source: Caselaw Access Project

author:
      Justice Kennedy
      Justice Thomas,

license: Public Domain

text:
    CITY OF WEST COVINA v. PERKINS et al.
    No. 97-1230.
    Argued November 3,1998
    Decided January 13, 1999

      David D. Lawrence argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Cindy S. Lee.

      Jeffrey S. Sutton, State Solicitor of Ohio, argued the cause for the State of Ohio et al. as amici curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief were Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General of Ohio, Elise W. Porter and Jeffrey B. Hartranft, Assistant Attorneys General, and the Attorneys General for their respective jurisdictions as follows: Bill Pryor of Alabama, Bruce M. Botelho of Alaska, Grant Woods of Arizona, Winston Bryant of Arkansas, M. Jane Brady of Delaware, Robert A. Butterworth of Florida, Gus F. Diaz of Guam, Margery S. Bronster of Hawaii, Jeffrey A. Modisett of Indiana, Thomas J. Miller of Iowa, Carla J. Stovall of Kansas, Richard P. Ieyoub of Louisiana, J. Joseph Curran, Jr., of Maryland, Frank J. Kelley of Michigan, Hubert H. Humphrey III of Minnesota, Joseph P. Mazurek of Montana, Don Stenberg of Nebraska, Frankie Sue Del Papa of Nevada, Peter Verniero of New Jersey, Dennis C. Vacco of New York, Michael F. Easley of North Carolina, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, W. A. Drew Edmondson of Oklahoma, Hardy Myers of Oregon, Charles M. Condon of South Carolina, Mark W. Barnett of South Dakota, Jan Graham of Utah, Mark L. Earley of Virginia, and Christine 0. Gregoire of Washington.

      Patrick S. Smith argued the cause and filed a brief for respondents.

      Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the United States by Solicitor General Waxman, Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben, and Irving L. Gornstem; for 62 named California Cities, Counties and Towns by Julia Hayward Biggs and Rufus C. Young, Jr.; and for the National League of Cities et al. by Richard Ruda and Clifford M. Sloan.

   Justice Kennedy

delivered the opinion of the Court.

We granted certiorari, 523 U. S. 1105 (1998), to consider in this case whether the Constitution requires a State or its local entities to give detailed and specific instructions or advice to owners who seek return of property lawfully seized but no longer needed for police investigation or criminal prosecution. Interpreting the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit imposed a series of specific notice requirements on the city responsible for the seizure. We conclude these requirements are not mandated by the Due Process Clause, and we reverse.

I

The case began when police officers of petitioner, the city of West Covina, California (City), acting in accordance with law and pursuant to a valid search warrant, seized personal property. The property belonged to the owner of the searched home, respondent Lawrence Perkins, and to his family. The suspect in the crime was neither Perkins nor anyone in his family, but one Marcus Marsh. Marsh had been a boarder in the Perkins’ home. After leaving their home, and unknown to them, he became the subject of a homicide investigation.

During the search of respondents’ home for evidence incriminating Marsh, the police seized a number of items, including photos of Marsh, an address book, a 12-gauge shotgun, a starter pistol, ammunition, and $2,629 in cash. 113 F. 3d 1004, 1006 (CA9 1997). At the conclusion of the search, the officers left respondents a form entitled “Search Warrant: Notice of Service,” which stated:

“TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
“1. THESE PREMISES HAVE BEEN SEARCHED BY PEACE OFFICERS OF THE (name of searching agency) West Covina Police DEPARTMENT PURSUANT TO A SEARCH WARRANT ISSUED ON (date) 5-20-93. BY THE HONORABLE (name of magistrate) Dan Oki. JUDGE OP THE SUPERIOR/MUNICIPAL COURT, Citrus JUDICIAL DISTRICT.
“2. THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED ON (date) 5-21-93. A LIST OP THE PROPERTY SEIZED PURSUANT TO THE SEARCH WARRANT IS ATTACHED.
“3. IF YOU WISH FURTHER INFORMATION, YOU MAY CONTACT:
(name of investigator) Pet. Ferrari or Pet Melnuk AT [telephone number].
“LT. SCHIMANSKI [telephone number].” App. 76-77 (italicized characters represent those portions of the original document which were handwritten on the form).

In accordance with the notice, the officers also left respondents an itemized list of the property seized. 113 F. 3d, at 1011-1012. The officers did not leave the search warrant number because the warrant was under seal to avoid compromising the ongoing investigation. Id., at 1007. In a public index maintained by the court clerk, however, the issuance of the warrant was recorded by the address of the home searched and the search warrant number. Ibid.

Not long after the search, Perkins called Ferrari, one of the detectives listed on the notice, and inquired about return of the seized property. No. CV 93-7084 SVW (CD Cal., July 8, 1996), App. to Pet. for Cert. E3. One of the detectives told Perkins he needed to obtain a court order authorizing the property’s return. Ibid.

About a month after the search, Perkins went to the Citrus Municipal Court to see Judge Oki, who had issued the warrant. He learned Judge Oki was on vacation. Ibid. He tried to have another judge release his property but was told the court had nothing under Perkins’ name. Ibid.

Rather than continuing to pursue a court order releasing the property by filing a written motion with the court, making other inquiries, or returning to the courthouse at some later date, ibid., respondents filed suit in United States District Court against the City and the officers who conducted the search. They alleged the officers had violated their Fourth Amendment rights by conducting a search without probable cause and exceeding the scope of the warrant. App. 7-9. They further alleged that the City had a policy of permitting unlawful searches. Id., at 10.

The District Court granted summary judgment for the City and its officers. App. to Pet. for Cert. Bl-Bll. The court, however, invited supplemental briefing on an issue respondents had not raised: whether available remedies for the return of seized property were adequate to satisfy due process. Id., at B7. The parties submitted briefs on the issue, but the court did not rule on it. Respondents appealed the District Court’s holding on their Fourth Amendment claims, but the Court of Appeals remanded the case to the District Court for resolution of the due process question. No. 94-56365 (CA9, Apr. 30, 1996), App. to Pet. for Cert. D1-D3.

The District Court held on remand that the remedies provided by California law for return of the seized property satisfied due process, and it granted summary judgment for the City. No. CV 93-7084 SVW, supra, App. to Pet. for Cert. E2. In particular, the court rejected respondents’ claim that the procedure for return of their property was unavailable to them because the City did not give them adequate notice of the remedy and the information needed to invoke it. Id., at E6.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the grant of summary judgment for the City. 113 F. 3d, at 1006. As an initial matter, the court noted that, under Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U. S. 67 (1972), respondents were entitled only to an adequate postdeprivation remedy, and not to a predeprivation hearing prior to the seizure. 113 F. 3d, at 1010. The Court of Appeals also agreed with the District Court that the post-deprivation remedies for return of property established by California statute and ease law satisfied the requirements of due process. Id., at 1011.

Nevertheless, the court held, by analogy to this Court’s decision in Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div. v. Craft, 436 U. S. 1 (1978), that the City was required to give respondents notice of the state procedures for return of seized property and the information necessary to invoke those procedures (including the search warrant number or a method for obtaining the number). 113 F. 3d, at 1012. While acknowledging that it was not the court’s place “to specify the exact phrasing of an adequate notice,” the court proceeded to explicate, in some detail, the content of the required notice:

“In eases where property is taken under California law . . . the notice should include the following: as on the present notice, the fact of the search, its date, and the searching agency; the date of the warrant, the issuing judge, and the court in which he or she serves; and the persons to be contacted for further information. In addition, the notice must inform the recipient of the procedure for contesting the seizure or retention of the property taken, along with any additional information required for initiating that procedure in the appropriate court. In circumstances such as those presented by this record, the notice must include the search warrant number or, if it is not available or the record is sealed, the means of identifying the court file. It also must explain the need for a written motion or request to the court stating why the property should be returned.” Id., at 1013.

This expansive requirement lacks support in our case law and mandates notice not now prescribed by the Federal Government or by any one of the 50 States.

At this stage, no one contests the right of the State to have seized the property in the first instance or its ultimate obligation to return it. So rules restricting the substantive power of the State to take property are not implicated by this case. What is at issue is the obligation of the State to provide fair procedures to ensure return of the property when the State no longer has a lawful right to retain it.

Respondents acknowledge, as they must, that the City notified them of the initial seizure and gave them an inventory of the property taken. Accordingly, we need not decide how detailed the notice of the seizure must be or when the notice must be given. They also raise no independent challenge to the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that California law provides adequate remedies for return of their property, including a motion under Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 1536 (West 1982) or a motion under § 1540. See 113 E 3d, at 1011. Rather, they contend the City deprived them of due process by failing to provide them notice of their remedies and the factual information necessary to invoke the remedies under California law. When the police seize property for a criminal investigation, however, due process does not require them to provide the owner with notice of state-law remedies.

A primary purpose of the notice required by the Due Process Clause is to ensure that the opportunity for a hearing is meaningful. See Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306, 314 (1950) (“Th[e] right to be heard has little reality or worth unless one is informed that the matter [affecting one’s property rights] is pending and can choose for himself whether to appear or default, acquiesce or contest”). It follows that when law enforcement agents seize property pursuant to warrant, due process requires them to take reasonable steps to give notice that the property has been taken so the owner can pursue available remedies for its return. Cf. Schroeder v. City of New York, 371 U. S. 208, 214 (1962) (requiring a city to provide adequate notice of the deprivation — the city’s condemnation of certain water rights — which created the property owner’s right to pursue damages claims and triggered the statute of limitations on those claims). Individualized notice that the officers have taken the property is necessary in a case such as the one before us because the property owner would have no other reasonable means of ascertaining who was responsible for his loss.

No similar rationale justifies requiring individualized notice of state-law remedies which, like those at issue here, are established by published, generally available state statutes and case law. Once the property owner is informed that his property has been seized, he can turn to these public sources to learn about the remedial procedures available to him. The City need not take other steps to inform him of his options. Cf. Reetz v. Michigan, 188 U. S. 505, 509 (1903) (holding that a statute fixing the time and place of meetings of a medical licensing board provided license applicants adequate notice of the procedure for obtaining a hearing on their applications because: “When a statute fixes the time and place of meeting of any board or tribunal, no special notice to parties interested is required. The statute is itself sufficient notice”); Atkins v. Parker, 472 U. S. 115, 131 (1985) (noting that “[tjhe entire structure of our democratic government rests on the premise that the individual citizen is capable of informing himself about the particular policies that affect his destiny”). In prior eases in which we have held that post-deprivation state-law remedies were sufficient to satisfy the demands of due process and the laws were public and available, we have not concluded that the State must provide further information about those procedures. See, e. g., Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U. S. 517 (1984).

Memphis Light, the ease on which the Court of Appeals relied, is not to the contrary. In Memphis Light, the Court held that a public utility must make available to its customers the opportunity to discuss a billing dispute with a utility employee who has authority to resolve the matter before terminating utility service for nonpayment. 436 U. S., at 16-17. The Court also held that due process required the utility to inform the customer not only of the planned termination, but also of the availability and general contours of the internal administrative procedure for resolving the accounting dispute. Id., at 13-15. In requiring notice of the administrative procedures, however, we relied not on any general principle that the government must provide notice of the procedures for protecting one’s property interests but on the fact that the administrative procedures at issue were not described in any publicly available document. A customer who was informed that the utility planned to terminate his service could not reasonably be expected to educate himself about the procedures available to protect his interests:

“[T]here is no indication in the record that a written account of [the utility’s dispute resolution] procedure was accessible to customers who had complaints about their bills. [The plaintiff’s] ease reveals that the opportunity to invoke that procedure, if it existed at all, depended on the vagaries of ‘word of mouth referral.’” Id., at 14, n. 14.

While Memphis Light demonstrates that notice of the procedures for protecting one’s property interests may be required when those procedures are arcane and are not set forth in documents accessible to the public, it does not support a general rule that notice of remedies and procedures is required.

The Court of Appeals’ far-reaching notice requirement not only lacks support in our precedent but also conflicts with the well-established practice of the States and the Federal Government. The notice required by the Court of Appeals far exceeds that which the States and the Federal Government have traditionally required their law enforcement agencies to provide. Indeed, neither the Federal Government nor any State requires officers to provide individualized notice of the procedures for seeking return of seized property. See Appendix, infra, p. 244.

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(d), for example, requires federal agents seizing property pursuant to a warrant to “give to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken a copy of the warrant and a receipt for the property taken or [to] leave the copy and receipt at the place from which the property was taken.” The Rule makes no provision for notifying property owners of the procedures for seeking return of their property. The Court of Appeals’ analysis would render the notice required by this Federal Rule — and by every analogous state statute — inadequate as a constitutional matter. In the shadow of this unwavering state and federal tradition, the Court of Appeals’ holding is all the more untenable; to sustain it, we would be required to find that due process requires notice that not one State or the Federal Government has seen fit to require, in the context of law enforcement practices that have existed for centuries.

Respondents urge that if we cannot uphold the Court of Appeals’ broad notice requirement, we should, at least, affirm the Court of Appeals’ judgment on the narrower ground that the notice provided respondents was inadequate because it did not provide them with the factual information — specifically, the search warrant number — they needed to invoke their judicial remedies. The District Court, however, made an explicit factual finding that respondents failed to establish that they needed the search warrant number to file a eourt motion seeking return of their property:

“Perkins argues that this [court] procedure was not available to him because he did not know the number of the warrant pursuant to which his property was seized. Unfortunately for Perkins, there is no evidence either way about whether one must have the warrant number in order to obtain a court order releasing seized property. Defendants assert that it is not necessary, that as long as the claimant can sufficiently identify the property he seeks (i. e., by providing the date of the warrant, the name of the seizing agency and officer, and the identity of the issuing court and judge, all of which information was in Perkins’ possession), the court will release it. Plaintiffs want the Court simply to assume that if Perkins had filed a request with the court, it would have been denied because he did not have the warrant number. But there is no evidence to support that speculation.” No. CV 93-7084 SVW, App. to Pet. for Cert. E6.

This finding undermines the factual predicate for respondents’ alternative argument, and we need not discuss it further.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

APPENDIX TO OPINION OP THE COURT

Federal and State Laws Governing Execution of Search Warrants and Procedures for Return of Seized Property

Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 41(d); Ala. Code §15-5-11 (1995); Ala. Rule Crim. Proc. 3.11 (1996); Alaska Stat. Ann. § 12.35.025 (1996); Alaska Rule Crim. Proc. 37 (1998); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§13-3919 to 13-3922 (1989); Ark. Rule Crim. Proc. 13.3 (1998); Cal. Penal Code Ann. §1535 (West 1982); Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-3-305 (1997); Colo. Rule Crim. Proc. 41 (1997); Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §§54-33e, 54-36f (West Supp. 1998); Del. Ct. Common Pleas Rule Crim. Proc. 41 (1997); Del. Super. Ct. Rule Crim. Proc. 41 (1997); D. C. Code Ann. § 23-524 (1996); D. C. Super. Ct. Rule Crim. Proc. 41 (1998); Fla. Stat. Ann. §933.11 (West Supp. 1998); Ga. Code Ann. §§ 17-5-25,17-5-29 (1990); Haw. Rule Penal Proc. 41 (1997); Idaho Code §§19-4413, 19-4415, 19-4416 (1997); Idaho Rule Crim. Proc. 41 (1998); Ill. Comp. Stat. Aim., eh. 725, §§5/108-6, 5/108-10 (West 1992); Ind. Code Aim. §§35-33-5-2 to 35-33-5-7 (West 1998); Iowa Code Ann. §808.8 (West 1994); Kan. Stat. Ann. §§22-2506, 22-2512 (1988 and Supp. 1997); Ky. Rule Crim. Proe. 13.10 (1993); La. Code Crim. Proe. Ann., Art. 166 (West 1991); Me. Rule Crim. Proc. 41 (1998); Md. Rule Crim. Proc. 4-601 (1997); Mass. Ann. Laws, ch. 276, §§ 1 to 4 (Law Co-op. 1992 ed. and Supp. 1998); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §780.655 (West 1998); Minn. Stat. Ann. §§626.16, 626.17 (West Supp. 1998); Miss. Code Ann. § 41-29-157(a)(3) (1981), §99-27-15 (1994); Mo. Ann. Stat. §542.291 (Vernon Supp. 1998); Mont. Code Ann. §§46-5-227, 46-5-301 (1997); Neb. Rev. Stat. §29-815 (1995); Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. §179.075 (Miehie 1997); N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 595-A:5 (1986); N. J. Stat. Ann. §33:1-61 (West 1994); N. J. Rule Crim. Prac. 3:5-5 (1998); N. M. Dist. Ct. Rule Crim. Proc. §5-211 (1996); N. M. Magis. Ct. Rule Crim. Proc. §6.208 (1996); N. Y. Crim. Proe. Law §690.50 (McKinney 1995); N. C. Gen. Stat. §§15A-252, 15A-254 (1997); N. D. Rule Crim. Proc. 41 (Supp. 1987); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §2933.241 (1997); Ohio Rule Crim. Proe. 41 (1994); OMa. Stat. Ann., Tit. 22, §§ 1232 to 1234 (West 1986 ed. and Supp. 1998); Ore. Rev. Stat. §§133.575, 133.595 (1991); Pa. Rules Crim. Proe. 2008, 2009 (1998); R. I. Super. Ct. Rule Crim. Proe. 41 (1998); S. C. Code Ann. §17-13-150 (1985); S. D. Codified Laws §23A-35-10 (Rule 41(d)) (1998); Tenn. Rule Crim. Proc. 41 (1998); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. § 18.06 (Vernon 1977 ed. and Supp. 1997); Utah Code Ann. §77-23-206 (1995); Vt. Rule Crim. Proe. 41 (1993 and Supp. 1998); Va. Code Ann. §19.2-57 (Miehie 1995); Wash. Super. Ct. Rule Crim. Proc. 2.3 (1996); W. Va. Code §62-lA-4 (1997); W. Va. Rule Crim. Proc. 41 (1997); Wis. Stat. Ann. §968.17 (West 1985); Wyo. Stat. Ann. §7-7-102 (Miehie 1997); Wyo. Rule Crim. Proc. 41 (1998).

Justice Thomas,

with whom Justice Scalia joins,

concurring in the judgment.

I agree with the holding of the majority’s opinion, ante, at 240, that the Due Process Clause does not compel the city to provide respondents with detailed notice of state-law post-deprivation remedies. I write separately, however, because I cannot endorse the suggestion, in dicta, that “when law enforcement agents seize property pursuant to warrant, due process requires them to take reasonable steps to give notice that the property has been taken so the owner can pursue available remedies for its return.” Ibid. In my view, the majority’s conclusion represents an unwarranted extension of procedural due process principles developed in civil cases into an area of law that has heretofore been governed exclusively by the Fourth Amendment.

As far as I am aware, we have never before suggested that procedural due process governs the execution of a criminal search warrant. Indeed, we have assumed that “[tjhe Fourth Amendment was tailored explicitly for the criminal justice system, and its balance between individual and public interests always has been thought to define the ‘process that is due’ for seizures of person or property in criminal cases....” Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U. S. 103, 125, n. 27 (1975). In my view, if the Constitution imposes a “notice” requirement on officers executing, a search warrant, it does so because the failure to provide such notice renders an otherwise-lawful search “unreasonable” under the Fourth Amendment.

We have previously suggested that the procedure for executing the common-law warrant for stolen goods “furnished the model for a ‘reasonable’ search under the Fourth Amendment.” Id., at 116, n. 17. At common law, officers executing a warrant for stolen goods were required to furnish an inventory of property seized. T. Taylor, Two Studies in Constitutional Interpretation 82 (1969); see also 2 W. Hawkins, Pleas of the Crown 137 (6th ed. 1787) (“The officer executing such warrant, if required, shall shew the same to the person whose goods and chattels are distrained, and shall suffer a copy thereof to be taken”). Furthermore, the failure to adhere to this procedure was denounced in Wilkes v. Wood, Lofft 1, 98 Eng. Rep. 489 (K. B. 1763), and Entick v. Carrington, 19 How. St. Tr. 1029 (C. P. 1765), two celebrated cases that profoundly influenced the Founders’ view of what a “reasonable” search entailed. In both eases, Lord Camden criticized the fact that the officers executing the general warrants were not constrained by the safeguards built up around the warrant for stolen goods. He specifically complained that the officers did not provide an inventory of the property seized.

In light of this historical evidence, I would be open to considering, in an appropriate case, whether the Fourth Amendment mandates the notice requirement adopted by the majority today. See Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U. S. 927 (1995) (relying on common-law antecedents to define a “reasonable search”). I am unwilling, however, to endorse the majority’s ahistorical reliance on procedural due process as the source of the requirement. I therefore concur in the judgment.

       Although we have never addressed the issue, there is near unanimous agreement among the lower courts that the notice requirements imposed by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(d) and the state statutes cited in the Appendix to the majority’s opinion, ante, at 244-245, are not required by the Fourth Amendment. See W. LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment §4.12 (3d ed. 1996).

       See, e.g., T. Taylor, Two Studies in Constitutional Interpretation 39-41 (1969); Amar, Fourth Amendment First Principles, 107 Harv. L. Rev. 757,775 (1994); Stuntz, Substantive Origins of Criminal Procedure, 105 Yale L. J. 393,400 (1995).

       See Entick, 19 How. St. Tr., at 1067 (“[T]he same law which has with so much circumspection guarded the ease of stolen goods from mischief, would likewise in this case protect the subject, by adding proper checks; ... would require him to take an exact inventory, and deliver a copy.... [W]ant of [these safeguards] is an undeniable argument against the legality of the thing”); Wilkes, Lofft, at 19,98 Eng. Rep., at 499 (“As to the proof of what papers were taken away, the plaintiff could have no account of them; and those who were able to have given an account . . . have produced none”).


author: Per Curiam.

text:
    ROBERTS, guardian for JOHNSON v. GALEN OF VIRGINIA, INC., formerly dba HUMANA HOSPITAL-UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE, dba UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE HOSPITAL
    No. 97-53.
    Argued December 1,1998
    Decided January 13, 1999

      Joseph H. Mattingly HI argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioner.

      James A. Feldman argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Waxman, Assistant Attorney General Hunger, Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler, and Barbara C. Biddle.

      Carter G. Phillips argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Jacqueline Gerson Cooper and Thomas S. Calder.

        Martha F. Davis filed a brief for the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund et al. as amici curiae urging reversal. Robert M.

        Thomas W. Merrill, Michael L. lie, Leonard A. Nelson, and Robert M. Portman filed a brief for the American Hospital Association et al. as amici curiae urging affirmance.

   Per Curiam.

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), as added by § 9121(b) of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, 100 Stat. 164, and as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1395dd, places obligations of screening and stabilization upon hospitals and emergency rooms that receive patients suffering from an “emergency medical condition.” The Court of Appeals held that in order to recover in a suit alleging a violation of § 1395dd(b), a plaintiff must prove that the hospital acted with an improper motive in failing to stabilize her. Finding no support for such a requirement in the text of the statute, we reverse.

Section 1395dd(a) imposes a “[m]edieal screening requirement” upon hospitals with emergency departments: “[I]f any individual . . . comes to the emergency department and a request is made on the individual’s behalf for examination or treatment for a medical condition, the hospital must provide for an appropriate medical screening examination within the capability of the hospital’s emergency department.” 42 U. S. C. § 1395dd(a). Section 1395dd(b), entitled “Necessary stabilizing treatment for emergency medical conditions and labor,” provides in relevant part as follows:

“(1) In general
“If any individual (whether or not eligible for benefits under this subehapter) comes to a hospital and the hospital determines that the individual has an emergency medical condition, the hospital must provide either—
“(A) within the staff and facilities available at the hospital, for such further medical examination and such treatment as may be required to stabilize the medical condition, or
“(B) for transfer of the individual to another medical facility in accordance with subsection (e) of this section....”

Section 1395dd(e) generally restricts transfers of unstabi-lized patients, and § 1395dd(d) authorizes both civil fines and a private cause of action for violations of the statute.

Wanda Johnson was run over by a truck in May 1992, and was rushed to respondent’s hospital, the Humana Hospital-University of Louisville, in Louisville, Kentucky (Humana). Johnson had been severely injured and had suffered serious injuries to her brain, spine, right leg, and pelvis. After about six weeks’ stay at Humana, during which time Johnson’s health remained in a volatile state, respondent’s agents arranged for her transfer to the Crestview Health Care Facility, across the river in Indiana. Johnson was transferred to Crestview on July 24,1992, but upon arrival at that facility, her condition deteriorated significantly. Johnson was taken to the Midwest Medical Center, also in Indiana, where she remained for many months and incurred substantial medical expenses as a result of her deterioration. Johnson applied for financial assistance under Indiana’s Medicaid program, but her application was rejected on the ground that she had failed to satisfy Indiana’s residency requirements. Petitioner Jane Roberts, Johnson’s guardian, then filed this federal action under § 1395dd(d) as codified, alleging violations of § 1395dd(b).

The District Court granted summary judgment for respondent on the grounds that petitioner had failed to show that “‘either the medical opinion that Johnson was stable or the decision to authorize her transfer was caused by an improper motive.’ ” 111 F. 3d 405,407 (CA6 1997). The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that in order to state a claim in an EMTALA suit alleging a violation of § 1395dd(b)'s stabilization requirement, a plaintiff must show that the hospital’s inappropriate stabilization resulted from an improper motive such as one involving the indigency, race, or sex of the patient. Id, at 411. In order to decide whether subsection (b) imposes such a requirement, we granted certiorari, 524 U. S. 915 (1998), and now reverse.

The Court of Appeals' holding — that proof of improper motive was necessary for recovery under § 1395dd(b)’s stabilization requirement — extended earlier Circuit precedent deciding that the “appropriate medical screening” duty under § 1395dd(a) also required proof of an improper motive. See Cleland v. Bronson Health Care Group, Inc., 917 F. 2d 266 (CA6 1990). The Court of Appeals in Cleland was concerned that Congress’ use of the word “appropriate” in § 1395dd(a) might be interpreted incorrectly to permit federal liability under EMTALA for any violation covered by state malpractice law. Id, at 271. Accordingly, rather than interpret EMTALA so as to cover “at a minimum, the full panoply of state malpractice law, and at a maximum, ... a guarantee of a successful result” in medical treatment, ibid., the Court of Appeals read § 1395dd(a)’s “appropriate medical screening” duty as requiring a plaintiff to show an improper reason why he or she received “less than standard attention [upon arrival]... at the emergency room,” id., at 272.

Unlike the provision of EMTALA at issue in Cleland, § 1395dd(a), the provision at issue in this case, § 1395dd(b), contains no requirement of appropriateness. Subsection (b)(1)(A) requires instead the provision of “such further medical examination and such treatment as may be required to stabilize the medical condition.” 42 TJ. S. C. § 1395dd(b)(l)(A). The question of the correctness of the Cleland court’s reading of § 1395dd(a)’s “appropriate medical screening” requirement is not before us, and we express no opinion on it here. But there is no question that the text of §1395dd(b) does not require an “appropriate” stabilization, nor can it reasonably be read to require an improper motive. This fact is conceded by respondent, which notes in its brief that “the ‘motive’ test adopted by the court below . . . lacks support in any of the traditional sources of statutory construction.” Brief for Respondent 17. Although the concession of a point on appeal by respondent is by no means dispositive of a legal issue, we take it as further indication of the correctness of our decision today, and hold that §1395dd(b) contains no express or implied “improper motive” requirement.

Although respondent presents two alternative grounds for the affirmance of the decision below, we decline to address these claims at this stage in the litigation. The Court granted certiorari on only the EMTALA issue, and these claims do not appear to have been sufficiently developed below for us to assess them in any event. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals’ holding that the District Court’s grant of summary judgment was proper and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

       We note, however, that Cleland’s interpretation of subsection (a) is in conflict with the law of other Circuits which do not read subsection (a) as imposing an improper motive requirement. See Summers v. Baptist Med. Center Arkadelphia, 91 F. 3d 1132, 1137-1138 (CA8 1996) (en banc); Correa v. Hospital San Francisco, 69 F. 3d 1184, 1193-1194 (CA1 1995); Repp v. Anadarko Munic. Hospital, 43 F. 3d 519, 522 (CA10 1994); Power v. Arlington Hospital Assn., 42 F. 3d 851, 857 (CA4 1994); Gatewood v. Washington Healthcare Corp., 933 F. 2d 1037, 1041 (CADC 1991).

       Respondent argues that the record demonstrates that it did not have actual knowledge of the patient’s condition, and that the hospital properly-screened Johnson, which terminated its duty under EMTALA. We express no opinion as to the factual correctness or legal dispositiveness of these claims, and leave their resolution to the courts below on remand.


author: Chief Justice Rehnquist

text:
    DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY v. BLUE FOX, INC.
    No. 97-1642.
    Argued December 1,1998
    Decided January 20, 1999

      Jeffrey A. Lamken argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Waxman, Assistant Attorney General Hunger, Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler, and Barbara C. Biddle. for

      Kneedler, and Thomas F. Spaulding argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was David A. Webster .

      Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the American Subcontractors Association by David R. Hendrick and Joel S. Rubinstein; and for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States by Herbert L. Fenster, Tami Lyn Azovsky, and Robin S. Conrad. Association of America

        Fenster, Tami Lyn Edward G. Gallagher filed a brief for the Surety Association of America as amicus curiae.

   Chief Justice Rehnquist

delivered the opinion of the Court.

An insolvent prime contractor failed to pay a subcontractor for work the latter completed on a construction project for the Department of the Army. The Department of the Army having required no Miller Act bond from the prime contractor, the subcontractor sought to collect directly from the Army by asserting an equitable lien on certain funds held by the Army. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that § 10(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U. S. C. § 702, waived the Government’s immunity for the subcontractor’s claim. We hold that §702 did not nullify the long settled rule that sovereign immunity bars creditors from enforcing liens on Government property.

Participating in a business development program for socially and economically disadvantaged firms run by the Small Business Administration (SBA), the Department of the Army contracted with Verdan Technology, Inc., in September 1993, to install a telephone switching system at an Army depot in Umatilla, Oregon. Verdan, in turn, employed respondent Blue Fox, Inc., as a subcontractor on the project to construct a concrete block building to house the telephone system and to install certain safety and support systems.

Under the Miller Act, 40 U. S. C. §§270a-270d, a contractor that performs “construction, alteration, or repair of any public building or public work of the United States” generally must post two types of bonds. §270a(a). First, the contractor must post a “performance bond... for the protection of the United States” against defaults by the contractor. §270a(a)(l). Second, the contractor must post a “payment bond ... for the protection of all persons supplying labor and material.” §270a(a)(2). The Miller Act gives the subcontractors and other suppliers “the right to sue on such payment bond for the amount, or the balance thereof, unpaid at the time of institution of such suit and to prosecute said action to final execution and judgment for the sum or sums justly due him.” §270b(a). Although the Army’s original solicitation in this case required the contractor to furnish payment and performance bonds if the contract price exceeded $25,000, the Army later amended the solicitation, treated the contract as a “services contract,” and deleted the bond requirements. Verdan therefore did not post any Miller Act bonds.

Blue Fox performed its obligations, but Verdan failed to pay it the $46,586.14 that remained due on the subcontract. After receiving notices from Blue Fox that it had not been fully paid, the Army nonetheless disbursed a total of $86,132.33 to Verdan as payment for all work that Verdan had completed. In January 1995, the Army terminated its contract with Verdan for various defaults and another contractor completed the Umatilla project. Blue Fox obtained a default judgment in tribal court against Verdan. Seeing that it could not collect from Verdan or its officers, it sued the Army for the balance due on its contract with Verdan in Federal District Court.

Predicating jurisdiction on 28 U. S. C. § 1331 and the APA, Blue Fox sought an “equitable lien” on any funds from the Verdan contract not paid to Verdan, or any funds available or appropriated for completion of the Umatilla project, and an order directing payment of those funds to it. Blue Fox also sought an injunction preventing the Army from paying any more money on the Verdan contract or on the follow-on contract until Blue Fox was paid. By the time of the suit, however, the Army had paid all amounts due on the Verdan contract, Blue Fox failed to obtain any preliminary relief, and the Army subsequently paid the replacement contractor the funds remaining on the Verdan contract plus additional funds.

On eross-motions for summary judgment, the District Court held that the waiver of sovereign immunity provided by the APA did not apply to respondent’s claim against the Army. The District Court thus concluded that it did not have jurisdiction over respondent’s claim and accordingly granted the Army’s motion for summary judgment. In a split decision, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed in relevant part. See Blue Fox Inc. v. Small Business Admin., 121 F. 3d 1357 (1997). The majority held that under this Court’s decision in Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U. S. 879 (1988), the APA waives immunity for equitable actions. Based in part on its analysis of several of our cases examining a surety’s right of subrogation, the majority held that the APA had waived the Army’s immunity from Blue Fox’s suit to recover the amount withheld by the Army. The majority concluded that the lien attached to funds retained by the Army but owed to Verdan at the time the Army received Blue Fox’s notice that Verdan had failed to pay. The majority stated that “[t)he Army cannot escape Blue Fox’s equitable lien by wrongly paying out funds to the prime contractor when it had notice of Blue Fox’s unpaid claims.” 121 F. 3d, at 1363.

The dissenting judge stated that “no matter how you slice Blue Fox’s claim, it seeks funds from the treasury to compensate for the Army’s failure to require Verdan to post a bond.” Id., at 1364 (opinion of Rymer, J.). In her view, Congress chose to protect subcontractors like Blue Fox through the bond requirements of the Miller Act, not by waiving immunity in the APA to permit subcontractors to sue the United States directly for amounts owed to them by the prime contractor. Because this rule has been “conventional wisdom for at least fifty years,” she did not agree that Congress had waived the Army’s sovereign immunity from Blue Fox’s suit. Ibid. The Government petitioned for review, and we granted certiorari to decide whether the APA has waived the Government’s immunity from suits to enforce an equitable lien. 524 U. S. 951 (1998).

"Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from suit.” FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U. S. 471, 475 (1994). Congress, of course, has waived its immunity for a wide range of suits, including those that seek traditional money damages. Examples are the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U. S. C. §2671 et seq., and the Tucker Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1491. They are not involved here. Respondent sued the Army under § 10(a) of the APA, which provides in relevant part:

“A person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof. An action in a court of the United States seeking relief other than money damages and stating a claim that an agency or an officer or employee thereof acted or failed to act in an official capacity or under color of legal authority shall not be dismissed nor relief therein be denied on the ground that it is against the United States or that the United States is an indispensable party.” 5 U. S. C. § 702 (emphasis added).

Respondent asks us to hold, as did the court below, that this provision, which waives the Government’s immunity from actions seeking relief “other than money damages,” allows subcontractors to place liens on funds held by the United States Government for work completed on a prime contract. We have frequently held, however, that a waiver of sovereign immunity is to be strictly construed, in terms of its scope, in favor of the sovereign. See, e. g., Lane v. Peña, 518 U. S. 187, 192 (1996) (citing cases); Library of Congress v. Shaw, 478 U. S. 310, 318 (1986). Such a waiver must also be “unequivocally expressed” in the statutory text. See Lane, supra, at 192. Respondent’s claim must therefore meet this high standard.

Respondent argues, and the court below held, that our analysis of § 702 in Bowen compels the allowance of respondent’s lien. We disagree. In Bowen, we examined the text and legislative history of §702 to determine whether the Commonwealth of Massachusetts could sue the Secretary of Health and Human Services to enforce a provision of the Medicaid Act that required the payment of certain amounts to the State for Medicaid services. We held that the State’s complaint in Bowen was not barred by the APA’s prohibition on suits for money damages. The Court of Appeals below read our decision in Bowen as interpreting §702’s reference to “other than money damages” as waiving immunity from all actions that are equitable in nature. See 121 F. 3d, at 1361 (“Since the APA waives immunity for equitable actions, the district court had jurisdiction under the APA”).

Bowen’s analysis of §702, however, did not turn on distinctions between “equitable” actions and other actions, nor could such a distinction have driven the Court’s analysis in light of §702’s language. As Bowen recognized, the crucial question under §702 is not whether a particular claim for relief is “equitable” (a term found nowhere in §702), but rather what Congress meant by “other than money damages” (the precise terms of § 702). Bowen held that Congress employed this language to distinguish between specific relief and compensatory, or substitute, relief. The Court stated:

“We begin with the ordinary meaning of the words Congress employed. The term “money damages,” 5 U. S. C. §702, we think, normally refers to a sum of money used as compensatory relief. Damages are given to the plaintiff to substitute for a suffered loss, whereas specific remedies “are not substitute remedies at all, but attempt to give the plaintiff the very thing to which he was entitled.” ’ ” 487 U. S., at 895 (quoting Maryland Dept. of Human Resources v. Department of Health and Human Services, 763 F. 2d 1441, 1446 (CADC 1985) (citation omitted)).

Bowen also concluded from its analysis of relevant legislative history that “the drafters had in mind the time-honored distinction between damages and specific relief.” 487 U. S., at 897. Bowen’s interpretation of § 702 thus hinged on the distinction between specific relief and substitute relief, not between equitable and nonequitable categories of remedies.

We accordingly applied this interpretation of § 702 to the State’s suit to overturn a decision by the Secretary disallowing reimbursement under the Medicaid Act. We held that the State’s suit was not one “seeking money in compensation for the damage sustained by the failure of the Federal Government to pay as mandated; rather, it [was] a suit seeking to enforce the statutory mandate itself, which happens to be one for the payment of money.” Id., at 900. The Court therefore concluded that the substance of the State’s suit was one for specific relief, not money damages, and hence the suit fell within §702’s waiver of immunity.

It is clear from Bowen that the equitable nature of the lien sought by respondent here does not mean that its ultimate claim was not one for “money damages” within the meaning of §702. Liens, whether equitable or legal, are merely a means to the end of satisfying a claim for the recovery of money. Indeed, equitable liens by their nature constitute substitute or compensatory relief rather than specific relief. An equitable lien does not “give the plaintiff the very thing to which he was entitled,” id., at 895 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); instead, it merely grants a plaintiff “a security interest in the property, which [the plaintiff] can then use to satisfy a money claim,” usually a claim for unjust enrichment, 1 D. Dobbs, Law of Remedies §4.3(3), p. 601 (2d ed. 1993); see also Laycock, The Scope and Significance of Restitution, 67 Texas L. Rev. 1277,1290 (1989) (“The equitable lien is a hybrid, granting a money judgment and securing its collection with a lien on the specific thing”). Commentators have warned not to view equitable liens as anything more than substitute relief:

“[T]he form of the remedy requires that [a] lien or charge should be established, and then enforced, and the amount due obtained by a sale total or partial of the fund, or by a sequestration of its rents, profits, and proceeds. These preliminary steps may, on a casual view, be misleading as to the nature of the remedy, and may cause it to appear to be something more than compensatory; but a closer view shows that all these steps are merely auxiliary, and that the real remedy, the. final object of the proceeding, is the pecuniary recovery.” 1 J. Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence §112, p. 148 (5th ed. 1941).

See also Dobbs, supra, at 601 (equitable lien foreclosure “results in only a monetary payment to the plaintiff and obviously does not carry with it the advantages of recovering specific property”).

We accordingly hold that the sort of equitable lien sought by respondent here constitutes a claim for “money damages”; its goal is to seize or attach money in the hands of the Government as compensation for the loss resulting from the default of the prime contractor. As a form of substitute and not specific relief, respondent’s action to enforce an equitable lien falls outside of § 702’s waiver of sovereign immunity.

Our holding today is in accord with our precedent establishing that sovereign immunity bars creditors from attaching or garnishing funds in the Treasury, see Buchanan v. Alexander, 4 How. 20 (1845), or enforcing liens against property owned by the United States, see United States v. Ansonia Brass & Copper Co., 218 U. S. 452, 471 (1910); United States ex rel. Hill v. American Surety Co. of N. Y., 200 U. S. 197, 203 (1906) (“As against the United States, no lien can be provided upon its public buildings or grounds”). Respondent points to nothing in the text or history of §702 that suggests that Congress intended to overrule this precedent, let alone anything that “'unequivocally expresses]’” such an intent. Lane, 518 U. S., at 192.

Instead, recognizing that sovereign immunity left subcontractors and suppliers without a remedy against the Government when the general contractor became insolvent, Congress enacted the Miller Act (and its predecessor the Heard Act) to protect these workers. See United States v. Munsey Trust Co., 332 U. S. 234, 241 (1947); Ansonia Brass & Copper Co., supra, at 471. But the Miller Act by its terms only gives subcontractors the right to sue on the surety bond posted by the prime contractor, not the right to recover their losses directly from the Government.

Respondent contends that in several cases examining a surety’s right of equitable subrogation, this Court suggested that subcontractors and suppliers can seek compensation directly against the Government. See, e. g., Prairie State Bank v. United States, 164 U. S. 227 (1896); Henningsen v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. of Baltimore, 208 U. S. 404, 410 (1908); Pearlman v. Reliance Ins. Co., 371 U. S. 132, 141 (1962) (stating that “the laborers and material-men had a right to be paid out of the fund [retained by the Government]” and hence a surety was subrogated to this right); but see Munsey Trust Co., supra, at 241 (“[N]othing is more clear than that laborers and materialmen do not have enforceable rights against the United States for their compensation”). None of the cases relied upon by respondent involved a question of sovereign immunity, and, in fact, none involved a subcontractor directly asserting a claim against the Government Instead, these eases dealt with disputes between private parties over priority to funds which had been transferred out of the Treasury and as to which the Government had disclaimed any ownership. They do not in any way disturb the established rule that, unless waived by Congress, sovereign immunity bars subcontractors and other creditors from enforcing liens on Government property or funds to recoup their losses.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

       Although Blue Fox also named the SBA as a defendant, the District Court granted summary judgment in the SBA’s favor, the Court of Apaffirmed that decision, and Blue Fox has not challenged that ruling.

       The Army from the undisbursed balance on the Verdan contract (approximately $85,000) which had been designated for certain work that Verdan failed to complete. No funds due to Verdan for work actually performed had been held back or retained by the Army. The Army paid the replacement contractor in July 1995, two months after Blue Fox filed its action against the Army in the District Court.

       The Federal Tort Claims Act provides that, subject to certain exceptions, “[t]he United States shall be liable, respecting the provisions of this title relating to tort claims, in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances.” 28 U. S. C. §2674. The Tucker Act grants the Court of Claims jurisdiction “to render judgment upon any claim against the United States founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort.” 28 U. S. C. § 1491(a)(1). The Tucker Act also gives federal district courts concurrent jurisdiction over claims founded upon the same substantive grounds for relief but not exceeding $10,000 in damages. See § 1346(a)(2).