]ecause that's the man who I seen kill that woman," id., at 387; and heard Williams say "[n]o doubt in my mind," id., at 391. With or without the Brady evi- dence, there could be no doubt in the mind of the jury either. There remains the argument that is the major contribution of today's opinion to Brady litigation; with our endorsement, it will surely be trolled past appellate courts in all future failure-to-disclose cases. The Court argues that "the effec- tive impeachment of one eyewitness can call for a new trial even though the attack does not extend directly to others, as we have said before." Ante, at 445 (citing Agurs v. United States, 427 U. S., at 112­113, n. 21). It would be startling if we had "said [this] before," since it assumes irrational jury conduct. The weakening of one witness's testimony does not weaken the unconnected testimony of another witness; and to entertain the possibility that the jury will give it such an effect is incompatible with the whole idea of a materiality standard, which presumes that the incriminating evidence that would have been destroyed by proper disclosure can be logically separated from the incriminating evidence that would have remained unaffected. In fact we have said noth- ing like what the Court suggests. The opinion's only au- thority for its theory, the cited footnote from Agurs, was appended to the proposition that "[a Brady] omission must be evaluated in the context of the entire record," 427 U. S., 514us2$48k 05-27-98 17:22:46 PAGES OPINPGT 470 KYLES v. WHITLEY Scalia, J., dissenting at 112. In accordance with that proposition, the footnote recited a hypothetical that shows how a witness's testimony could have been destroyed by withheld evidence that contra- dicts the witness.4 That is worlds apart from having it destroyed by the corrosive effect of withheld evidence that impeaches (or, as here, merely weakens) some other corrobo- rating witness. The physical evidence confirms the immateriality of the nondisclosures. In a garbage bag outside petitioner's home the police found Mrs. Dye's purse and other belongings. In- side his home they found, behind the kitchen stove, the .32- caliber revolver used to kill Mrs. Dye; hanging in a ward- robe, a homemade shoulder holster that was "a perfect fit" for the revolver, Tr. 74 (Dec. 6, 1984) (Detective Dillman); in a dresser drawer in the bedroom, two boxes of gun cartridges, one containing only .32-caliber rounds of the same brand found in the murder weapon, another containing .22, .32, and .38-caliber rounds; in a kitchen cabinet, eight empty Schwegmann's bags; and in a cupboard underneath that cabi- net, one Schwegmann's bag containing 15 cans of pet food. Petitioner's account at trial was that Beanie planted the purse, gun, and holster, that petitioner received the ammuni- tion from Beanie as collateral for a loan, and that petitioner had bought the pet food the day of the murder. That ac- count strains credulity to the breaking point. 4 " `If, for example, one of only two eyewitnesses to a crime had told the prosecutor that the defendant was definitely not its perpetrator and if this statement was not disclosed to the defense, no court would hesitate to reverse a conviction resting on the testimony of the other eyewitness. But if there were fifty eyewitnesses, forty-nine of whom identified the defendant, and the prosecutor neglected to reveal that the other, who was without his badly needed glasses on the misty evening of the crime, had said that the criminal looked something like the defendant but he could not be sure as he had only a brief glimpse, the result might well be different.' " Agurs, 427 U. S., at 112­113, n. 21 (quoting Comment, Brady v. Maryland and The Prosecutor's Duty to Disclose, 40 U. Chi. L. Rev. 112, 125 (1972)). 514us2$48k 05-27-98 17:22:46 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 419 (1995) 471 Scalia, J., dissenting The Court is correct that the Brady material would have supported the claim that Beanie planted Mrs. Dye's belong- ings in petitioner's garbage and (to a lesser degree) that Beanie planted the gun behind petitioner's stove. Ante, at 448. But we must see the whole story that petitioner pre- sented to the jury. Petitioner would have it that Beanie did not plant the incriminating evidence until the day after he incited the police to search petitioner's home. Moreover, he succeeded in surreptitiously placing the gun behind the stove, and the matching shoulder holster in the wardrobe, while at least 10 and as many as 19 people were present in petitioner's small apartment.5 Beanie, who was wearing blue jeans and either a "tank-top" shirt, Tr. 302 (Dec. 7, 1984) (Cathora Brown), or a short-sleeved shirt, id., at 351 (peti- tioner), would have had to be concealing about his person not only the shoulder holster and the murder weapon, but also a different gun with tape wrapped around the barrel that he showed to petitioner. Id., at 352. Only appellate judges could swallow such a tale. Petitioner's only support- ing evidence was Johnny Burns's testimony that he saw Beanie stooping behind the stove, presumably to plant the gun. Id., at 262­263. Burns's credibility on the stand can perhaps best be gauged by observing that the state judge who presided over petitioner's trial stated, in a postconvic- tion proceeding, that "[I] ha[ve] chosen to totally disregard everything that [Burns] has said," App. 35. See also id., at 165 (District Court opinion) ("Having reviewed the entire record, this court without hesitation concurs with the trial court's determination concerning the credibility of [Burns]"). Burns, by the way, who repeatedly stated at trial that Beanie was his "best friend," Tr. 279 (Dec. 7, 1984), has since been 5 The estimates varied. See Tr. 269 (Dec. 7, 1984) (Johnny Burns) (18 or 19 people); id., at 298 (Cathora Brown) (6 adults, 4 children); id., at 326 (petitioner) ("about 16 . . . about 18 or 19"); id., at 340 (petitioner) (13 people). 514us2$48k 05-27-98 17:22:46 PAGES OPINPGT 472 KYLES v. WHITLEY Scalia, J., dissenting tried and convicted for killing Beanie. See State v. Burnes, 533 So. 2d 1029 (La. App. 1988).6 Petitioner did not claim that the ammunition had been planted. The police found a .22-caliber rifle under petition- er's mattress and two boxes of ammunition, one contain- ing .22, .32, and .38-caliber rounds, another containing only .32-caliber rounds of the same brand as those found loaded in the murder weapon. Petitioner's story was that Beanie gave him the rifle and the .32-caliber shells as security for a loan, but that he had taken the .22-caliber shells out of the box. Tr. 353, 355 (Dec. 7, 1984). Put aside that the latter detail was contradicted by the facts; but consider the inher- ent implausibility of Beanie's giving petitioner collateral in the form of a box containing only .32 shells, if it were true that petitioner did not own a .32-caliber gun. As the Fifth Circuit wrote, "[t]he more likely inference, apparently chosen by the jury, is that [petitioner] possessed .32-caliber ammu- nition because he possessed a .32-caliber firearm." 5 F. 3d, at 817. We come to the evidence of the pet food, so mundane and yet so very damning. Petitioner's confused and changing explanations for the presence of 15 cans of pet food in a Schwegmann's bag under the sink must have fatally under- mined his credibility before the jury. See App. 36 (trial judge finds that petitioner's "obvious lie" concerning the pet food "may have been a crucial bit of evidence in the minds of the jurors which caused them to discount the entire de- 6 The Court notes that "neither observation could possibly have affected the jury's appraisal of Burns's credibility at the time of Kyles's trials." Ante, at 450, n. 19. That is obviously true. But it is just as obviously true that because we have no findings about Burns's credibility from the jury and no direct method of asking what they thought, the only way that we can assess the jury's appraisal of Burns's credibility is by asking (1) whether the state trial judge, who saw Burns's testimony along with the jury, thought it was credible; and (2) whether Burns was in fact credible- a question on which his later behavior towards his "best friend" is highly probative. 514us2$48k 05-27-98 17:22:46 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 419 (1995) 473 Scalia, J., dissenting fense in this case"). The Court disposes of the pet food evi- dence as follows: "The fact that pet food was found in Kyles's apartment was consistent with the testimony of several defense witnesses that Kyles owned a dog and that his children fed stray cats. The brands of pet food found were only two of the brands that Dye typically bought, and these two were common, whereas the one specialty brand that was found in Dye's apartment after her murder, Tr. 180 (Dec. 7, 1984), was not found in Kyles's apartment, id., at 188. Although Kyles was wrong in describing the cat food as being on sale the day he said he bought it, he was right in describing the way it was priced at Schwegmann's market, where he commonly shopped." Ante, at 451­452; see also ante, at 452, n. 20. The full story is this. Mr. and Mrs. Dye owned two cats and a dog, Tr. 178 (Dec. 7, 1984), for which she regularly bought varying brands of pet food, several different brands at a time. Id., at 179, 180. Found in Mrs. Dye's home after her murder were the brands Nine Lives, Kalkan, and Puss n' Boots. Id., at 180. Found in petitioner's home were eight cans of Nine Lives, four cans of Kalkan, and three cans of Cozy Kitten. Id., at 188. Since we know that Mrs. Dye had been shopping that day and that the murderer made off with her goods, petitioner's possession of these items was powerful evidence that he was the murderer. Assuredly the jury drew that obvious inference. Pressed to explain why he just happened to buy 15 cans of pet food that very day (keep in mind that petitioner was a very poor man, see id., at 329, who supported a common-law wife, a mistress, and four children), petitioner gave the reason that "it was on sale." Id., at 341. The State, however, introduced testi- mony from the Schwegmann's advertising director that the pet food was not on sale that day. Id., at 395. The dissent- ing judge below tried to rehabilitate petitioner's testimony 514us2$48k 05-27-98 17:22:47 PAGES OPINPGT 474 KYLES v. WHITLEY Scalia, J., dissenting by interpreting the "on sale" claim as meaning "for sale," a reference to the pricing of the pet food (e. g., "3 for 89 cents"), which petitioner claimed to have read on a shelf sign in the store. Id., at 343. But unless petitioner was parodying George Leigh Mallory, "because it was for sale" would have been an irrational response to the question it was given in answer to: Why did you buy so many cans? In any event, the Schwegmann's employee also testified that store policy was not to put signs on the shelves at all. Id., at 398­399. The sum of it is that petitioner, far from explaining the pres- ence of the pet food, doubled the force of the State's evidence by perjuring himself before the jury, as the state trial judge observed. See supra, at 472­473.7 I will not address the list of cars in the Schwegmann's parking lot and the receipt, found in the victim's car, that bore petitioner's fingerprints. These were collateral mat- ters that provided little evidence of either guilt or innocence. The list of cars, which did not contain petitioner's automo- bile, would only have served to rebut the State's introduction of a photograph purporting to show petitioner's car in the parking lot; but petitioner does not contest that the list was not comprehensive, and that the photograph was taken about six hours before the list was compiled. See 5 F. 3d, at 816. 7 I have charitably assumed that petitioner had a pet or pets in the first place, although the evidence tended to show the contrary. Petitioner claimed that he owned a dog or puppy, that his son had a cat, and that there were "seven or eight more cats around there." Tr. 325 (Dec. 7, 1984). The dog, according to petitioner, had been kept "in the country" for a month and half, and was brought back just the week before petitioner was arrested. Id., at 337­338. Although petitioner claimed to have kept the dog tied up in a yard behind his house before it was taken to the country, id., at 336­337, two defense witnesses contradicted this story. Donald Powell stated that he had not seen a dog at petitioner's home since at least six months before the trial, id., at 254, while Cathora Brown said that although Pinky, petitioner's wife, sometimes fed stray pets, she had no dog tied up in the back yard. Id., at 304­305. The police found no evidence of any kind that any pets lived in petitioner's home at or near the time of the murder. Id., at 75 (Dec. 6, 1984). 514us2$48k 05-27-98 17:22:47 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 419 (1995) 475 Scalia, J., dissenting Thus its rebuttal value would have been marginal at best. The receipt-although it showed that petitioner must at some point have been both in Schwegmann's and in the mur- dered woman's car-was as consistent with petitioner's story as with the State's. See ante, at 452. * * * The State presented to the jury a massive core of evidence (including four eyewitnesses) showing that petitioner was guilty of murder, and that he lied about his guilt. The effect that the Brady materials would have had in chipping away at the edges of the State's case can only be called immaterial. For the same reasons I reject petitioner's claim that the Brady materials would have created a "residual doubt" suf- ficient to cause the sentencing jury to withhold capital punishment. I respectfully dissent. 514us2$49Z 06-11-98 16:59:46 PAGES OPINPGT 476 OCTOBER TERM, 1994 Syllabus RUBIN, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY v. COORS BREWING CO. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the tenth circuit No. 93­1631. Argued November 30, 1994-Decided April 19, 1995 Because § 5(e)(2) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAAA or Act), 27 U. S. C. § 205(e)(2), prohibits beer labels from displaying alcohol content, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) rejected respondent brewer's application for approval of proposed labels that disclosed such content. Respondent filed suit for relief on the ground that the relevant provisions of the Act violated the First Amend- ment's protection of commercial speech. The Government argued that the labeling ban was necessary to suppress the threat of "strength wars" among brewers, who, without the regulation, would seek to compete in the marketplace based on the potency of their beer. The District Court invalidated the labeling ban, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Al- though the latter court found that the Government's interest in sup- pressing "strength wars" was "substantial" under the test set out in Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm'n of N. Y., 447 U. S. 557, the court held that the ban violates the First Amendment because it fails to advance that interest in a direct and material way. Held: Section 5(e)(2) violates the First Amendment's protection of com- mercial speech. Pp. 480­491. (a) In scrutinizing a regulation of commercial speech that concerns lawful activity and is not misleading, a court must consider whether the governmental interest asserted to support the regulation is "sub- stantial." If that is the case, the court must also determine whether the regulation directly advances the asserted interest and is no more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest. Central Hudson, supra, at 566. Here, respondent seeks to disclose only truthful, verifi- able, and nonmisleading factual information concerning alcohol content. Pp. 480­482. (b) The interest in curbing "strength wars" is sufficiently "substan- tial" to satisfy Central Hudson. The Government has a significant in- terest in protecting the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens by preventing brewers from competing on the basis of alcohol strength, which could lead to greater alcoholism and its attendant social costs. Cf. Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Co. of P. R., 478 U. S. 328, 341. There is no reason to think that strength wars, if they were 514us2$49Z 06-11-98 16:59:46 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 476 (1995) 477 Syllabus to occur, would not produce the type of social harm that the Govern- ment hopes to prevent. However, the additional asserted interest in "facilitat[ing]" state efforts to regulate alcohol under the Twenty-first Amendment is not sufficiently substantial to meet Central Hudson's requirement. Even if the Government possessed the authority to facilitate state powers, the Government has offered nothing to suggest that States are in need of federal assistance in this regard. United States v. Edge Broadcasting Co., 509 U. S. 418, 431­435, distinguished. Pp. 483­486. (c) Section 205(e)(2) fails Central Hudson's requirement that the measure directly advance the asserted Government interest. The la- beling ban cannot be said to advance the governmental interest in sup- pressing strength wars because other provisions of the FAAA and implementing regulations prevent § 205(e)(2) from furthering that inter- est in a direct and material fashion. Although beer advertising would seem to constitute a more influential weapon in any strength war than labels, the BATF regulations governing such advertising prohibit state- ments of alcohol content only in States that affirmatively ban such ad- vertisements. Government regulations also permit the identification of certain beers with high alcohol content as "malt liquors," and they re- quire disclosure of content on the labels of wines and spirits. There is little chance that § 205(e)(2) can directly and materially advance its aim, while other provisions of the same Act directly undermine and counter- act its effects. Pp. 486­490. (d) Section 205(e)(2) is more extensive than necessary, since available alternatives to the labeling ban-including directly limiting the alcohol content of beers, prohibiting marketing efforts emphasizing high alcohol strength, and limiting the ban to malt liquors, the segment of the beer market that allegedly is threatened with a strength war-would prove less intrusive to the First Amendment's protections for commercial speech. Pp. 490­491. 2 F. 3d 355, affirmed. Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judg- ment, post, p. 491. Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Days, Assistant Attorney General Hunger, Richard H. Sea- mon, Michael Jay Singer, and John S. Koppel. 514us2$49Z 06-11-98 16:59:46 PAGES OPINPGT 478 RUBIN v. COORS BREWING CO. Opinion of the Court Bruce J. Ennis, Jr., argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Paul M. Smith, Nory Miller, M. Caroline Turner, and Terrance D. Micek.* Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court. Section 5(e)(2) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act prohibits beer labels from displaying alcohol content. We granted certiorari in this case to review the Tenth Circuit's holding that the labeling ban violates the First Amendment because it fails to advance a governmental interest in a di- rect and material way. Because § 5(e)(2) is inconsistent with the protections granted to commercial speech by the First Amendment, we affirm. I Respondent brews beer. In 1987, respondent applied to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF), an agency of the Department of the Treasury, for approval of proposed labels and advertisements that disclosed the alco- hol content of its beer. BATF rejected the application on the ground that the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAAA or Act), 49 Stat. 977, 27 U. S. C. § 201 et seq., pro- hibited disclosure of the alcohol content of beer on labels or in advertising. Respondent then filed suit in the District *Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the Center for Science in the Public Interest by Bruce A. Silverglade; and for the Council of State Governments et al. by Richard Ruda. Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the Association of National Advertisers, Inc., et al. by Burt Neuborne, Gilbert H. Weil, Valerie Schulte, and John F. Kamp; for Public Citizen by David C. Vla- deck; for the United States Telephone Association et al. by Michael W. McConnell, Kenneth S. Geller, Charles A. Rothfeld, William Barfield, and Gerald E. Murray; and for the Washington Legal Foundation by Charles Fried, Donald B. Ayer, Daniel J. Popeo, and Richard A. Samp. Briefs of amici curiae were filed for the Beer Institute by P. Cameron DeVore, John J. Walsh, and Steven G. Brody; and for the Wine Institute by John C. Jeffries, Jr. 514us2$49n 06-11-98 16:59:46 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 476 (1995) 479 Opinion of the Court Court for the District of Colorado seeking a declaratory judgment that the relevant provisions of the Act violated the First Amendment; respondent also sought injunctive relief barring enforcement of these provisions. The Government took the position that the ban was necessary to suppress the threat of "strength wars" among brewers, who, without the regulation, would seek to compete in the marketplace based on the potency of their beer. The District Court granted the relief sought, but a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded. Adolph Coors Co. v. Brady, 944 F. 2d 1543 (1991). Applying the framework set out in Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm'n of N. Y., 447 U. S. 557 (1980), the Court of Appeals found that the Government's interest in suppressing alcoholic "strength wars" was "sub- stantial." Brady, supra, at 1547­1549. It further held, however, that the record provided insufficient evidence to determine whether the FAAA's ban on disclosure "directly advanced" that interest. Id., at 1549­1551. The court remanded for further proceedings to ascertain whether a " `reasonable fit' " existed between the ban and the goal of avoiding strength wars. Id., at 1554. After further factfinding, the District Court upheld the ban on the disclosure of alcohol content in advertising but invalidated the ban as it applied to labels. Although the Government asked the Tenth Circuit to review the invalida- tion of the labeling ban, respondent did not appeal the court's decision sustaining the advertising ban. On the case's sec- ond appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court. Adolph Coors Co. v. Bentsen, 2 F. 3d 355 (1993). Following our recent decision in Edenfield v. Fane, 507 U. S. 761 (1993), the Tenth Circuit asked whether the Government had shown that the " `challenged regulation advances [the Government's] interests in a direct and material way.' " 2 F. 3d, at 357 (quoting Edenfield, supra, at 767­768). After reviewing the record, the Court of Appeals concluded that the Government 514us2$49n 06-11-98 16:59:46 PAGES OPINPGT 480 RUBIN v. COORS BREWING CO. Opinion of the Court had failed to demonstrate that the prohibition in any way prevented strength wars. The court found that there was no evidence of any relationship between the publication of factual information regarding alcohol content and competi- tion on the basis of such content. 2 F. 3d, at 358­359. We granted certiorari, 512 U. S. 1203 (1994), to review the Tenth Circuit's decision that § 205(e)(2) violates the First Amendment. We conclude that the ban infringes respond- ent's freedom of speech, and we therefore affirm. II A Soon after the ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment, which repealed the Eighteenth Amendment and ended the Nation's experiment with Prohibition, Congress enacted the FAAA. The statute establishes national rules governing the distribution, production, and importation of alcohol and established a Federal Alcohol Administration to implement these rules. Section 5(e)(2) of the Act prohibits any pro- ducer, importer, wholesaler, or bottler of alcoholic beverages from selling, shipping, or delivering in interstate or foreign commerce any malt beverages, distilled spirits, or wines in bottles "unless such products are bottled, packaged, and labeled in conformity with such regulations, to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, with respect to packag- ing, marking, branding, and labeling and size and fill of container . . . as will provide the consumer with adequate information as to the identity and quality of the products, the alcoholic content thereof (except that statements of, or statements likely to be considered as statements of, alcoholic content of malt beverages are prohibited unless required by State law and except that, in case of wines, statements of alcoholic content shall be required only for wines containing more than 14 per centum of alcohol by volume), the net contents of 514us2$49n 06-11-98 16:59:46 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 476 (1995) 481 Opinion of the Court the package, and the manufacturer or bottler or im- porter of the product." 27 U. S. C. § 205(e)(2) (empha- sis added). The Act defines " `malt beverage[s]' " in such a way as to include all beers and ales. § 211(a)(7). Implementing regulations promulgated by BATF (under delegation of authority from the Secretary of the Treasury) prohibit the disclosure of alcohol content on beer labels. 27 CFR § 7.26(a) (1994).1 In addition to prohibiting numerical indications of alcohol content, the labeling regulations pro- scribe descriptive terms that suggest high content, such as "strong," "full strength," "extra strength," "high test," "high proof," "pre-war strength," and "full oldtime alcoholic strength." § 7.29(f). The prohibitions do not preclude la- bels from identifying a beer as "low alcohol," "reduced alcohol," "non-alcoholic," or "alcohol-free." Ibid.; see also §§ 7.26(b)­(d). By statute and by regulation, the labeling ban must give way if state law requires disclosure of alco- hol content. B Both parties agree that the information on beer labels con- stitutes commercial speech. Though we once took the posi- tion that the First Amendment does not protect commercial speech, see Valentine v. Chrestensen, 316 U. S. 52 (1942), we repudiated that position in Virginia Bd. of Pharmacy v. Vir- ginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U. S. 748 (1976). There we noted that the free flow of commercial information is "indispensable to the proper allocation of resources in a free enterprise system" because it informs the numerous pri- vate decisions that drive the system. Id., at 765. Indeed, we observed that a "particular consumer's interest in the 1 BATF has suspended § 7.26 to comply with the District Court's order enjoining the enforcement of that provision. 58 Fed. Reg. 21228 (1993). Pending the final disposition of this case, interim regulations permit the disclosure of alcohol content on beer labels. 27 CFR § 7.71 (1994). 514us2$49n 06-11-98 16:59:46 PAGES OPINPGT 482 RUBIN v. COORS BREWING CO. Opinion of the Court free flow of commercial information . . . may be as keen, if not keener by far, than his interest in the day's most urgent political debate." Id., at 763. Still, Virginia Board of Pharmacy suggested that certain types of restrictions might be tolerated in the commercial speech area because of the nature of such speech. See id., at 771­772, n. 24. In later decisions we gradually articulated a test based on " `the "commonsense" distinction between speech proposing a commercial transaction, which occurs in an area traditionally subject to government regulation, and other varieties of speech.' " Central Hudson, 447 U. S., at 562 (quoting Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn., 436 U. S. 447, 455­456 (1978)). Central Hudson identified several fac- tors that courts should consider in determining whether a regulation of commercial speech survives First Amendment scrutiny: "For commercial speech to come within [the First Amendment], it at least must concern lawful activity and not be misleading. Next, we ask whether the asserted governmental interest is substantial. If both inquiries yield positive answers, we must determine whether the regulation directly advances the governmental interest asserted, and whether it is not more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest." 447 U. S., at 566. We now apply Central Hudson's test to § 205(e)(2).2 2 The Government argues that Central Hudson imposes too strict a standard for reviewing § 205(e)(2), and urges us to adopt instead a far more deferential approach to restrictions on commercial speech concerning alcohol. Relying on United States v. Edge Broadcasting Co., 509 U. S. 418 (1993), and Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Co. of P. R., 478 U. S. 328 (1986), the Government suggests that legislatures have broader latitude to regulate speech that promotes socially harmful activities, such as alcohol consumption, than they have to regulate other types of speech. Although Edge Broadcasting and Posadas involved the advertising of gambling activities, the Government argues that we also have applied this principle to speech concerning alcohol. See California v. LaRue, 409 514us2$49n 06-11-98 16:59:46 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 476 (1995) 483 Opinion of the Court III Both the lower courts and the parties agree that respond- ent seeks to disclose only truthful, verifiable, and nonmis- leading factual information about alcohol content on its beer labels. Thus, our analysis focuses on the substantiality of the interest behind § 205(e)(2) and on whether the label- ing ban bears an acceptable fit with the Government's goal. A careful consideration of these factors indicates that § 205(e)(2) violates the First Amendment's protection of com- mercial speech. A The Government identifies two interests it considers suf- ficiently "substantial" to justify § 205(e)(2)'s labeling ban. First, the Government contends that § 205(e)(2) advances Congress' goal of curbing "strength wars" by beer brewers who might seek to compete for customers on the basis of alcohol content. According to the Government, the FAAA's restriction prevents a particular type of beer drinker-one U. S. 109, 138 (1972) (holding that States may ban nude dancing in bars and nightclubs that serve liquor). Neither Edge Broadcasting nor Posadas compels us to craft an excep- tion to the Central Hudson standard, for in both of those cases we applied the Central Hudson analysis. Indeed, Edge Broadcasting specifically avoided reaching the argument the Government makes here because the Court found that the regulation in question passed muster under Central Hudson. 509 U. S., at 425. To be sure, Posadas did state that the Puerto Rico Government could ban promotional advertising of casino gambling because it could have prohibited gambling altogether. 478 U. S., at 346. But the Court reached this argument only after it already had found that the state regulation survived the Central Hudson test. See 478 U. S., at 340­344. The Court raised the Government's point in response to an alternative claim that Puerto Rico's regulation was inconsistent with Carey v. Population Services Int'l, 431 U. S. 678 (1977), and Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U. S. 809 (1975). Posadas, supra, at 345­346. Nor does LaRue support the Government's position. LaRue did not involve commercial speech about alcohol, but instead concerned the regu- lation of nude dancing in places where alcohol was served. 409 U. S., at 114. 514us2$49n 06-11-98 16:59:46 PAGES OPINPGT 484 RUBIN v. COORS BREWING CO. Opinion of the Court who selects a beverage because of its high potency-from choosing beers solely for their alcohol content. In the Gov- ernment's view, restricting disclosure of information regard- ing a particular product characteristic will decrease the ex- tent to which consumers will select the product on the basis of that characteristic. Respondent counters that Congress actually intended the FAAA to achieve the far different purpose of preventing brewers from making inaccurate claims concerning alcohol content. According to respondent, when Congress passed the FAAA in 1935, brewers did not have the technology to produce beer with alcohol levels within predictable toler- ances-a skill that modern beer producers now possess. Further, respondent argues that the true policy guiding fed- eral alcohol regulation is not aimed at suppressing strength wars. If such were the goal, the Government would not pursue the opposite policy with respect to wines and distilled spirits. Although § 205(e)(2) requires BATF to promulgate regulations barring the disclosure of alcohol content on beer labels, it also orders BATF to require the disclosure of alco- hol content on the labels of wines and spirits. See 27 CFR § 4.36 (1994) (wines); § 5.37 (distilled spirits). Rather than suppressing the free flow of factual informa- tion in the wine and spirits markets, the Government seeks to control competition on the basis of strength by monitoring distillers' promotions and marketing. Respondent quite cor- rectly notes that the general thrust of federal alcohol policy appears to favor greater disclosure of information, rather than less. This also seems to be the trend in federal regula- tion of other consumer products as well. See, e. g., Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101­535, 104 Stat. 2353, as amended (requiring labels of food products sold in the United States to display nutritional information). Respondent offers a plausible reading of the purpose be- hind § 205(e)(2), but the prevention of misleading statements of alcohol content need not be the exclusive Government in- 514us2$49n 06-11-98 16:59:46 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 476 (1995) 485 Opinion of the Court terest served by § 205(e)(2). In Posadas de Puerto Rico As- sociates v. Tourism Co. of P. R., 478 U. S. 328, 341 (1986), we found that the Puerto Rico Legislature's interest in promot- ing the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens by reducing their demand for gambling provided a sufficiently "substan- tial" governmental interest to justify the regulation of gam- bling advertising. So too the Government here has a sig- nificant interest in protecting the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens by preventing brewers from competing on the basis of alcohol strength, which could lead to greater alcohol- ism and its attendant social costs. Both panels of the Court of Appeals that heard this case concluded that the goal of suppressing strength wars constituted a substantial interest, and we cannot say that their conclusion is erroneous. We have no reason to think that strength wars, if they were to occur, would not produce the type of social harm that the Government hopes to prevent. The Government attempts to bolster its position by ar- guing that the labeling ban not only curbs strength wars, but also "facilitates" state efforts to regulate alcohol under the Twenty-first Amendment. The Solicitor General directs us to United States v. Edge Broadcasting Co., 509 U. S. 418 (1993), in which we upheld a federal law that prohibited lot- tery advertising by radio stations located in States that did not operate lotteries. That case involved a station located in North Carolina (a nonlottery State) that broadcast lottery advertisements primarily into Virginia (a State with a lot- tery). We upheld the statute against First Amendment challenge in part because it supported North Carolina's anti- gambling policy without unduly interfering with States that sponsored lotteries. Id., at 431­435. In this case, the Gov- ernment claims that the interest behind § 205(e)(2) mirrors that of the statute in Edge Broadcasting because it prohibits disclosure of alcohol content only in States that do not af- firmatively require brewers to provide that information. In the Government's view, this saves States that might wish to 514us2$49n 06-11-98 16:59:46 PAGES OPINPGT 486 RUBIN v. COORS BREWING CO. Opinion of the Court ban such labels the trouble of enacting their own legislation, and it discourages beer drinkers from crossing state lines to buy beer they believe is stronger. We conclude that the Government's interest in preserving state authority is not sufficiently substantial to meet the re- quirements of Central Hudson. Even if the Federal Gov- ernment possessed the broad authority to facilitate state powers, in this case the Government has offered nothing that suggests that States are in need of federal assistance. States clearly possess ample authority to ban the disclosure of alcohol content-subject, of course, to the same First Amendment restrictions that apply to the Federal Govern- ment. Unlike the situation in Edge Broadcasting, the poli- cies of some States do not prevent neighboring States from pursuing their own alcohol-related policies within their re- spective borders. One State's decision to permit brewers to disclose alcohol content on beer labels will not preclude neighboring States from effectively banning such disclosure of that information within their borders. B The remaining Central Hudson factors require that a valid restriction on commercial speech directly advance the gov- ernmental interest and be no more extensive than necessary to serve that interest. We have said that "[t]he last two steps of the Central Hudson analysis basically involve a con- sideration of the `fit' between the legislature's ends and the means chosen to accomplish those ends." Posadas, supra, at 341. The Tenth Circuit found that § 205(e)(2) failed to ad- vance the interest in suppressing strength wars sufficiently to justify the ban. We agree. Just two Terms ago, in Edenfield v. Fane, 507 U. S. 761 (1993), we had occasion to explain the Central Hudson factor concerning whether the regulation of commercial speech "di- rectly advances the governmental interest asserted." Cen- tral Hudson, 447 U. S., at 566. In Edenfield, we decided 514us2$49n 06-11-98 16:59:46 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 476 (1995) 487 Opinion of the Court that the Government carries the burden of showing that the challenged regulation advances the Government's interest "in a direct and material way." 507 U. S., at 767. That bur- den "is not satisfied by mere speculation or conjecture; rather, a governmental body seeking to sustain a restriction on commercial speech must demonstrate that the harms it recites are real and that its restriction will in fact alleviate them to a material degree." Id., at 770­771. We cautioned that this requirement was critical; otherwise, "a State could with ease restrict commercial speech in the service of other objectives that could not themselves justify a burden on com- mercial expression." Id., at 771. The Government attempts to meet its burden by pointing to current developments in the consumer market. It claims that beer producers are already competing and advertising on the basis of alcohol strength in the "malt liquor" segment of the beer market.3 The Government attempts to show that this competition threatens to spread to the rest of the market by directing our attention to respondent's motives in bringing this litigation. Respondent allegedly suffers from consumer misperceptions that its beers contain less alcohol than other brands. According to the Government, once re- spondent gains relief from § 205(e)(2), it will use its labels to overcome this handicap. Under the Government's theory, § 205(e)(2) suppresses the threat of such competition by preventing consumers from choosing beers on the basis of alcohol content. It is as- suredly a matter of "common sense," Brief for Petitioner 27, that a restriction on the advertising of a product characteris- tic will decrease the extent to which consumers select a prod- uct on the basis of that trait. In addition to common sense, the Government urges us to turn to history as a guide. Ac- 3 " `Malt liquor' is the term used to designate those malt beverages with the highest alcohol content . . . . Malt liquors represent approximately three percent of the malt beverage market." Adolph Coors Co. v. Bent- sen, 2 F. 3d 355, 358, n. 4 (CA10 1993). 514us2$49n 06-11-98 16:59:46 PAGES OPINPGT 488 RUBIN v. COORS BREWING CO. Opinion of the Court cording to the Government, at the time Congress enacted the FAAA, the use of labels displaying alcohol content had helped produce a strength war. Section 205(e)(2) allegedly relieved competitive pressures to market beer on the basis of alcohol content, resulting over the long term in beers with lower alcohol levels. We conclude that § 205(e)(2) cannot directly and materially advance its asserted interest because of the overall irratio- nality of the Government's regulatory scheme. While the laws governing labeling prohibit the disclosure of alcohol content unless required by state law, federal regulations apply a contrary policy to beer advertising. 27 U. S. C. § 205(f)(2); 27 CFR § 7.50 (1994). Like § 205(e)(2), these re- strictions prohibit statements of alcohol content in advertis- ing, but, unlike § 205(e)(2), they apply only in States that af- firmatively prohibit such advertisements. As only 18 States at best prohibit disclosure of content in advertisements, App. to Brief for Respondent 1a­12a, brewers remain free to dis- close alcohol content in advertisements, but not on labels, in much of the country. The failure to prohibit the disclosure of alcohol content in advertising, which would seem to consti- tute a more influential weapon in any strength war than la- bels, makes no rational sense if the Government's true aim is to suppress strength wars. Other provisions of the FAAA and its regulations simi- larly undermine § 205(e)(2)'s efforts to prevent strength wars. While § 205(e)(2) bans the disclosure of alcohol con- tent on beer labels, it allows the exact opposite in the case of wines and spirits. Thus, distilled spirits may contain statements of alcohol content, 27 CFR § 5.37 (1994), and such disclosures are required for wines with more than 14 percent alcohol, 27 CFR § 4.36 (1994). If combating strength wars were the goal, we would assume that Congress would regu- late disclosure of alcohol content for the strongest beverages as well as for the weakest ones. Further, the Government permits brewers to signal high alcohol content through use 514us2$49n 06-11-98 16:59:46 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 476 (1995) 489 Opinion of the Court of the term "malt liquor." Although the Secretary has pro- scribed the use of various colorful terms suggesting high al- cohol levels, 27 CFR § 7.29(f) (1994), manufacturers still can distinguish a class of stronger malt beverages by identifying them as malt liquors. One would think that if the Govern- ment sought to suppress strength wars by prohibiting nu- merical disclosures of alcohol content, it also would preclude brewers from indicating higher alcohol beverages by using descriptive terms. While we are mindful that respondent only appealed the constitutionality of § 205(e)(2), these exemptions and incon- sistencies bring into question the purpose of the labeling ban. To be sure, the Government's interest in combating strength wars remains a valid goal. But the irrationality of this unique and puzzling regulatory framework ensures that the labeling ban will fail to achieve that end. There is little chance that § 205(e)(2) can directly and materially advance its aim, while other provisions of the same Act directly un- dermine and counteract its effects. This conclusion explains the findings of the courts below. Both the District Court and the Court of Appeals found that the Government had failed to present any credible evidence showing that the disclosure of alcohol content would promote strength wars. In the District Court's words, "none of the witnesses, none of the depositions that I have read, no credi- ble evidence that I have heard, lead[s] me to believe that giving alcoholic content on labels will in any way promote . . . strength wars." App. to Pet. for Cert. A­38. See also Bentsen, 2 F. 3d, at 359. Indeed, the District Court con- cluded that "[p]rohibiting the alcoholic content disclosure of malt beverages on labels has little, if anything, to do with the type of advertising that promotes strength wars." App. to Pet. for Cert. A­36.4 As the FAAA's exceptions and reg- 4 Not only was there little evidence that American brewers intend to increase alcohol content, but the lower courts also found that "in the United States . . . the vast majority of consumers . . . value taste and 514us2$49n 06-11-98 16:59:46 PAGES OPINPGT 490 RUBIN v. COORS BREWING CO. Opinion of the Court ulations would have counteracted any effect the labeling ban had exerted, it is not surprising that the lower courts did not find any evidence that § 205(e)(2) had suppressed strength wars. The Government's brief submits anecdotal evidence and educated guesses to suggest that competition on the basis of alcohol content is occurring today and that § 205(e)(2)'s ban has constrained strength wars that otherwise would burst out of control. These various tidbits, however, cannot over- come the irrationality of the regulatory scheme and the weight of the record. The Government did not offer any convincing evidence that the labeling ban has inhibited strength wars. Indeed, it could not, in light of the effect of the FAAA's other provisions. The absence of strength wars over the past six decades may have resulted from any num- ber of factors. Nor do we think that respondent's litigating positions can be used against it as proof that the Government's regulation is necessary. That respondent wishes to disseminate factual information concerning alcohol content does not demonstrate that it intends to compete on the basis of alcohol content. Brewers may have many different reasons-only one of which might be a desire to wage a strength war-why they wish to disclose the potency of their beverages. Even if § 205(e)(2) did meet the Edenfield standard, it would still not survive First Amendment scrutiny because the Government's regulation of speech is not sufficiently tai- lored to its goal. The Government argues that a sufficient "fit" exists here because the labeling ban applies to only one product characteristic and because the ban does not prohibit all disclosures of alcohol content-it applies only to those in- volving labeling and advertising. In response, respondent suggests several alternatives, such as directly limiting the alcohol content of beers, prohibiting marketing efforts em- lower calories-both of which are adversely affected by increased alcohol strength." Bentsen, 2 F. 3d, at 359; accord, App. to Pet. for Cert. A­37. 514us2$49n 06-11-98 16:59:46 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 476 (1995) 491 Stevens, J., concurring in judgment phasizing high alcohol strength (which is apparently the pol- icy in some other western nations), or limiting the labeling ban only to malt liquors, which is the segment of the market that allegedly is threatened with a strength war. We agree that the availability of these options, all of which could ad- vance the Government's asserted interest in a manner less intrusive to respondent's First Amendment rights, indicates that § 205(e)(2) is more extensive than necessary. IV In sum, although the Government may have a substantial interest in suppressing strength wars in the beer market, the FAAA's countervailing provisions prevent § 205(e)(2) from furthering that purpose in a direct and material fash- ion. The FAAA's defects are further highlighted by the availability of alternatives that would prove less intrusive to the First Amendment's protections for commercial speech. Because we find that § 205(e)(2) fails the Central Hudson test, we affirm the decision of the court below. It is so ordered. Justice Stevens, concurring in the judgment. Although I agree with the Court's persuasive demon- stration that this statute does not serve the Government's purported interest in preventing "strength wars," I write separately because I am convinced that the constitutional infirmity in the statute is more patent than the Court's opin- ion indicates. Instead of relying on the formulaic approach announced in Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm'n of N. Y., 447 U. S. 557 (1980), I believe the Court should ask whether the justification for allowing more regulation of commercial speech than other speech has any application to this unusual statute. In my opinion the "commercial speech doctrine" is un- suited to this case, because the Federal Alcohol Administra- 514us2$49i 06-11-98 16:59:46 PAGES OPINPGT 492 RUBIN v. COORS BREWING CO. Stevens, J., concurring in judgment tion Act (FAAA) neither prevents misleading speech nor protects consumers from the dangers of incomplete informa- tion. A truthful statement about the alcohol content of malt beverages would receive full First Amendment protection in any other context; without some justification tailored to the special character of commercial speech, the Government should not be able to suppress the same truthful speech merely because it happens to appear on the label of a product for sale. I The First Amendment generally protects the right not to speak as well as the right to speak. See McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, ante, at 342; Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U. S. 241 (1974); cf. Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U. S. 38, 51­52 (1985). In the commercial context, however, government is not only permitted to prohibit misleading speech that would be protected in other contexts, Virginia Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U. S. 748, 771­772 (1976), but it often requires af- firmative disclosures that the speaker might not make volun- tarily.1 The regulation of statements about alcohol content in the statute before us today is a curious blend of prohibi- tions and requirements. It prohibits the disclosure of the strength of some malt beverages while requiring the disclo- sure of the strength of vintage wines. In my judgment the former prohibition is just as unacceptable in a commercial context as in any other because it is not supported by the rationales for treating commercial speech differently under 1 See In re R. M. J., 455 U. S. 191, 201 (1982) ("[A] warning or disclaimer might be appropriately required . . . in order to dissipate the possibility of consumer confusion or deception"), citing Bates v. State Bar of Ariz., 433 U. S. 350, 375 (1977); see also 15 U. S. C. § 1333 (requiring "Surgeon Gener- al's Warning" labels on cigarettes); 21 U. S. C. § 343 (1988 ed. and Supp. V) (setting labeling requirements for food products); 21 U. S. C. § 352 (1988 ed. and Supp. V) (setting labeling requirements for drug products); 15 U. S. C. § 77e (requiring registration statement before selling securities). 514us2$49i 06-11-98 16:59:46 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 476 (1995) 493 Stevens, J., concurring in judgment the First Amendment: that is, the importance of avoiding deception and protecting the consumer from inaccurate or incomplete information in a realm in which the accuracy of speech is generally ascertainable by the speaker. I am willing to assume that an interest in avoiding the harmful consequences of so-called "strength wars" would justify disclosure requirements explaining the risks and pre- dictable harms associated with the consumption of alcoholic beverages. Such a measure could be justified as a means to ensure that consumers are not led, by incomplete or inaccu- rate information, to purchase products they would not pur- chase if they knew the truth about them. I see no basis, however, for upholding a prohibition against the dissemina- tion of truthful, nonmisleading information about an alcoholic beverage merely because the message is propounded in a commercial context. II The Court's continued reliance on the misguided approach adopted in Central Hudson makes this case appear more dif- ficult than it is. In Central Hudson, the Court held that commercial speech is categorically distinct from other speech protected by the First Amendment. 447 U. S., at 561­566, and n. 5. Defining "commercial speech," alternatively, as "expression related solely to the economic interests of the speaker and its audience," id., at 561, and as " `speech propos- ing a commercial transaction,' " id., at 562, quoting Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn., 436 U. S. 447, 455­456 (1978), the Court adopted its much-quoted four-part test for determin- ing when the government may abridge such expression. In my opinion the borders of the commercial speech category are not nearly as clear as the Court has assumed, and its four-part test is not related to the reasons for allowing more regulation of commercial speech than other speech. See Central Hudson, 447 U. S., at 579­582 (Stevens, J., concur- ring in judgment). 514us2$49i 06-11-98 16:59:46 PAGES OPINPGT 494 RUBIN v. COORS BREWING CO. Stevens, J., concurring in judgment The case before us aptly demonstrates the artificiality of a rigid commercial/noncommercial distinction. The speech at issue here is an unadorned, accurate statement, on the label of a bottle of beer, of the alcohol content of the beverage contained therein. This, the majority finds, ante, at 481­ 482, is "commercial speech." The majority does not explain why the words "4.73% alcohol by volume" 2 are commercial. Presumably, if a nonprofit consumer protection group were to publish the identical statement, "Coors beer has 4.73% alcohol by volume," on the cover of a magazine, the Court would not label the speech "commercial." It thus appears, from the facts of this case, that whether or not speech is "commercial" has no necessary relationship to its content. If the Coors label is commercial speech, then, I suppose it must be because (as in Central Hudson) the motivation of the speaker is to sell a product, or because the speech tends to induce consumers to buy a product.3 Yet, economic moti- vation or impact alone cannot make speech less deserving of constitutional protection, or else all authors and artists who sell their works would be correspondingly disadvantaged. Neither can the value of speech be diminished solely because of its placement on the label of a product. Surely a piece of newsworthy information on the cover of a magazine, or a book review on the back of a book's dust jacket, is entitled to full constitutional protection. As a matter of common sense, any description of commer- cial speech that is intended to identify the category of speech entitled to less First Amendment protection should relate to the reasons for permitting broader regulation: namely, com- mercial speech's potential to mislead. See Virginia Bd. of 2 The 4.73 percent figure comes from an "[i]ndependent [l]aboratory [a]nalysis" of Coors beer cited in a Coors advertisement. App. 65. 3 The inducement rationale might also apply to a consumer protection publication, if it is sold on a newsrack, as some consumers will buy the publication because they wish to learn the varying alcohol contents of com- peting products. 514us2$49i 06-11-98 16:59:46 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 476 (1995) 495 Stevens, J., concurring in judgment Pharmacy, 425 U. S., at 771­772; Bates, 433 U. S., at 383­384; Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp., 463 U. S. 60, 81­83 (1983) (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment); see also Cin- cinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc., 507 U. S. 410, 426 (1993) (city's regulation of commercial speech bore no relationship to reasons why commercial speech is entitled to less protec- tion). Although some false and misleading statements are entitled to First Amendment protection in the political realm, see, e. g., Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U. S. 323 (1974); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254 (1964), the special character of commercial expression justifies re- strictions on misleading speech that would not be tolerated elsewhere. As Justice Stewart explained: "In contrast to the press, which must often attempt to assemble the true facts from sketchy and sometimes conflicting sources under the pressure of publication deadlines, the commercial advertiser generally knows the product or service he seeks to sell and is in a position to verify the accuracy of his factual representations be- fore he disseminates them. The advertiser's access to the truth about his product and its price substantially eliminates any danger that government regulation of false or misleading price or product advertising will chill accurate and nondeceptive commercial expression. There is, therefore, little need to sanction `some false- hood in order to protect speech that matters.' " Vir- ginia Bd. of Pharmacy, 425 U. S., at 777­778 (concurring opinion), quoting Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U. S., at 341.4 4 Justice Stewart's reasoning has been the subject of scholarly criticism, on the ground that some speech surrounding a commercial transaction is not readily verifiable, while some political speech is easily verifiable by the speaker. See Farber, Commercial Speech and First Amendment The- ory, 74 Nw. U. L. Rev. 372, 385­386 (1979). Although I agree that Justice Stewart's distinction will not extend to every instance of expression, I think his theory makes good sense as a general rule. Most of the time, if 514us2$49i 06-11-98 16:59:46 PAGES OPINPGT 496 RUBIN v. COORS BREWING CO. Stevens, J., concurring in judgment See also Bates, 433 U. S., at 383. Not only does regulation of inaccurate commercial speech exclude little truthful speech from the market, but false or misleading speech in the commercial realm also lacks the value that sometimes inheres in false or misleading political speech. Transaction-driven speech usually does not touch on a subject of public debate, and thus misleading statements in that context are unlikely to engender the beneficial public discourse that flows from political controversy. Moreover, the consequences of false commercial speech can be particu- larly severe: Investors may lose their savings, and consumers may purchase products that are more dangerous than they believe or that do not work as advertised. Finally, because commercial speech often occurs in the place of sale, consum- ers may respond to the falsehood before there is time for more speech and considered reflection to minimize the risks of being misled. See Ohralik, 436 U. S., at 447, 457­458 (dis- tinguishing in-person attorney solicitation of clients from written solicitation). The evils of false commercial speech, which may have an immediate harmful impact on commercial transactions, together with the ability of purveyors of com- mercial speech to control falsehoods, explain why we tolerate more governmental regulation of this speech than of most other speech. In this case, the Government has not identified a sufficient interest in suppressing the truthful, unadorned, informative speech at issue here. If Congress had sought to regulate all statements of alcohol content (say, to require that they be of a size visible to consumers or that they provide specific a seller is representing a fact or making a prediction about his product, the seller will know whether his statements are false or misleading and he will be able to correct them. On the other hand, the purveyor of politi- cal speech is more often (though concededly not always) an observer who is in a poor position to verify its truth. The paradigm example of this latter phenomenon is, of course, the journalist who must rely on confiden- tial sources for his information. 514us2$49i 06-11-98 16:59:46 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 476 (1995) 497 Stevens, J., concurring in judgment information for comparative purposes) in order to prevent brewers from misleading consumers as to the true alcohol content of their beverages, then this would be a different case. But absent that concern, I think respondent has a con- stitutional right to give the public accurate information about the alcoholic content of the malt beverages that it pro- duces. I see no reason why the fact that such information is disseminated on the labels of respondent's products should diminish that constitutional protection. On the contrary, the statute at issue here should be subjected to the same stringent review as any other content-based abridgment of protected speech. III Whatever standard is applied, I find no merit whatsoever in the Government's assertion that an interest in restraining competition among brewers to satisfy consumer demand for stronger beverages justifies a statutory abridgment of truth- ful speech. Any "interest" in restricting the flow of accu- rate information because of the perceived danger of that knowledge is anathema to the First Amendment; more speech and a better informed citizenry are among the central goals of the Free Speech Clause. Accordingly, the Constitu- tion is most skeptical of supposed state interests that seek to keep people in the dark for what the government believes to be their own good. See Virginia Bd. of Pharmacy, 425 U. S., at 769­770; Bates, 433 U. S., at 374­375. One of the vagaries of the "commercial speech" doctrine in its current form is that the Court sometimes takes such paternalistic motives seriously. See United States v. Edge Broadcasting Co., 509 U. S. 418, 439­440 (1993) (Stevens, J., dissenting); Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Co. of P. R., 478 U. S. 328, 358 (1986) (Brennan, J., dissenting). In my opinion, the Government's asserted interest, that consumers should be misled or uninformed for their own pro- tection, does not suffice to justify restrictions on protected speech in any context, whether under "exacting scrutiny" or 514us2$49i 06-11-98 16:59:46 PAGES OPINPGT 498 RUBIN v. COORS BREWING CO. Stevens, J., concurring in judgment some other standard. If Congress is concerned about the potential for increases in the alcohol content of malt bev- erages, it may, of course, take other steps to combat the problem without running afoul of the First Amendment-for example, Congress may limit directly the alcoholic content of malt beverages. But Congress may not seek to accom- plish the same purpose through a policy of consumer ignorance, at the expense of the free-speech rights of the sellers and purchasers. See Virginia Bd. of Pharmacy, 425 U. S., at 756­757. If varying alcohol strengths are lawful, I see no reason why brewers may not advise customers that their beverages are stronger-or weaker-than competing products. In my opinion, this statute is unconstitutional because, regardless of the standard of review, the First Amendment mandates rejection of the Government's proffered justifi- cation for this restriction. Although some regulations of statements about alcohol content that increase consumer awareness would be entirely proper, this statutory provision is nothing more than an attempt to blindfold the public. Accordingly, I concur in the Court's judgment. 514us2$50z 05-27-98 18:19:34 PAGES OPINPGT OCTOBER TERM, 1994 499 Syllabus CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al. v. MORALES certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 93­1462. Argued January 9, 1995-Decided April 25, 1995 Respondent was sentenced to 15 years to life for the 1980 murder of his wife and became eligible for parole in 1990. As required by California law, the Board of Prison Terms (Board) held a hearing in 1989, at which time it found respondent unsuitable for parole for numerous reasons, including the fact that he had committed his crime while on parole for an earlier murder. Respondent would have been entitled to subsequent suitability hearings annually under the law in place when he murdered his wife. The law was amended in 1981, however, to allow the Board to defer subsequent hearings for up to three years for a prisoner con- victed of more than one offense involving the taking of a life, if the Board finds that it is not reasonable to expect that parole would be granted at a hearing during the intervening years and states the bases for the finding. Pursuant to this amendment, the Board scheduled re- spondent's next hearing for 1992. He then filed a federal habeas corpus petition, asserting that as applied to him, the 1981 amendment consti- tuted an ex post facto law barred by the United States Constitution. The District Court denied the petition, but the Court of Appeals re- versed, holding that the retrospective law made a parole hearing less accessible to respondent and thus effectively increased his sentence in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause. Held: The amendment's application to prisoners who committed their crimes before it was enacted does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. Pp. 504­514. (a) The amendment did not increase the "punishment" attached to respondent's crime. It left untouched his indeterminate sentence and the substantive formula for securing any reductions to the sentencing range. By introducing the possibility that the Board would not have to hold another parole hearing in the year or two after the initial hearing, the amendment simply altered the method to be followed in fixing a parole release date under identical substantive standards. Lindsey v. Washington, 301 U. S. 397; Miller v. Florida, 482 U. S. 423; and Weaver v. Graham, 450 U. S. 24, distinguished. Pp. 504­508. (b) Under respondent's expansive view, the Clause would forbid any legislative change that has any conceivable risk of affecting a prisoner's 514us2$50z 05-27-98 18:19:34 PAGES OPINPGT 500 CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS v. MORALES Syllabus punishment. In contrast, this Court has long held that the question of what legislative adjustments are of sufficient moment to transgress the constitutional prohibition must be a matter of degree, and has declined to articulate a single "formula" for making this determination. There is no need to do so here, either, since the amendment creates only the most speculative and attenuated possibility of increasing the measure of punishment for covered crimes, and such conjectural effects are insuffi- cient under any threshold that might be established under the Clause. The amendment applies only to those who have taken more than one life, a class of prisoners for whom the likelihood of release on parole is quite remote. In addition, it affects the timing only of subsequent hear- ings, and does so only when the Board makes specific findings in the first hearing. Moreover, the Board has the authority to tailor the fre- quency of subsequent hearings. Respondent offers no support for his speculation that prisoners might experience an unanticipated change that is sufficiently monumental to alter their suitability for parole, or that such prisoners might be precluded from receiving a subsequent expedited hearing. Nor is there a reason to think that postponing an expedited hearing would extend any prisoner's actual confinement pe- riod. Since a parole release date often comes at least several years after a suitability finding, the Board could consider when a prisoner became "suitable" for parole in setting the actual release date. Pp. 508­513. 16 F. 3d 1001, reversed. Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Souter, J., joined, post, p. 514. James Ching, Supervising Deputy Attorney General of California, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, George Williamson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Kenneth C. Young, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Joan W. Cava- nagh, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and G. Lewis Chartrand, Jr. 514us2$50z 05-27-98 18:19:34 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 499 (1995) 501 Opinion of the Court James R. Asperger argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Daniel H. Bookin, Brian D. Boyle, and Thomas J. Karr.* Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court. In 1981, the State of California amended its parole proce- dures to allow the Board of Prison Terms to decrease the frequency of parole suitability hearings under certain cir- cumstances. This case presents the question whether the application of this amendment to prisoners who committed *Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the State of Geor- gia by Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Terry L. Long, Assistant Attorney General, and Daryl A. Robinson, Senior Assistant Attorney General; for the State of Pennsylvania et al. by Ernest D. Preate, Jr., Attorney General of Pennsylvania, and Andrea F. McKenna, Senior Dep- uty Attorney General, Grant Woods, Attorney General of Arizona, Gale A. Norton, Attorney General of Colorado, John M. Bailey, Chief State's Attorney of Connecticut, Elizabeth Barrett-Anderson, Attorney General of Guam, Robert A. Marks, Attorney General of Hawaii, Larry EchoHawk, Attorney General of Idaho, Roland W. Burris, Attorney General of Illinois, Pamela Fanning Carter, Attorney General of Indiana, Robert T. Stephan, Attorney General of Kansas, Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General of Missouri, J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General of Maryland, Scott Harshbarger, Attorney General of Massachusetts, Hubert H. Hum- phrey III, Attorney General of Minnesota, Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General of Montana, Don Stenberg, Attorney General of Nebraska, Frankie Sue Del Papa, Attorney General of Nevada, Deborah T. Poritz, Attorney General of New Jersey, Heidi Heitkamp, Attorney General of North Dakota, Lee Fisher, Attorney General of Ohio, Susan B. Loving, Attorney General of Oklahoma, T. Travis Medlock, Attorney General of South Carolina, Jan Graham, Attorney General of Utah, Rosalie Sim- monds Ballentine, Attorney General of the Virgin Islands, Joseph B. Meyer, Attorney General of Wyoming, and Eleni M. Constantine; for the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation et al. by Kent S. Scheidegger, Charles L. Hobson, and Kevin Washburn; and for the Pacific Legal Foundation et al. by Ronald A. Zumbrun and Anthony T. Caso. Ronald D. Maines, Robert Burke, and Jonathan Smith filed a brief for the National Legal Aid and Defender Association et al. as amici curiae urging affirmance. 514us2$50N 05-27-98 18:19:34 PAGES OPINPGT 502 CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS v. MORALES Opinion of the Court their crimes before it was enacted violates the Ex Post Facto Clause. We conclude that it does not. I California twice has convicted respondent Jose Ramon Morales of murder. In 1971, the body of respondent's girl- friend, Gina Wallace, was found in an abandoned medical building. She had been shot in the head, neck, and abdomen; her right thumb had been amputated and her face slashed repeatedly. A bloody fingerprint near the body matched re- spondent's. A jury found respondent guilty of first-degree murder, and he was sentenced to life in prison. While serving his sentence at the State Training Facility in Soledad, California, respondent met Lois Washabaugh, a 75-year-old woman who had begun visiting inmates after gaining an interest in prison reform. Ms. Washabaugh vis- ited respondent on numerous occasions, and respondent kept in contact with her through correspondence. Respondent's letters eventually expressed a romantic interest in Ms. Wash- abaugh, and the two were married some time after respond- ent's release to a halfway house in April 1980. On July 4, 1980, Ms. Washabaugh left her home and told friends that she was moving to Los Angeles to live with her new husband. Three days later, police officers found a human hand on the Hollywood Freeway in Los Angeles. Ms. Washabaugh was reported missing at the end of July, and fingerprint identification revealed that the hand was hers. Her body was never recovered. Respondent was subsequently arrested and found in possession of Ms. Wash- abaugh's car, purse, credit cards, and diamond rings. Respondent pleaded nolo contendere to the second-degree murder of Ms. Washabaugh. He was sentenced to a term of 15 years to life, but became eligible for parole beginning in 1990. As required by California law, see Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 3041 (West 1982), the Board of Prison Terms (Board) held a hearing on July 25, 1989, to determine respondent's 514us2$50N 05-27-98 18:19:34 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 499 (1995) 503 Opinion of the Court suitability for parole. California law required the Board to set a release date for respondent unless it found that "the public safety requires a more lengthy period of incarceration for this individual." § 3041(b). The Board found respond- ent unsuitable for parole for numerous reasons, including the heinous, atrocious, and cruel nature of his offense; the mutilation of Ms. Washabaugh during or after the mur- der; respondent's record of violence and assaultive behavior; and respondent's commission of his second murder while on parole for his first. Supplemental App. to Pet. for Cert. 45. Under the law in place at the time respondent murdered Ms. Washabaugh, respondent would have been entitled to subsequent suitability hearings on an annual basis. 1977 Cal. Stats., ch. 165, § 46. In 1981, however, the California Legislature had authorized the Board to defer subsequent suitability hearings for up to three years if the prisoner has been convicted of "more than one offense which involves the taking of a life" and if the Board "finds that it is not reason- able to expect that parole would be granted at a hearing during the following years and states the bases for the find- ing." Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 3041.5(b)(2) (West 1982).1 In light of the considerations that led it to find respondent un- suitable for parole, and based on its conclusion that a longer period of observation was required before a parole release date could be projected, the Board determined that it was not reasonable to expect that respondent would be found suitable for parole in 1990 or 1991. Pursuant to the 1981 amendment, the Board scheduled the next hearing for 1992. 1 The statute was again amended in 1990 to allow the Board the alterna- tive of deferring hearings for five years if the prisoner has been convicted of more than two murders, Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 3041.5(b)(2)(C) (West Supp. 1994), 1990 Cal. Stats., ch. 1053, and in 1994 to extend that alterna- tive to prisoners convicted of even a single murder, 1994 Cal. Stats., ch. 560. The 5-year deferral applies, however, "only to offenses committed before July 1, 1977, or on or after January 1, 1991," 1990 Cal. Stats., ch. 1053, and thus appears to have no application to respondent, whose most recent crime was committed in 1980. 514us2$50N 05-27-98 18:19:34 PAGES OPINPGT 504 CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS v. MORALES Opinion of the Court Respondent then filed a federal habeas corpus petition in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, asserting that he was being held in custody in violation of the Federal Constitution. See 28 U. S. C. § 2254. Respondent argued that as applied to him, the 1981 amend- ment constituted an ex post facto law barred by Article I, § 10, of the United States Constitution. The District Court denied respondent's habeas petition, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. 16 F. 3d 1001 (1994).2 Because "a prisoner cannot be paroled without first having a parole hearing," the Court of Appeals con- cluded that "any retrospective law making parole hearings less accessible would effectively increase the [prisoner's] sen- tence and violate the ex post facto clause." Id., at 1004. The Court of Appeals accordingly held that the Board was constitutionally constrained to provide respondent with an- nual parole suitability hearings, as required by the law in effect when he committed his crime. Id., at 1006. We granted certiorari, 512 U. S. 1287 (1994), and we now reverse. II Article I, § 10, of the Constitution prohibits the States from passing any "ex post facto Law." In Collins v. Young- blood, 497 U. S. 37, 41 (1990), we reaffirmed that the Ex Post Facto Clause incorporated "a term of art with an established meaning at the time of the framing of the Constitution." In accordance with this original understanding, we have held that the Clause is aimed at laws that "retroactively alter the definition of crimes or increase the punishment for criminal acts." Id., at 43 (citing Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 391­392 2 During the pendency of this action, respondent appeared before the Board for his 1992 suitability hearing. The Board again found respondent unsuitable and again determined that it was not reasonable to expect that he would be found suitable for parole at the following two annual hearings. Respondent's next suitability hearing was then set for 1995. 514us2$50N 05-27-98 18:19:34 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 499 (1995) 505 Opinion of the Court (1798) (opinion of Chase, J.); Beazell v. Ohio, 269 U. S. 167, 169­170 (1925)). The legislation at issue here effects no change in the defi- nition of respondent's crime. Instead, the question before us is whether the 1981 amendment to § 3041.5 increases the "punishment" attached to respondent's crime. In arguing that it does, respondent relies chiefly on a trilogy of cases holding that a legislature may not stiffen the "standard of punishment" applicable to crimes that have already been committed. See Lindsey v. Washington, 301 U. S. 397, 401 (1937); Miller v. Florida, 482 U. S. 423 (1987); Weaver v. Graham, 450 U. S. 24 (1981). In Lindsey, we established the proposition that the Consti- tution "forbids the application of any new punitive measure to a crime already consummated." 301 U. S., at 401. The petitioners in Lindsey had been convicted of grand larceny, and the sentencing provision in effect at the time they com- mitted their crimes provided for a maximum sentence of "not more than fifteen years." Id., at 398. The applicable law called for sentencing judges to impose an indeterminate sen- tence up to whatever maximum they selected, so long as it did not exceed 15 years. Id., at 398, 400. Before the peti- tioners were sentenced, however, a new statute was passed that required the judge to sentence the petitioners to the 15-year maximum; under the new statute, the petitioners could secure an earlier release only through the grace of the parole board. Id., at 398­399. We held that the application of this statute to petitioners violated the Ex Post Facto Clause because "the measure of punishment prescribed by the later statute is more severe than that of the earlier." Id., at 401. Weaver and Miller held that the Ex Post Facto Clause forbids the States to enhance the measure of punishment by altering the substantive "formula" used to calculate the applicable sentencing range. In Weaver, the petitioner had been sentenced to 15 years in prison for his crime of 514us2$50N 05-27-98 18:19:34 PAGES OPINPGT 506 CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS v. MORALES Opinion of the Court second-degree murder. Both at the time of his crime and at the time his sentence was imposed, state statutes provided a formula for mandatory reductions to the terms of all pris- oners who complied with certain prison regulations and state laws. The statute that the petitioner challenged and that we invalidated retroactively reduced the amount of "gain time" credits available to prisoners under this formula. Though the statute preserved the possibility that some pris- oners might win back these credits if they convinced prison officials to exercise their discretion to find that they were especially deserving, see 450 U. S., at 34, n. 18, we found that it effectively eliminated the lower end of the possible range of prison terms. Id., at 26­27, 31­33. The statute at issue in Miller contained a similar defect. The Florida sentenc- ing scheme had established "presumptive sentencing ranges" for various offenses, which sentencing judges were required to follow in the absence of "clear and convincing reasons" for a departure. At the time that the petitioner in Miller committed his crime, his presumptive sentencing range would have been 31/2 to 41/2 years. Before his sentencing, however, the state legislature altered the formula for estab- lishing the presumptive sentencing range for certain sexual offenses by increasing the "primary offense points" assigned to those crimes. As a result, petitioner's presumptive range jumped to 51/2 to 7 years. We held that the resulting in- crease in the "quantum of punishment" violated the Ex Post Facto Clause. 482 U. S., at 433­434.3 3 Our opinions in Lindsey, Weaver, and Miller suggested that enhance- ments to the measure of criminal punishment fall within the ex post facto prohibition because they operate to the "disadvantage" of covered offend- ers. See Lindsey, 301 U. S., at 401; Weaver, 450 U. S., at 29; Miller, 482 U. S., at 433. But that language was unnecessary to the results in those cases and is inconsistent with the framework developed in Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U. S. 37, 41 (1990). After Collins, the focus of the ex post facto inquiry is not on whether a legislative change produces some ambiguous sort of "disadvantage," nor, as the dissent seems to suggest, on whether an amendment affects a prisoner's "opportunity to take advan- 514us2$50N 05-27-98 18:19:34 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 499 (1995) 507 Opinion of the Court Respondent insists that the California amendment before us is indistinguishable from the legislation at issue in Lind- sey, Weaver, and Miller, and he contends that those cases control this one. We disagree. Both before and after the 1981 amendment, California punished the offense of second- degree murder with an indeterminate sentence of "confine- ment in the state prison for a term of 15 years to life." Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 190 (West 1982). The amendment also left unchanged the substantive formula for securing any re- ductions to this sentencing range. Thus, although 15 years was the formal "minimum" term of confinement, see ibid., respondent was able to secure a one-third "credit" or reduc- tion in this minimum by complying with prison rules and regulations, see § 2931. The amendment had no effect on the standards for fixing a prisoner's initial date of "eligibil- ity" for parole, see In re Jackson, 39 Cal. 3d 464, 476, 703 P. 2d 100, 108 (1985), or for determining his "suitability" for parole and setting his release date, see Cal. Penal Code Ann. §§ 3041, 3041.5 (West 1982). The 1981 amendment made only one change: It introduced the possibility that after the initial parole hearing, the Board would not have to hold another hearing the very next year, or the year after that, if it found no reasonable probability that respondent would be deemed suitable for parole in the interim period. § 3041.5(b)(2). In contrast to the laws at issue in Lindsey, Weaver, and Miller (which had the purpose and effect of enhancing the range of available prison terms, see Miller, supra, at 433­434), the evident focus of the Cali- fornia amendment was merely " `to relieve the [Board] from the costly and time-consuming responsibility of scheduling parole hearings' " for prisoners who have no reasonable chance of being released. In re Jackson, supra, at 473, 703 P. 2d, at 106 (quoting legislative history). Rather than tage of provisions for early release," see post, at 518, but on whether any such change alters the definition of criminal conduct or increases the pen- alty by which a crime is punishable. 514us2$50N 05-27-98 18:19:34 PAGES OPINPGT 508 CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS v. MORALES Opinion of the Court changing the sentencing range applicable to covered crimes, the 1981 amendment simply "alters the method to be fol- lowed" in fixing a parole release date under identical sub- stantive standards. See Miller, supra, at 433 (contrasting adjustment to presumptive sentencing range with change in "the method to be followed in determining the appropriate sentence"); see also Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U. S. 282, 293­ 294 (1977) (contrasting change in the "quantum of punish- ment" with statute that merely "altered the methods em- ployed in determining whether the death penalty was to be imposed"). III Respondent nonetheless urges us to hold that the Ex Post Facto Clause forbids any legislative change that has any conceivable risk of affecting a prisoner's punishment. In his view, there is "no principled way to determine how sig- nificant a risk of enhanced confinement is to be tolerated." Brief for Respondent 39. Our cases have never accepted this expansive view of the Ex Post Facto Clause, and we will not endorse it here. Respondent's approach would require that we invalidate any of a number of minor (and perhaps inevitable) mechani- cal changes that might produce some remote risk of impact on a prisoner's expected term of confinement. Under re- spondent's approach, the judiciary would be charged under the Ex Post Facto Clause with the micromanagement of an endless array of legislative adjustments to parole and sen- tencing procedures, including such innocuous adjustments as changes to the membership of the Board of Prison Terms, restrictions on the hours that prisoners may use the prison law library, reductions in the duration of the parole hearing, restrictions on the time allotted for a convicted defendant's right of allocution before a sentencing judge, and page limi- tations on a defendant's objections to presentence reports or on documents seeking a pardon from the governor. These and countless other changes might create some speculative, 514us2$50N 05-27-98 18:19:34 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 499 (1995) 509 Opinion of the Court attenuated risk of affecting a prisoner's actual term of con- finement by making it more difficult for him to make a per- suasive case for early release, but that fact alone cannot end the matter for ex post facto purposes.4 Indeed, contrary to the approach advocated by respondent, we have long held that the question of what legislative ad- justments "will be held to be of sufficient moment to trans- gress the constitutional prohibition" must be a matter of "degree." Beazell, 269 U. S., at 171. In evaluating the con- stitutionality of the 1981 amendment, we must determine whether it produces a sufficient risk of increasing the meas- ure of punishment attached to the covered crimes.5 We have previously declined to articulate a single "formula" for identifying those legislative changes that have a sufficient effect on substantive crimes or punishments to fall within the constitutional prohibition, see ibid., and we have no occa- sion to do so here. The amendment creates only the most speculative and attenuated possibility of producing the pro- hibited effect of increasing the measure of punishment for covered crimes, and such conjectural effects are insufficient under any threshold we might establish under the Ex Post Facto Clause. See Dobbert, supra, at 294 (refusing to accept "speculation" that the effective punishment under a new 4 The dissent proposes a line between those measures that deprive pris- oners of a parole hearing and those that "make it more difficult for prison- ers to obtain release." Post, at 524. But this arbitrary line has abso- lutely no basis in the Constitution. If a delay in parole hearings raises ex post facto concerns, it is because that delay effectively increases a prison- er's term of confinement, and not because the hearing itself has independ- ent constitutional significance. Other adjustments to mechanisms sur- rounding the sentencing process should be evaluated under the same standard. 5 Contrary to the dissent's suggestion, see post, at 519, we express no view as to the constitutionality of any of a number of other statutes that might alter the timing of parole hearings under circumstances different from those present here. 514us2$50N 05-27-98 18:19:34 PAGES OPINPGT 510 CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS v. MORALES Opinion of the Court statutory scheme would be "more onerous" than under the old one).6 First, the amendment applies only to a class of prisoners for whom the likelihood of release on parole is quite remote. The amendment enabled the Board to extend the time be- tween suitability hearings only for those prisoners who have been convicted of "more than one offense which involves the taking of a life." Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 3041.5(b)(2) (West 1982).7 The California Supreme Court has noted that about 6 The dissent suggests that any "speculation" as to the effect of the amendment on prison terms should "ru[n] in the other direction," post, at 525, but this approach effectively shifts to the State the burden of persua- sion as to respondent's ex post facto claim. Not surprisingly, the dissent identifies no support for its attempt to undo the settled rule that a claim- ant must bear the risk of nonpersuasion as to the existence of an alleged constitutional violation. Although we have held that a party asserting an ex post facto claim need not carry the burden of showing that he would have been sentenced to a lesser term under the measure or range of pun- ishments in place under the previous statutory scheme, see Lindsey v. Washington, 301 U. S., at 401, we have never suggested that the chal- lenging party may escape the ultimate burden of establishing that the measure of punishment itself has changed. Indeed, elimination of that burden would eviscerate the view of the Ex Post Facto Clause that we reaffirmed in Collins. Just as "[t]he inhibition upon the passage of ex post facto laws does not give a criminal a right to be tried, in all respects, by the law in force when the crime charged was committed," Gibson v. Mississippi, 162 U. S. 565, 590 (1896), neither does it require that the sen- tence be carried out under the identical legal regime that previously prevailed. 7 The dissent mischaracterizes our analysis in suggesting that we some- how have concocted a "reduced" standard of judicial scrutiny for applica- tion to "a narrow group as unpopular . . . as multiple murderers." Post, at 522. The ex post facto standard we apply today is constant: It looks to whether a given legislative change has the prohibited effect of altering the definition of crimes or increasing punishments. Our application of that standard necessarily considers a number of factors-including, in this case, that the 1981 amendment targets a group of prisoners whom the California Legislature deemed less likely than others to secure early re- lease on parole-but the constitutional standard is neither "enhanced" nor 514us2$50N 05-27-98 18:19:34 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 499 (1995) 511 Opinion of the Court 90% of all prisoners are found unsuitable for parole at the initial hearing, while 85% are found unsuitable at the second and subsequent hearings. In re Jackson, 39 Cal. 3d, at 473, 703 P. 2d, at 105. In light of these numbers, the amendment "was seen as a means `to relieve the [Board] from the costly and time-consuming responsibility of scheduling parole hear- ings for prisoners who have no chance of being released.' " Ibid. (quoting legislative history). Second, the Board's authority under the amendment is carefully tailored to that end. The amendment has no effect on the date of any prisoner's initial parole suitability hearing; it affects the timing only of subsequent hearings. Accord- ingly, the amendment has no effect on any prisoner unless the Board has first concluded, after a hearing, not only that the prisoner is unsuitable for parole, but also that "it is not reasonable to expect that parole would be granted at a hear- ing during the following years." Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 3041.5(b)(2) (West 1982). "This is no arbitrary decision," Morris v. Castro, 166 Cal. App. 3d 33, 38, 212 Cal. Rptr. 299, 302 (1985); the Board must conduct "a full hearing and re- view" of all relevant facts, ibid., and state the bases for its finding. Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 3041.5(b)(2) (West 1982). Though California law is not entirely clear on this point, the reliability of the Board's determination may also be enhanced by the possibility of an administrative appeal. See 15 Cal. Admin. Code § 2050 (1994). Moreover, the Board retains the authority to tailor the frequency of subsequent suitability hearings to the particu- lar circumstances of the individual prisoner. The default re- quirement is an annual hearing, but the Board may defer the next hearing up to two years more depending on the circumstances. Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 3041.5(b)(2) (West 1982). Thus, a mass murderer who has participated in re- "reduced" on the basis of societal animosity toward multiple murderers. Cf. ibid. 514us2$50N 05-27-98 18:19:34 PAGES OPINPGT 512 CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS v. MORALES Opinion of the Court peated violent crimes both in prison and while on parole could perhaps expect a 3-year delay between suitability hearings, while a prisoner who poses a lesser threat to the "public safety," see § 3041(b), might receive only a 2-year delay. In light of the particularized findings required under the amendment and the broad discretion given to the Board, the narrow class of prisoners covered by the amendment can- not reasonably expect that their prospects for early release on parole would be enhanced by the opportunity of annual hearings. For these prisoners, the amendment simply allows the Board to avoid the futility of going through the motions of reannouncing its denial of parole suitability on a yearly basis. Respondent suggests that there is some chance that the amendment might nevertheless produce an increased term of confinement for some prisoners who might experience a change of circumstances that could render them suitable for parole during the period between their hearings. Brief for Respondent 39. Respondent fails, however, to provide any support for his speculation that the multiple murderers and other prisoners subject to the amendment might experience an unanticipated change that is sufficiently monumental to alter their suitability for release on parole. Even if we as- sume the possibility of such a change, moreover, there is no reason to conclude that the amendment will have any effect on any prisoner's actual term of confinement, for the current record provides no basis for concluding that a prisoner who experiences a drastic change of circumstances would be pre- cluded from seeking an expedited hearing from the Board. Indeed, the California Supreme Court has suggested that under the circumstances hypothesized by respondent "the Board could advance the suitability hearing," In re Jackson, supra, at 475, 703 P. 2d, at 107, and the California Depart- ment of Corrections indicates in its brief that the Board's "practice" is to "review for merit any communication from an inmate asking for an earlier suitability hearing," Reply 514us2$50N 05-27-98 18:19:34 PAGES OPINPGT Cite as: 514 U. S. 499 (1995) 513 Opinion of the Court Brief for Petitioner 3, n. 1. If the Board's decision to post- pone the hearing is subject to administrative appeal, the con- trolling regulations also seem to preserve the possibility of a belated appeal. See 15 Cal. Admin. Code § 2050 (1994) (time limits for administrative appeals "are directory only and may be extended"). An expedited hearing by the Board-either on its own volition or pursuant to an order entered on an administrative appeal-would remove any possibility of harm even under the hypothetical circumstances suggested by respondent. Even if a prisoner were denied an expedited hearing, there is no reason to think that such postponement would extend any prisoner's actual period of confinement. According to the California Supreme Court, the possibility of immediate release after a finding of suitability for parole is largely "the- oretica[l]," In re Jackson, 39 Cal. 3d, at 474, 703 P. 2d, at 106; in many cases, the prisoner's parole release date comes at least several years after a finding of suitability. To the extent that these cases are representative, it follows that "the `practical effect' of a hearing postponement is not sig- nificant." Id., at 474, 703 P. 2d, at 106­107. This is because the Board is bound by statute to consider "any sentencing information relevant to the setting of parole release dates" with an eye toward establishing "uniform terms for offenses of similar gravity and magnitude in respect to their threat to the public." Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 3041(a) (West 1982). Under these standards, the fact that a prisoner had been "suitable" for parole prior to the date of the hearing cer- tainly would be "relevant" to the Board's decision in setting an actual release date, and the Board retains the discretion to expedite the release date of such a prisoner. Thus, a pris- oner who could show that he was "suitable" for parole two years prior to such a finding by the Board might well be entitled to secure a release date that reflects that fact. Such a prisoner's ultimate date of release would be entirely unaf- fected by the change in the timing of suitability hearings. 514us2$50N 05-27-98 18:19:34 PAGES OPINPGT 514 CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS v. MORALES Stevens, J., dissenting IV Given these circumstances, we conclude that the California legislation at issue creates only the most speculative and attenuated risk of increasing the me