source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Justice Ginsburg Justice Breyer,

license: Public Domain

text:
    AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION v. MILLER et al.
    No. 97-428.
    Argued March 23, 1998
    Decided May 26, 1998

      Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and O’Connor, Scaiia, Kennedy, Souter, and Thomas, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens, J., joined, post, p. 880.

      Jerry D. Anker argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioner.

      Raymond J. LaJeunesse, Jr,, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief was Philip F. Hudock.

      Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations by Jonathan P. Hiatt, James B. Coppess, and Laurence Gold; and for the National Education Association by Robert H. Chanin and Jeremiah A. Collins.

        Frank T. Mamat, J. Walker Henry, and George M. Mesrey filed a brief for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy as amicus curiae urging affirmance.

   Justice Ginsburg

delivered the opinion of the Court.

An “agency-shop” arrangement permits a union, obliged to act on behalf of all employees in the bargaining unit, to charge nonunion workers their fair share of the costs of the representation. The purposes for which a union may spend the “agency fee” paid by nonmembers, however, are circumscribed by the First Amendment (when public employers are involved) and the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) or Railway Labor Act (RLA) (when private employers subject to their provisions are involved). In Teachers v. Hudson, 475 U. S. 292 (1986), we held that the First Amendment requires public-employee unions to accord workers who object to the agency fee “a reasonably prompt opportunity to challenge the amount of the fee before an impartial decision-maker.” Id., at 310.

Petitioner Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA or Union), a private-sector labor organization covered by the RLA, acknowledges that it is bound by Hudson. ALPA endeavored to comply with Hudson’s “impartial decisionmaker” requirement by referring all fee disputes to a neutral arbitrator. In the action now before us, nonunion pilots challenged the agency fee collected by the Union in 1992. ALPA urged that the challengers must exhaust the arbitration process before pursuing judicial remedies. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the pilots resisting the agency fee may proceed at once in federal court. We hold, in accord with the Court of Appeals, that employees need not submit fee disputes to arbitration when they have never agreed to do so.

I

ALPA represents, as exclusive bargaining agent, pilots employed by most United States commercial air carriers, including Delta Air Lines (Delta). In November 1991, ALPA and Delta amended their collective-bargaining agreement to include, inter alia, an “agency-shop” clause. That clause, similar to provisions in ALPA’s agreements with other carriers, required each pilot who was not an ALPA member to pay the Union a monthly “service charge as a contribution for the administration of [the collective-bargaining agreement] and the representation of such employee.” App. 31.

On December 12, 1991, five Delta pilots filed this action against ALPA and Delta in the District Court for the District of Columbia. Their complaint charged that the “agency-shop” clause was unlawful on its face. (Three of the original plaintiffs, plus 150 Delta pilots who subsequently intervened, are respondents here; the other two original plaintiffs were dismissed from the case for reasons unrelated to the issue we resolve. Delta was also dismissed from the case on grounds not pertinent here.) The pilots unsuccessfully moved for a preliminary injunction against implementation of the agency-shop arrangement, and ALPA began collecting agency fees on January 1,1992.

In 1992, ALPA charged its members monthly dues of 2.35 percent of each pilot’s earnings. The Union ultimately determined, in its final, audited “Statement of Germane and Nongermane Expenses” (SGNE) for 1992, that 19 percent of ALPA’s expenses for that year were not germane to collective bargaining. Accordingly, the Union adjusted fees charged nonmembers to equal 81 percent of the amount members paid.

On October 8/ 1992, some months after the Union had begun to collect agency fees, the pilots moved to amend their complaint to add a count challenging the manner in which ALPA calculated the fee. They alleged, inter alia, that ALPA had overstated the percentage of its expenditures genuinely attributable to “germane” activities. The District Court granted the motion to amend on August 2,1993. The pilots’ original facial, challenges to the agency-shop clause were later resolved in the Union’s favor on summary judgment (a matter the pilots did not contest on appeal). Thus, the challenge to the 1992 agency-fee calculation is the only claim before us.

Under ALPA’s “Policies and Procedures Applicable to Agency Fees,” pilots who object to the fee calculation may request arbitration under procedures the American Arbitration Association (AAA) devised to resolve such disputes. Id., at 69-70. One hundred seventy-four Delta pilots filed timely objections with the Union after receiving the 1992 SGNE. ALPA treated those objections as requests for arbitration and referred them to the AAA. On October 15, 1993, the AAA appointed an arbitrator to resolve the objections in a single, consolidated proceeding.

The objectors included 91 of the 153 pilots who are respondents here. (The other 62 respondents intervened in the lawsuit but were not parties to the arbitration.) Preferring to pursue then’ challenges to ALPA’s agency-fee calculation in the context of their ongoing federal-court action, the respondent-objectors asked the AAA to suspend the arbitration. The AAA referred that request to the arbitrator, who declined to defer to the federal-court litigation. Id., at 106. After the District Court denied a motion to enjoin the arbitration, id., at 111-114, respondents’ counsel entered a “conditional appearance” in the arbitral proceedings. The arbitrator held hearings in January, February, and March 1994. He ultimately sustained the Union’s agency-fee calculation in substantial part, although he concluded that “nongermane” expenses made up 21.49 percent of the union’s budget, not 19 percent as the Union had determined. App. to Pet. for Cert. 71a-115a, 158a-161a.

After the arbitrator issued his decision, ALPA moved for summary judgment in the federal-court action. Granting the motion, the District Court concluded that pilots seeking to challenge the Union’s agency-fee calculation must exhaust arbitral remedies before proceeding in court. Id., at 26a-Ela. Accordingly, the court held, the 62 respondents who did not join the arbitration were bound by the arbitrator’s decision. Id., at 32a. The other 91 respondents, the District Court ruled, qualified for dear-error review of the arbitrator’s factfindings and de novo review of all legal issues. Id., at 31a. Determining that the arbitrator had committed no error of law or clear error of fact, the court sustained his decision.

The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed. 108 F. 3d 1415 (1997). That court found “no legal basis” for requiring objectors to arbitrate agency-fee challenges unless they had agreed to do so (as respondents had not). Id., at 1421 (emphasis deleted). It therefore concluded that “the arbitrator’s decision [was] no longer a part of the legal picture,” and for that reason the case “must be remanded.” Id., at 1422. We granted certiorari, 522 U. S. 991 (1997), limited to the question whether an objector must exhaust a union-provided arbitration process before bringing an agency-fee challenge in federal court, a matter on which the Courts of Appeals have reached differing conclusions.

II

A

Because Delta is a “common carrier by air engaged in interstate or foreign commerce,” 45 U. S. C. § 181, the RLA governs its bargaining relationship -with ALFA. Section 2, Eleventh, of the RLA allows employers and unions to conclude agency-shop agreements. The statutory authorization for such agreements aims to resolve the problem of “free riders — employees in the bargaining unit on whose behalf the union [is] obliged to perform its statutory functions, but who refus[e] to contribute to the cost thereof.” Ellis v. Railway Clerks, 466 U. S. 435, 447 (1984). Under agency-shop arrangements, nonmembers must pay their fair share of union expenditures "necessarily or reasonably incurred for the purpose of performing the duties of an exclusive representative of the employees in dealing with the employer on labor-management issues.” Id., at 448. To avoid constitutional questions that might arise were we to adopt a contrary interpretation of the RLA, however, we have held that costs unrelated to those representative duties may not be imposed on objecting employees. See id., at 448-455; see also Railway . Clerks v. Allen, 373 U. S. 113, 121 (1963) (§2, Eleventh, distinguishes between “the union’s political expenditures,” to which nonmembers may not be compelled to contribute, and expenditures “germane to collective bargaining,” to which they may); Machinists v. Street, 367 U. S. 740, 768-769 (1961) (“§2, Eleventh is to be construed to deny the unions, over an employee’s objection, the power to use his exacted funds to support political causes which he opposes”); see also Communications Workers v. Beck, 487 U. S. 735, 762-763 (1988) (same limitations apply under NLRA).

A similar rule — based explicitly on the Constitution — applies to public-sector employment. In Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U. S. 209, 232 (1977), we upheld the constitutionality of agency-shop agreements made by government employers with their workers’ exclusive bargaining representatives. As the Court explained, imposition of agency fees under the RLA “is constitutionally justified by the legislative assessment of the important contribution of the union shop to the system of labor relations established by Congress,” and “[t]he same important government interests . . . presumptively support” agency-shop arrangements in the public sector. Id., at 222, 225.

The agency fees assessed from nonmembers, we said in Abood, may be “used to finance expenditures by the Union for the purposes of collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment.” Id., at 225-226. We cautioned, however, in view of the presence of state action, that objecting employees have a First Amendment right to “prevent the Union's spending a part of their required service fees to contribute to political candidates and to express political views unrelated to its duties as exclusive bargaining representative.” Id., at 234. In Leknert v. Ferris Faculty Assn., 500 U. S. 507, 519 (1991), we relied on both public-sector and RLA eases to hold that agency fees assessed by public-employee unions “must (1) be ‘germane’ to collective-bargaining activity; (2) be justified by the government’s vital policy interest in labor peace and avoiding ‘free riders’; and (3) not significantly add to the burdening of free speech that is inherent in the allowance of an agency or union shop.”

In Hudson, a public-sector ease, we held that the First Amendment required unions and employers to provide procedural protections for nonunion workers who object to the calculation of the agency fee. Three safeguards, we declared, are essential to “minimize the infringement” on nonmembers’ rights and provide workers with “a fair opportunity to identify the impact of [the agency-fee assessment] on [their] interests,” Hudson, 475 U. S., at 308: Employees must receive “sufficient information to gauge the propriety of the union’s fee,” id., at 306; the union must give objectors “a reasonably prompt opportunity to challenge the amount of the fee before an impartial decisionmaker,” id., at 310; and any amount of the objector’s fee “reasonably in dispute” must be held in escrow while the challenge is pending, ibid.

B

The Court of Appeals held that Hudson’s procedural requirements transfer fully to employment relations governed by the RLA, 108 F. 3d, at 1419, and the parties have not challenged that determination. We therefore turn directly to the question presented: When a union adopts an arbitration process to comply with Hudson’s “impartial decision-maker” requirement, must agency-fee objectors pursue and exhaust the .arbitral, remedy before challenging the union’s calculation in a federal-court action?

In his concurring opinion in Hudson, Justice White (joined by Chief Justice Burger) answered that question “yes.” He stated: “[I]f the union provides for arbitration and complies with the other requirements specified in our opinion, it should be entitled to insist that the arbitration procedure be exhausted before resorting to the courts.” 475 U. S., at 311. The Court’s opinion did not comment on that unelaborated assertion, however, so the issue remains live for. the decision we now reach. The Court of Appeals recognized that “Justice White raised a legitimate practical concern,” but found “no legal basis for forcing into arbitration a party who never agreed to put his dispute over federal law to such a process.” 108 F. 3d, at 1421 (emphasis in original). We agree, and decline to read Hudson as a decision that protects nonunion members at a cost — delayed access to federal court — they do not wish to pay.

ALPA urges extension of the discretionary exhaustion-of-remedies doctrine to agency-fee arbitration. See Brief for Petitioner 19 (citing McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U. S. 140, 144 (1992) (“[WJhere Congress has not clearly required exhaustion, sound judicial discretion governs.”)). But a principal purpose of that doctrine is not relevant here. “[Tjhe exhaustion doctrine recognizes the notion, grounded in deference to Congress’ delegation of authority to coordinate branches of Government, that agencies, not the courts, ought to have primary responsibility for the programs that Congress has charged them to administer.” Id., at 145. ALPA seeks exhaustion not of an administrative remedy established by Congress but of an arbitral remedy established by a private party. Ordinarily, "arbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit.” Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Nav. Co., 363 U. S. 574, 582 (1960); see also First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U. S. 938, 942 (1995) (“a party who has not agreed to arbitrate will normally have a right to a court’s decision about the merits of its dispute”).

The Union, it is true, acted to comply with this Court’s decision in Hudson rather than out of its own unconstrained choice. But Hudson’s requirement of "a reasonably prompt decision by an impartial decisionmaker,” 475 U. S., at 307, aims to protect the interest of objectors by affording them access to a neutral forum in which their objections can be resolved swiftly; nothing in our decision purports to compel objectors to pursue that remedy. See ibid. (“The nonunion employee, whose First Amendment rights are affected by the agency shop itself and who bears the burden of objecting, is entitled to have his objections addressed in an expeditious, fair, and objective manner.”). Indeed, Hudson’s emphasis on the need for a speedy remedy weighs against exhaustion, even through an arbitration procedure intended to be expeditious, as an essential prerequisite to federal-court consideration of nonmember challenges. See McCarthy, 503 U. S., at 146 (“[A]dministrative remedies need not be pursued if the litigant’s interests in immediate judicial review outweigh the government’s interests in the efficiency or administrative autonomy that the exhaustion doctrine is designed to further.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). We resist reading Hudson in a manner that might frustrate its very purpose, to advance the swift, fair, and final settlement of objectors’ rights.

Against these concerns, ALPA stresses the asserted efficiency gains of requiring objectors to proceed to arbitration first. The Union asserts: “It is difficult to conceive how a court could fairly try an agency-fee dispute ab initio, given that the plaintiffs who challenge an agency-fee calculation are not required to state any grounds whatsoever for their challenge.” Reply Brief 6-7. Arbitration, in ALPA’s view, will serve a useM, if not essential, role in defining the scope of the dispute. See Brief for Petitioner 21-23; Reply Brief 4-7.

ALPA overstates the difficulties of holding a federal-court hearing without a preparatory arbitration. We have held that “the nonunion employee has the burden of raising an objection, but that the union retains the burden of proof.” Hudson, 475 U. S., at 306. And when pursuing the union’s internal remedies, an objector may preserve the right to subsequent judicial relief without “indieat[ing] to the Union the specific expenditures to which he objects.” Abood, 431 U. S., at 241 (emphasis in original). In stating that the “nonmember’s ‘burden’ is simply the obligation to make his objection known,” Hudson, 475 U. S., at 306, n. 16, however, we did not hold that a federal-court plaintiff can file a generally phrased complaint, then sit back and require the union to prove the “germaneness” of its expenditures without a clue as to “which of its thousands of expenditures” the objectors oppose. Reply Brief 4. Agency-fee challengers, like all other civil litigants, must make their objections known with the degree of specificity appropriate at each stage of litigation their case reaches: motion to dismiss; motion for summary judgment; pretrial conference.

The very purpose of Hudson’s notice requirement is to provide employees sufficient information to enable them to identify the expenditures that, in their view, the union has improperly classified as germane. See 475 U. S., at 306-307. With the Hudson notice, plus any additional information developed through reasonable discovery, an objector can be expected to point to the expenditures or classes of expenditures he or she finds questionable. Although the union must establish that those expenditures were in fact germane, the shifted burden of proof provides no warrant for blocking dissenting employees from bringing their claims in federal court in the first instance, if that is their preference. The answer to ALPA’s efficiency concern lies in conscientious management of-the pretrial process to guard against abuse, not in a judicially imposed exhaustion requirement.

Moreover, the degree to which an exhaustion requirement would reduce the burden on the courts is uncertain. To the extent that the arbitrator does not sustain an objection to the union’s fee calculation, exhaustion would require the objector to traverse two layers of procedure rather than one. Furthermore, if the union’s arbitration process in fact operates to provide an inexpensive, swift, and sure remedy for agency-fee errors, dissenting employees may avail themselves of that process even if not required to do so. Cf. Patsy v. Board of Regents of Fla., 457 U. S. 496, 513, n. 15 (1982) (under a “ 'free market’ system” of no required exhaustion, "litigants are free to pursue administrative remedies if they truly appear to be cheaper, more efficient, and more effective”).

The Union may, nonetheless, face the prospect of defending its fee calculation simultaneously in judicial and arbitral fora. We note that unions do not lack means to limit the expense and disruption occasioned by multiple fee challenges: objections may be consolidated for consideration in a single arbitration, for example, and agency-fee litigation may be consolidated in a single district court. See 28 U. S. C. §§ 1404, 1407. But genuine as the Union’s interest in avoiding multiple proceedings may be, that interest does not overwhelm objectors’ resistance to arbitration to which they did not consent, and their election to proceed immediately to court for adjudication of their federal rights. We hold that, unless they agree to the procedure, ageney-fee objectors may not be required to exhaust an arbitration remedy before bringing their claims in federal court.

* * *

For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is

Affirmed.

Justice Breyer,

with whom Justice Stevens joins, dissenting.

In Teachers v. Hudson, 475 U. S. 292 (1986), this Court held that

“the constitutional requirements for the Union’s collection of agency fees include an adequate explanation of the basis for the fee, a reasonably prompt opportunity to challenge the amount of the fee before an impartial decisionmaker, and an escrow for the amounts reasonably in dispute while such challenges are pending.” Id., at 310 (emphasis added).

The Court added that, if the “impartial decisionmaker” is an arbitrator, that arbitrator’s decision would not bind a court in a subsequent court action. Id., at 308, n. 21 (“arbitrator’s decision would not receive preclusive effect in any subsequent § 1983 action”). Cf. ante, at 874-875, and n. 3 (treating procedural requirements set forth in Hudson, a 42 U. S. C. § 1983 case, as “transfer[ing] fully” to Railway Labor Act cases such as this one).

I read Hudson as implying approval, not disapproval, of a union rule that would require initial participation in "prompt,” but wow-binding, arbitration. Indeed, Justice White, joined by Chief Justice Burger, concurring in the Court’s judgment and opinion in Hudson, specifically stated that

“if the union provides for arbitration and complies with the other requirements specified in our opinion, it should be entitled to insist that the arbitration procedure be exhausted before resorting to the courts." 475 U. S., at 311.

I agree with Justice White that the law permits the Union to insist upon compliance with that internal procedure — as long as the required arbitration is nonbinding and conducted expeditiously by an “impartial” arbitrator, as Hudson requires. Id., at 310.

The Court majority quotes with approval the Court of Appeals’ statement that Justice White’s concern, while “ 'practical,’” lacked a “'legal basis.’” Ante, at 875 (quoting 108 F. 3d 1415, 1421 (CADC 1997)) (emphasis deleted). But Hudson itself, and the ease law upon which Hudson rests, provide more than adequate legal support for Justice White’s basic position. Those eases make clear that Hudson’s requirements do not rest solely upon the interests of dissenting employees, but, rather, grow out of a judicial effort to balance two distinct interests.

One interest is the Union’s concern that nonmember employees share the cost of the collective bargaining from which they benefit. See Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U. S. 209, 222 (1977) (imposition of agency fees “is constitutionally justified by the legislative assessment of the important contribution of the union shop to the system of labor relations established by Congress”); Railway Clerks v. Allen, 373 U. S. 113, 122 (1963) (“no decree would be proper which appeared likely to infringe the unions’ right to expend uniform exactions under the union-shop agreement”); Machinists v. Street, 367 U. S. 740, 761-764 (1961); see also Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Assn., 500 U. S. 507, 520-521 (1991). The other interest is that of the nonmember in not paying for “nongermane” union activity, which activity may promote ideological or political views that the nonmember does not share. Lehnert, supra, at 515-519; Abood, supra, at 233-236; Allen, supra, at 118-121; Street, supra, at 765-769.

This Court has interpreted the relevant labor statutes, in light of the Constitution’s requirements, as requiring procedures that “protect doth” these “interests to the maximum extent possible without undue impingement of one on the other.” Street, supra, at 773 (emphasis added). Indeed, Hudson itself makes clear that procedural requirements “'must’” seek as their “'objective’” to “'prevenftj compulsory subsidization of ideological activity by employees who object thereto without restricting the Union’s ability to require every employee to contribute to the cost of collective-bargaining activities.'" 475 U. S., at 302 (quoting Abood, supra, at 237) (emphasis added). The mandatory, but nonbinding, arbitration requirement at issue here satisfies these objectives, for it amounts to a reasonable elaboration of Hudson’s own mandate: that the Union provide “a reasonably prompt opportunity to challenge the amount of the fee before an impartial decisionmaker.” 475 U. S., at 310.

First, consider the matter from the Union’s perspective. The “arbitration first” requirement seems reasonable because it lowers the costs of resolving agency fee disputes and makes their resolution manageable. As this case illustrates, different groups of nonmember dissenters with different motivations for objecting may proceed in different forums. Without the “arbitration first” rule, they might do so simultaneously. Judge and arbitrator, perhaps subject to different discovery requests, obtaining somewhat different information, hearing different arguments, operating under different rules of procedure and evidence, and exercising different judgments (each without knowledge of the other), could well determine differently costs and complex expenditure relationships, thereby reaching different, even conflicting, conclusions. Amicus National Education Association says that this “would be the most expensive and burdensome system imaginable.” Brief for National Education Association as Amicus Curiae 14. Amicus AFL-CIO adds that the “costs of defending such litigation” (which may involve no more than $50 or so for any individual dissenter, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 10) “can easily consume the union’s agency fee receipts.” Brief for AFL-CIO as Amicus Curiae 14; n. 5. The Court itself recognizes as “[g]enuine” the Union’s “concern” about defending “its fee calculation simultaneously in judicial and arbitral fora.” Ante, at 878, 879.

Second, consider the matter from the perspective of the dissenting employee. The Court’s decision, rejecting the Union’s rule, may help to protect the ideological interests of a few of those employees, but only a few, and then in a way that does not offset the corresponding harm caused the Union. That is because “arbitration first” does not mean serious delay, for the arbitration must begin promptly and proceed expeditiously. See Hudson, supra, at 807. Moreover, nonbinding arbitration may resolve the dispute to the satisfaction of some dissenting employees, perhaps those whose objections rest less upon ideology and more upon a desire to minimize the fee they must pay. See Gilpin v. AFSCME, 875 F. 2d 1310, 1313 (CA7-1989) (noting that many objectors are “free riders” seeking representation at the lowest cost possible); Weaver v. University of Cincinnati, 970 F. 2d 1523, 1530 (CA6 1992) (same); Kidwell v. Transportation Comm. Int'l Union, 946 F 2d 283, 304-306 (CA4 1991) (same).

Nor will trying arbitration first prejudice the cause of the remaining unsatisfied objectors. The nonbinding arbitration process may deprive objectors of their money for a brief additional time, but the disputed fees must remain unspent in escrow during the arbitration proceedings. Hudson, supra, at 305, 310. Nonbinding arbitration also leaves the objectors free to press their claims in a later court action— if the arbitration’s result leaves them dissatisfied. And, as the Union conceded at oral argument, the judge in that later action, though informed by the arbitrator’s decision, would not accord it any special legal weight. Tr. of Oral Arg. 16, 20-21; see also Hudson, supra, at 308, n. 21 (“arbitrator’s decision would not receive preclusive effect in any subsequent § 1983 action”). Cf. Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U. S. 134, 140 (1944) (administrative agency, through its interpretations, may have the “power to persuade, if lacking power to control”). In other words, the objecting dissenter, though briefly delayed, could proceed in court and on a clean slate. See Hensler, Court-Ordered Arbitration: An Alternative View, U. Chi. Legal Forum 399, 401 (1990) (describing differences between mandatory n,on-binding arbitration over agency fee calculations, and traditional mandatory binding arbitration).

From the courts’ perspective too, nonbinding arbitration can prove helpful. Insofar as it settles matters to the parties’ satisfaction, it avoids unnecessary, perhaps time-consuming, judicial investigation of highly complex union accounts and expense allocations. Cf. Allen, 373 U. S., at 122 (describing difficulties surrounding “judicially administered relief” for agency fee objectors, as compared with “internal union remedy”); Abood, 431 U. S., at 240 (same).

The upshot is that the “arbitration first” rule “prevent[s] compulsory subsidization of ideological activity” without unduly “restricting the Union’s ability” to collect a legitimate agency fee. Consequently, neither the First Amendment, nor any statute, as interpreted by this Court, prohibits the Union’s insistence upon that rule.

I fear that the majority is led to a different conclusion through use of analogies that, in my view, do not govern the circumstances before us. First, the Court analogizes the arbitration at issue here to binding arbitration often found in contracts, including labor contracts, where arbitration is legally anchored in the consent of the parties. Ante, at 876. But “consent” is not relevant to the legal justification for the “arbitration first” rule before us. Rather, that rule finds its legal anchor in the Union’s legal authority (indeed, obligation) under Hudson to impose internal procedures that permit collection of agency fees, without undue infringement of objectors’ constitutional rights. I have explained above why the rule at issue here satisfies Hudson’s requirements. If one needs an analogy, I would find it, not in consensual arbitration, but in court rules that require parties to try nonbinding arbitration before they pursue a case in court. See, e. g., 28 U. S. C. §§ 651-658 (authorizing district courts to refer certain types of civil actions to arbitration); Alternative Dispute Resolution, Local Rules 2-3, 4-2 (ND Cal. 1998); see also B. Meierhoefer, Federal Judicial Center, Court-Annexed Arbitration in Ten District Courts (1990).

Second, the Court describes the Union’s proposed “arbitration first” rule as an “extension of the discretionary exhaustion-of-remedies doctrine.” Ante, at 875. But whether that particular doctrine offers legal justification in this ease is beside the point. The “arbitration first” rule amounts to an elaboration of the obligations set forth in Hudson. Those obligations rested upon the substantive law that permits collection of agency fees interpreted in light of the competing demands of the First Amendment. Hudson decided that this law required the courts to craft a mandatory, nonbinding mechanism for speedy dispute resolution. Exhaustion principles did not prevent the Court from doing so. Why then should those principles prevent the Court from elaborating upon Hudson’s requirements, by permitting a union to impose a reasonable “arbitration first” rule of the kind before us?

I note one additional matter. The Court’s opinion refers to the “pilots . . . proceeding] at once in federal court.” Ante, at 869. The Court does not deeide, however, whether a federal court can await the conclusion of an expeditious arbitration before it proceeds, for example, with discovery. Ante, at 879, n. 6. Should it await arbitration’s conclusion, the court would be able to take advantage of any settlement or narrowing of issues that the nonmandatory arbitration proceeding produced. Doing so would alleviate many of the concerns that I have expressed in this opinion. See supra, at 882-884.

Even so, the question before us is whether the Union can insist upon prior recourse to that form of arbitration. For the reasons stated, I believe such a requirement is consistent with, and a reasonable extension of, this Court’s decision in Hudson.

I therefore dissent.

       Compare Lancaster v. Air Line Pilots Assn. Int’l, 76 P. 3d 1509, 1522 (CA10 1996) (exhaustion of arbitral remedy required), with Knight v. Kenai Peninsula Borough School Dist., 131 F. 3d 807, 816 (CA9 1997) (exhaustion not required), and Bromley v. Michigan Ed. Assn.-NEA, 82 F. 3d 686, 694 (CA6 1996) (same).

       The RLA, §2, Eleventh, as added by 64 Stat. 1238, 45 U. S. C. §152, Eleventh, provides in pertinent part:
      "Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, or of any other statute or law of the United States, or Territory thereof, or of any State, any carrier or carriers as defined in* this chapter and a labor organization or labor organizations duly designated and authorized to represent employees in accordance with the requirements of this chapter shall be permitted—
      “(a) to make agreements, requiring, as a condition of continued employment, that within sixty days following the beginning of such employment, or the effective date of such agreements, whichever is the later, all employees shall become members of the labor organization representing their craft or class: Provided, That no such agreement shall require such condition of employment with respect to employees to whom membership is not available upon the same terms and conditions as are generally applicable to any other member or with respect to employees to whom membership was denied or terminated for any reason other than the failure of the employee to tender the periodic dues, initiation fees, and assessments (not including fines and penalties) uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership.”

       See Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Assn., 500 U. S. 507, 516 (1991) (“[T]he RLA cases necessarily provide some guidance regarding what the First Amendment will countenance in the realm of union support of political activities through mandatory assessments.”); id., at 555 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part) (“good reason to treat” statutory agency-fee cases as reflecting First Amendment principles articulated in Abood). But cf. Price v. International Union, UAW, 927 F. 2d 88, 92 (CA2 1991) (Hudson’s “heightened procedural safeguards” do not apply to agency-fee cases involving private employers governed by the NLRA).

        Amiens National Education Association (NEA) argues that the question before us is one not of exhaustion but of ripeness. Illegality depends on the spending of compelled agency fees for ideological purposes, NEA maintains, not simply the initial collection of those fees; hence, an objector has no basis for filing suit until the arbitrator has ruled and the disputed amounts are released from escrow. See Brief for National Education Association as Amicus Curiae 18-20. Petitioner, in its reply brief, endorses NEA’s argument. See Reply Brief 16-17. The contention, however, is inconsistent with Teachers v. Hudson, 475 U. S. 292 (1986). There, we rejected the union's position that "because a 100% escrow completely avoids the risk that dissenters' contributions could be used improperly, it eliminates any valid constitutional objection to the procedure and thereby provides an adequate remedy.” Id., at 809. We held that even if the entire agency fee remained in escrow throughout arbitration, objectors (who are deprived of the use of what may be their property pending the outcome of the dispute) had an independent, enforceable interest in the prompt and proper resolution of their objections.

       Inevitably limiting the utility of exhaustion in relieving the courts of the task of adjudicating agency-fee disputes is the nonbinding character of Hudson arbitration, a characteristic on which the dissent centrally relies. See post, at 880, 881, 882, 883-885.

       Our recognition of the right of objectors to proceed directly to court does not detract from district courts’ discretion to defer discovery or other proceedings pending the prompt conclusion of arbitration. See, e. g., Landis v. North American Co., 299 U. S. 248, 254-255 (1936) (“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants. How this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.”).


text:
    March 3, 1998
    No. A-657.
    Francis, Warden v. Franklin et al., Next Friends for Berry.
   Application to vacate stay of execution of sentence of death entered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on February 27, 1998, presented to Justice Stevens, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    March 4, 1998
    No. 97-7427.
    Altschul v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari dismissed under this Court's 46.


text:
    March 6, 1998
    No. 97-8069 (A-644).
    Arnold v. Moore, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections, et al.
   Sup. Ct. S. C. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to The Chief Justice, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    March 9, 1998
    No. 97-669.
    City of Belleville v. Doe et al., by Their Parents and Next Friends, Doe et ux.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., ante, p. 75.


text:
    No. M-46.
    Benoit v. Medical Center of Delaware, Inc., Christiana Hospital; and Brooks v. McKinney et al.
    No. M-47.
   Motions to direct the Clerk to file petitions for writs of certiorari out of time denied.


text:
    No. M-48.
    Betts v. Container Corporation of America et al.
   Motion to direct the Clerk to file petition for writ of certiorari out of time and for other relief denied.


text:
    No. 96-1654.
    No. 96-8837.
    Muscarello v. United States. Cleveland et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir.; and

C. A. 1st Cir. [Certiorari granted, 522 U. S. 1023.] Motion of petitioners for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 96-1866.
    Gebser et al. v. Lago Vista Independent School District.
   C. A. 5th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 522 U. S. 1011.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 97-156.
    Bragdon v. Abbott et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. [Certiorari granted, 522 U. S. 991.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 97-454.
    United States v. Bestfoods et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. [Certiorari granted sub nom. United States v. CPC International, Inc., 522 U. S. 1024.] Motion of respondents Aerojet-General Corp. et al. for divided argument denied. The Court will hear argument from respondent Bestfoods.


text:
    No. 97-6789.
    Moomchi v. New Mexico Corrections Department et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed informa pau-peris [522 U. S. 1074] denied.


text:
    No. 97-7488.
    Caddy v. Good Samaritan Hospital et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed informa pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until March 30, 1998, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    No. 97-7885.
    In re Azuz.
   Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 97-7786.
    In re Monge Viveros.
   Petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 97-7384.
    No. 97-7434.
    No. 97-7767.
    In re Darden; In re Pearson; and In re Van Hoorelbeke.
   Petitions for writs of mandamus and/or prohibition denied.


text:
    No. 97-1147.
    Minnesota v. Carter; and Minnesota v. Johns.
   Sup. Ct. Minn. Certiorari granted. Reported below: 569 N. W. 2d 169 (first judgment) and 180 (second judgment).


text:
    No. 97-1130.
    Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.


text:
    No. 96-1872.
    Scott-Harris v. City of Fall River.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-330.
    BVP Management Associates v. Fredette.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-746.
    General Motors Corp. v. Grear et al.; and In re General Motors Corp.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-834.
    Pollin et al. v. Paralyzed Veterans of America et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-897.
    United Steelworkers of America; AFL-CIO-CLC, et al. v. Bandag, Inc.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-910.
    Kiker et vir v. Miller, Individually and as Circuit Judge of the Circuit Court of Russell County.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-917.
    Litton Industrial Automation Systems, Inc. v. Nationwide Power Corp. et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-924.
    Hibbs et al. v. City of San Buenaventura.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-984.
    Remington Investments, Inc. v. Hamedani.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1023.
    Champion International Corp. v. Smith, Executrix for the Estate of Smith.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1055.
    Finova Capital Corp., Successor in Interest to Bell Atlantic Tricon Leasing Corp. v. Lifecare X-Ray, Inc., et al.
   Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1091.
    Summit v. S-B Power Tool (Skil Corp.).
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1098.
    Dancy v. Hyster Co.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1103.
    Elewski v. City of Syracuse et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1104.
    Farmer v. University and Community College System of Nevada.
   Sup. Ct. Nev. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1105.
    Derzack et vir v. Allegheny County Children and Youth Services.
   Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1109.
    Land & Lakes Co. et al. v. Henderson, Commissioner, Illinois Department of Environment, et al.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1115.
    No. 97-1160.
    Metropolitan Dade County et al. v. Engineering Contractors Association of South Florida, Inc., et al.; and Allied Minority Contractors Assn., Inc. v. Engineering Contractors Association of South Florida, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 122 F. 3d 895.


text:
    No. 97-1125.
    Surgidev Corp. v. Niehoff.
   Sup. Ct. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1132.
    Taylor, Executor of the Estate of Taylor, Deceased, et al. v. Jaquez et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1138.
    Comenout et al. v. Washington Department of Community Development et al.
   Ct. App. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1140.
    Wingfield v. Massie, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1150.
    Trahan v. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1151.
    Gendreau v. Gendreau.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1158.
    Summers v. Singletary, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1180.
    Oldham, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Oldham, Deceased v. Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd.
   C. A D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1182.
    Ellis v. Hill et al.
   C. A 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1186.
    Mizell v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1187.
    Dobrovolny et al. v. Moore, Secretary of State of Nebraska.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1193.
    Remington Investments, Inc. v. Xep Nguyen et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1197.
    Nesbitt v. West Virginia.
   Cir. Ct. Upshur County, W. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1198.
    Moore v. City of Westminster et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1221.
    Ring v. Federal National Mortgage Association et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1237.
    Local Union 7107, United Mine Workers of America, District 28 v. Clinchfield Coal Co.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1266.
    Patent Office Professional Assn. v. Federal Labor Relations Authority.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1268.
    Schouman v. Securities and Exchange Commission et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1270.
    Bird v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1277.
    Haselow v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1281.
    Moore v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1304.
    Hughes v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1305.
    Gollapudi v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1306.
    Wright v. Mass Transit Administration.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-6033.
    Washington v. Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-6353.
    Newby v. Miller, Governor of Georgia, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-6410.
    Jackson v. Day, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-6691.
    One Juvenile Male v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari.denied.


text:
    No. 97-6835.
    Barr v. Jones, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-6836.
    Wee et ux. v. Andrews et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7038.
    Stearns et al. v. Gregoire, Attorney General of Washington, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7058.
    Taylor v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7273.
    Lee v. Arizona (two judgments).
   Sup. Ct. Ariz. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7278.
    Kevin B. v. New Hampshire.
   Sup. Ct. N. H. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7283.
    Brown v. Washington.
   Sup. Ct. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7303.
    Simpson v. Phillips, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7304.
    Swafford v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7332.
    Muhammad, aka Garrett v. Angelone, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7333.
    Lewis v. Virginia.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7337.
    McPherson v. Vandlen et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7338.
    Jackson v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist, Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7339.
    Lawrence v. Evans, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7340.
    Teel v. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7342.
    Garcia Perez v. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7347.
    Stenson v. Washington.
   Sup. Ct. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7348.
    Stephen v. Romani.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7351.
    Smith v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7353.
    Blevins v. Watson, District Judge, Cotton County, Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7354.
    Cullen v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7358.
    Valdez et ux. v. Zions Securities Corp. et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7360.
    Bentley v. City of New York et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7362.
    Kendrick v. Young, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7364.
    Mostek v. Ford Motor Co. et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7366.
    James v. Lamar.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7369.
    McCoy v. Norris, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7379.
    Hollowell v. Johnson, Sheriff, Pulaski County, Arkansas, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7382.
    Guardado v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7389.
    Omegbu v. Mequon-Thiensville School District et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7390.
    Seibert v. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada.
   Sup. Ct. Nev. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7391.
    Cohen v. Morton, Administrator, New Jersey State Prison, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7393.
    Jacks et al. v. Crabtree, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7394.
    Sharp v. Makowski, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7398.
    Alexander v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Cuyahoga County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7399.
    White v. Sheesley.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7402.
    Zankich v. Phoenix Cardiologists et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7405.
    Borne v. Louisiana.
   Ct. App. La., 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7410.
    Thomas v. Georgia.
   Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7411.
    Woods v. Alex-Bell Oxford Limited Partnership et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7426.
    White v. Tate, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7429.
    Couch v. Federal Paper Board Co., Inc.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7430.
    Brewer v. District Court of Texas, Dallas County, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7432.
    Sands v. Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7435.
    Blanchard v. Tulane University Medical Center.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7451.
    Sweet v. Bowersox, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7482.
    McNeil v. Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7483.
    Miranda v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7499.
    Henry v. Stinson, Superintendent, Great Meadow Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7510.
    Ferguson v. Jones, Warden.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7532.
    Waddy v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Franklin County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7544.
    Parks v. Pennsylvania.
   Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7589.
    Sheline v. Tennessee.
   Sup. Ct. Term. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7614.
    Espinoza v. Texas.
   Ct. App. Tex., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7635.
    Kosyla v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7657.
    Hill v. United States.
   C. A. Armed Forces. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7658.
    Martinez v. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7670.
    Goff v. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7682.
    Coleman v. Miller, Governor of Georgia, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7709.
    Reevis v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7720.
    Kibler v. United States.
   C. A. Armed Forces. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7722.
    Tarkowski v. Illinois Department of Public Aid.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7730.
    Lanier v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7733.
    S. A. v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7735.
    Restrepo-Valencia v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7744.
    No. 97-7820.
    Alphonse v. United States; and Hughey v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 129 P. 3d 117.


text:
    No. 97-7745.
    Lockett v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7756.
    Fitzgerald v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7757.
    Gannon v. Copeland, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7758.
    Gustus v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7759.
    Baird v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7771.
    Smith v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7775.
    Spindle v. Tillery.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7779.
    Brown v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7781.
    Calle v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7783.
    Iriarte-Ortega v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7787.
    Waldrip v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7788.
    Wacaster v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7789.
    Brown v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7794.
    Woods v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7795.
    Urena-Collado v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7796.
    Warren v. Maryland.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7799.
    Quinn v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7800.
    Rogers v. McCaughtry, Warden.
   Ct. App. Wis. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7803.
    Fields v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7807.
    Davidson v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7812.
    Hill v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7813.
    Joshua v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7819.
    Brown v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7826.
    Alkazoff v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7828.
    Allen J. v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7846.
    Rhoden v. Wyatt et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7852.
    Eggersdorf v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7853.
    Garrett v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7855.
    Hughes v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7872.
    Garces v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9333.
    No. 97-756.
    No. 97-909.
    No. 97-1083.
    No. 97-6678.
    No. 97-6729.
    No. 97-6736.
    No. 97-6880.
    No. 97-6975.
    Citizen v. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Burge et al. v. Behr et ux., Maddox v. Capitol Bankers Life Insurance Co. et al., In re Cole, Harris v. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Hughes v. Department of Housing and Urban Development et al., Erdman v. Stegall, Warden, Beaven v. McBride, Superintendent, Westville Correctional Facility, Gretzler v. Stewart, Director, Arizona Department of Correction,
   522 U. S. 842;

522 U. S. 1049;

522 U. S. 1091;

522 U. S. 1088;

522 U. S. 1059;

522 U. S. 1060;

522 U. S. 1079;

522 U. S. 1062; and

522 U. S. 1081. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    March 11, 1998
    No. 97-8156 (A-665).
    Hogue v. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Scalia, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.

Justice Stevens and Justice Ginsburg would grant the application for stay of execution.


text:
    March 17, 1998
    No. 97-7022.
    Griffin-El v. Bowersox, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center,
   522 U. S. 1082. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Thomas, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    March 18, 1998
    No. A-695.
    Buchanan v. Gilmore, Governor of Virginia, et al.


text:
    March 20, 1998
    No. 97-679.
    American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Central Office Telephone, Inc.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 522 U. S. 1024.] Motion of respondent to permit Ad Hoe Telecommunications Users Committee et al. to present argument as amici curiae denied.

Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.


text:
    No. 97-7646.
    Jones v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    March 22, 1998
    No. 97-8377 (A-704).
    Stano v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Kennedy, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    March 23, 1998
    No. 96-1925.
    Caterpillar Inc. v. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. [Certiorari granted, 521 U. S. 1152. ] Writ of certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.1.


text:
    No. 96-7726.
    Lewis v. United States.
   C. A 5th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Lewis v. United States, ante, p. 155.


text:
    No. A-691.
    Griffin-El v. Bowersox, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center.
   Application for certificate of.probable cause or, in the alternative, a certificate of appealability and stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Thomas, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. D-1880.
    In re Disbarment of Johnson.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 522 U. S. 1012.]


text:
    No. D-1883.
    In re Disbarment of Fierer.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 522 U. S. 1013.]


text:
    No. D-1888.
    In re Disbarment of Moore.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 522 U. S. 1026.]


text:
    No. D-1892.
    In re Disbarment of Pairo.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 522 U. S. 1040.]


text:
    No. D-1894.
    In re Disbarment of Christie.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 522 U. S. 1040.]


text:
    No. D-1896.
    In re Disbarment of Barnthouse.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 522 U. S. 1040.]


text:
    No. D-1897.
    In re Disbarment of Hantman.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 522 U. S. 1041.]


text:
    No. D-1898.
    In re Disbarment of Poreda.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 522 U. S. 1041.]


text:
    No. D-1899.
    In re Disbarment of Gammons.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 522 U. S. 1041.]


text:
    No. D-1901.
    In re Disbarment of Azorsky.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 522 U. S. 1041.]


text:
    No. D-1902.
    In re Disbarment of Gardner.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 522 U. S. 1041.]


text:
    No. D-1904.
    In re Disbarment of Quint.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 522 U. S. 1041.]


text:
    No. D-1907.
    In re Disbarment of Rome.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 522 U. S. 1073.]


text:
    No. D-1919.
    In re Disbarment of White.
   Charles Henry-White, Sr., of New Orleans, La., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1920.
    In re Disbarment of Schaner.
   Brian Keith Schaner, of Cleveland Heights, Ohio, is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1921.
    In re Disbarment of Brown.
   Robert Kenneth Brown, of Fresno, Cal., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1922.
    In re Disbarment of Goldflam.
   Stanley Z. Goldflam, of Los Angeles, Cal., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1923.
    In re Disbarment of McGowen.
   Richard Miles McGowen, of Los Altos, Cal., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not'be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1924.
    In re Disbarment of Montague.
   James Paul Montague, of San Diego, Cal., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1925.
    In re Disbarment of Hindin.
   Arthur Theodore Hindin, of Beverly Hills, Cal., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. M-49.
    No. M-50.
    Brown v. General Telephone Company of California; and Tabbytite v. Municipality of Anchorage et al.
   Motions to direct the Clerk to file petitions for writs of certiorari out of time under this Court’s Rule 14.5 denied.


text:
    No. M-51.
    No. M-53.
    No. M-54.
    Rich v. Bruce; Miller v. United States; and Winsett v. Washington, Warden.
   Motions to direct the Clerk to file petitions for writs of certiorari out of time denied.


text:
    No. M-52.
    Sanchez-Velasco v. Florida.
   Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis without an affidavit of indigency executed by petitioner denied.


text:
    No. 97-634.
    Pennsylvania Department of Corrections et al. v. Yeskey.
   C. A. 3d Cir. [Certiorari granted, 522 U. S. 1086.] Motion of Republican Caucus of Pennsylvania House of Representatives for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 97-689.
    Geissal, Beneficiary and Representative of the Estate of Geissal, Deceased v. Moore Medical Corp. et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 522 U. S. 1086.] Motion of American Association of Retired Persons for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 97-873.
    United States v. Balsys.
   C. A. 2d Cir. [Certiorari granted, 522 U. S. 1072.] Motion of World Jewish Congress and Holocaust Survivors et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted.


text:
    No. 97-7385.
    No. 97-7386.
    No. 97-7387.
    No. 97-7388.
    In re Cooper; In re Cooper; In re Cooper; and In re Cooper.
   Motions of petitioner for leave to proceed informa pauperis denied. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. Petitioner is allowed until April 13,1998, within which to pay the docketing fees required by Rule 38(a) and to submit petitions in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    No. 97-7821.
    Hutchins v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until April 13, 1998, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 38.1 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    No. 97-7947.
    No. 97-8005.
    No. 97-8009.
    No. 97-8057.
    In re Rondeau; In re Kukes; In re Castaneda; and In re Barrett.
   Petitions for writs of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 97-8376 (A-702).
    In re Griffin-El.
   Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Thomas, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 97-8388 (A-705).
    In re Jones.
   Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Kennedy, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 97-969.
    No. 97-7512.
    No. 97-7542.
    In re Sai; In re Alston; and In re Patzlaff.
   Petitions for wits of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 97-7731.
    In re Johnson.
   Petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition denied.


text:
    No. 97-8401 (A-708).
    In re Jones.
   Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Thomas, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition denied.


text:
    No. 97-7572.
    In re Springer.
   Petition for writ of prohibition denied.


text:
    No. 97-1056.
    Marquez v. Screen Actors Guild, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 96-1570.
    NYNEX Corp. et al. v. Discon, Inc.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motions of Association of the Bar of the City of New York and Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 97-7597.
    Knowles v. Iowa.
   Sup. Gt. Iowa. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 97-7213.
    Mosley v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Certiorari granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.


text:
    No. 97-872.
    Roberson v. United States.
   G. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-878.
    City of Birmingham v. Morro.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-952.
    Pace Industries, Inc., dba Precision Industries, Inc., et al. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-977.
    Diamond Walnut Growers, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-982.
    Garner et ux. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-990.
    Riley v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-993.
    Florida v. Smith.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-999.
    Softel, Inc. v. Dragon Medical & Scientific Communications, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1005.
    Doyle et vir v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1006.
    Church of Scientology International et al. v. Cult Awareness Network.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1012.
    Coupe v. Federal Express Corp.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1018.
    Mitchell et vir v. Collagen Corp.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1032.
    Meehan Seaway Service Co. et al. v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, Department of Labor, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1035.
    440 Co. v. Borough of Fort Lee, New Jersey, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1039.
    Merritt et ux. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1041.
    Smith et vir v. Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission et al.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1128.
    America West Airlines, Inc. v. National Mediation Board et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1149.
    National Shipping Company of Saudi Arabia v. Moran Trade Corporation of Delaware et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1171.
    Oddino v. Oddino et al.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1173.
    Bates et al. v. Jones, Secretary of State of California, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1175.
    Entertainment Research Group, Inc. v. Genesis Creative Group, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1183.
    Dove Valley Business Park Associates, Ltd., et al. v. Board of County Commissioners of Arapahoe County, Colorado, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Colo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1188.
    Elliott et al. v. United Center, a Joint Venture fka Metro-Chicago Sports Stadium Joint Venture.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1189.
    Smania v. Florida Bar.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1190.
    Yoshisato v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1196.
    Burgess v. Logan et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1200.
    Wherry v. Iowa Supreme Court Board of Professional Ethics and Conduct.
   Sup. Ct. Iowa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1207.
    Millet v. Woodward et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1208.
    Makarewicz et al. v. American Express Financial Advisors, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 11th. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1211.
    Williams v. Yellow Freight Systems, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1212.
    Webster v. Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1213.
    Jenkins v. Heintz et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1214.
    Christian v. St. Anthony’s Medical Center.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1219.
    Torbeck et al. v. Bozzo et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1223.
    Township of North Bergen v. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1226.
    Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Repeat-O-Type Stencil Manufacturing Corp., Inc., et al.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1231.
    Treece v. Lyons Township High School et al.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1232.
    McDaniel v. Appraisal Institute.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1233.
    Paul et al. v. Levy et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1238.
    Bourgeois v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1240.
    Berner v. Delahanty, Judge, Superior Court of Maine.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1251.
    Agan v. Vaughn, Warden.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1255.
    Smith v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1257.
    Polyak v. Hoadley et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1258.
    Simeon et al. v. Hardin, District Attorney for the Fourteenth Judicial District.
   Ct. App. N. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1260.
    Clements v. Babcock & Wilcox Co. et al.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1261.
    Northen v. City of Chicago et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1273.
    Millet v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1276.
    Jones v. Federal Communications Commission.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1279.
    Brown v. Ives et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1290.
    Velez v. Stalder, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1293.
    Taha v. Portland Taxi Cab Co. et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1309.
    Gilchrist v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1313.
    Davis v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1314.
    Daley et al. v. Commissioner, Department of Marine Resources of Maine.
   Sup. Jud. Ct. Me. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1326.
    O’Steen v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1330.
    King v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1334.
    Pickrel et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1335.
    Scott v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1339.
    Buchbinder v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1352.

    Chaudhuri v. Tennessee et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1373.
    Lloyd v. Levine, Assistant United States Attorney, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-1383.
    Roe v. Butterworth, Attorney General of Florida.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-5089.
    Barnes v. North Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. N. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-5269.
    Sanin v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-5388.
    Marinelli v. Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-5829.
    Green et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-6126.
    Helm v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-6207.
    Bellamy v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-6568.
    Segien v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-6797.
    Rudd v. Forrest et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-6863.
    Romero v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-6886.
    Juvenile A v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7065.
    Horne v. Crozier et al.
   Sup. Ct. S. D. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7117.
    Scott v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7193.
    Fraley v. Department of Justice et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7448.
    Rochon v. Cain, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7452.
    Craig v. United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7458.
    Roberts v. District Court of Nevada, Clark County, et al. (two judgments).
   Sup. Ct. Nev. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7459.
    Riddle v. City of Palmdale, California, et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7467.
    Coleman v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7474.
    Novosad v. New Mexico Board of Pharmacy et al.
   Sup. Ct. N. M. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7475.
    Lambright v. United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7476.
    Johnson v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7480.
    Pedroso v. Cain, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7484.
    Milian v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7485.
    Brown v. Florida.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7487.
    Blackshaw v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Cuyahoga County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7489.
    Karagianes v. Karagianes et al.
   Sup. Ct. Haw. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7493.
    Hall v. Shelby County Government et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7500.
    Harmon v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7504.
    Howard v. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7505.
    Davis v. DuBois, Commissioner, Massachusetts Department of Correction, et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7506.
    Gomez v. Texas.
   Ct. Grim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7513.
    Decker v. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7515.
    Teffeteller v. Grimes, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Florida, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7520.
    Al-Amin v. Seiter, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7522.
    Banks v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7526.
    Williams v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7531.
    Owen-Williams v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7533.
    Anzoategui et al. v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7535.
    Bandrup v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7536.
    Cartwright v. Michigan.
   Recorder's Court, City of Detroit, Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7537.
    Cunningham v. Kitzhaber, Governor of Oregon.
   Sup. Ct. Ore. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7543.
    Patzlaff v. E. Steeves Smith, P. C.
   Sup. Ct. S. D. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7547.
    Ramos v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7552.
    West v. Farber.
   Ct. Civ. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7553.
    Ventimiglia v. Watter et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7560.
    Spreitz v. Arizona.
   Sup. Ct. Ariz. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7565.
    Oimen v. McCaughtry, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 7th, Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7568.
    Shaw v. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7569.
    Preston v. Bradley et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7570.
    Brown v. Indiana.
   Ct. App. Ind. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7576.
    Kimbrough v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7577.
    Brodeur v. City of New York et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7582.
    Villarreal v. Florida Department of Corrections et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7583.
    Whitaker v. Whitaker et al.
   Ct. App. Term. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7584.
    Jackson v. Lewis et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7585.
    Boufford v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7587.
    Wilkinson v. Sumner, Magistrate Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7591.
    Smalley v. Federal Bureau of Prisons et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7595.
    Benigni v. Cowles Media Co. et al.
   Ct. App. Minn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7601.
    Henry v. Arizona.
   Sup. Ct. Ariz. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7604.
    Gooden v. Arkansas.
   Sup. Ct. Ark. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7605.
    Green v. Roe, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7608.
    Flanagan et ux. v. Wells Fargo Bank et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7609.
    Gray v. White, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7613.
    English v. Page, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7616.
    MacKenzie v. Owens et al.
   Sup. Ct. OHa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7617.
    Jenkins v. Georgia.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7626.
    Washington v. Diesslin, Western Regional Director, Colorado Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7629.
    Agadaga v. Immigration and Naturalization Service.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7641.
    Cothren v. Alabama.
   Sup. Ct. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7648.
    King v. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7650.
    Spann v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7652.
    Schwarz v. Woodruff, Inc.
   Sup. Ct. Utah. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7659.
    Gasero v. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7664.
    Palmer v. Mazurkiewicz, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Rockview, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7692.
    Henry v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7695.
    Altimus v. Department of Defense et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7704.
    Wallace v. Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7707.
    Young v. Singletary, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7708.
    Stowe v. Dalton, Secretary of the Navy.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7710.
    Christy v. Federal Bureau of Investigation.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7736.
    Collins v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7748.
    Griffin v. Charlotte Memorial Hospital and Medical Center et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7770.
    Patterson v. Merit Systems Protection Board.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7773.
    Logan v. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7792.
    Brewer v. Southern Pilot Insurance Co., Inc.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7798.
    Snider v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7809.
    Hartsell et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7818.
    Scherzer v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7823.
    Manning v. United States et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7824.
    Anderson v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7827.
    Baker v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7830.
    Minniecheske v. Wisconsin.
   Ct. App. Wis. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7832.
    Jones v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7834.
    Norman T. v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7838.
    Phillips v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7839.
    Story v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7845.
    Porter v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7848.
    Heaton v. United States.
   C. A. Armed Forces. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7851.
    Gray v. North Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. N. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7854.
    Hogan v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7858.
    Craig v. Singletary, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7860.
    Weaver v. School Board of Leon County, Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7870.
    Hurst v. North Carolina.
   Ct. App. N. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7871.
    Daly v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7879.
    Westmoreland v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7883.
    DeWig v. Stewart, Director, Arizona Department of Correction, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7886.
    Nimrod v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7897.
    Taylor v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7899.
    Antonio Lujan v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7900.
    Moore v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7903.
    Hochschild v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7905.
    Francis v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7906.
    Gonzalez v. DeTella, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7909.
    Donovan v. Strack, Superintendent, Fishkill Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7910.
    Gallardo v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7911.
    Escobar-Venzor v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7914.
    Garcia-Rosell v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7917.
    Herrera v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7918.
    Ortega Ramirez v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7919.
    Richmond v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7922.
    Larry v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7923.
    McDermott v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7925.
    Johnson v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7927.
    Mills v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7929.
    Anderson v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7932.
    Bahe v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7933.
    Black v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7934.
    Torres-Montalvo et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7938.
    Pappadopoulos v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7939.
    Reyna v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7941.
    No. 97-7942.
    Calderon v. United States; and Caderno v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 127 F. 3d 1314.


text:
    No. 97-7943.
    Coleman v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7944.
    Manson v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7949.
    Soumphonphankdy v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7950.
    Smith v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7951.
    Newman v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7952.
    Rubio-Barrero v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7954.
    Williams v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7955.
    Tinder v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7957.
    McIntosh v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7963.
    Anchico-Mosquera v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7967.
    Bruce v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7971.
    Gross v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7972.
    Desdune v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7974.
    Moore v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7975.
    Diaz Sanchez v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7980.
    Gonzales, aka Gonzalez-Jimenez v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7981.
    Hicks v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7982.
    Davis v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7984.
    Gonzalez-Diaz v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7987.
    Everette v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7992.
    Ahrens v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7994.
    Rochelle v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-7995.
    Sciarrotta v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-8001.
    Knibbs, aka Bougle v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-8003.
    Fitzen v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-8004.
    Mora-Medrano v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-8008.
    Carrillo v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-8010.
    Aquilar-Avellaveda v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-8012.
    Betemit v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-8018.
    Wacker v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-8021.
    Smith v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-8022.
    Berger v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-8024.
    Cain v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-8039.
    Gravens v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-8040.
    Hickman v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-8041.
    Gonzalez v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-8044.
    Gutierrez-Daniez v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-8045.
    Hernandez v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-8050.
    Moudy v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-8052.
    Butler v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-8053.
    Cerceo v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-8062.
    No. 97-8081.
    Smith v. United States; and Bynes v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 132 F. 3d 45.


text:
    No. 97-8064.
    McGee v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-8065.
    Walker v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-8066.
    Tompkins, aka Yates v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-8070.
    Hoyle et al. v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-8080.
    Anderson v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-8088.
    Dominguez v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-8089.
    Gerard v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-715.
    Guerra v. Carlo.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of Criminal Justice Legal Foundation for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.