author: Justice Stevens

text:
    JONES et al., on behalf of herself and a class of others similarly situated v. R. R. DONNELLEY & SONS CO.
    No. 02-1205.
    Argued February 24, 2004
    Decided May 3, 2004

      H. Candace Gorman argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioners.

      Gregory G. Garre argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Olson, Acting Assistant Attorney General Wiggins, Deputy Solicitor General Clement, Dennis J. Dimsey, and Linda F. Thome.

      Carter G. Phillips argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Virginia A. Seitz, Jonathan F. Cohn, Richard H. Schnadig, Thomas G. Abram, and Lawrence L. Summers.

      Kevin Newsom, Solicitor General of Alabama, argued the cause for the State of Alabama et al. as amici curiae urging affirmance. On the brief were William H. Pryor, Jr., Attorney General, Nathan A. Forrester, former Solicitor General, and the Attorneys General for their respective States as follows: Mark J. Bennett of Hawaii, Richard P. Ieyoub of Louisiana, Thomas F. Reilly of Massachusetts, Greg Abbott of Texas, and Mark L. Shurtleff of Utah.

         Barbara R. Amwine, Thomas J. Henderson, Michael L. Foreman, Kristin M. Dadey, Dennis Courtland Hayes, and Vincent A Eng filed a brief for the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law et al. as amici curiae urging reversal.

        Ann Elizabeth Reesman filed a brief for the Equal Employment Advisory Council as amicus curiae urging affirmance.

   Justice Stevens

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Like many federal statutes, 42 U. S. C. § 1981 does not contain a statute of limitations. We held in Goodman v. Lukens Steel Co., 482 U. S. 656, 660 (1987), that federal courts should apply “the most appropriate or analogous state statute of limitations” to claims based on asserted violations of § 1981. Three years after our decision in Goodman, Congress enacted a catchall 4-year statute of limitations for actions arising under federal statutes enacted after December 1, 1990. 28 U. S. C. § 1658. The question in this case is whether petitioners’ causes of action, which allege violations of § 1981, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (1991 Act), 105 Stat. 1071, are governed by § 1658 or by the personal injury statute of limitations of the forum State.

I

Petitioners are African-American former employees of respondent’s Chicago manufacturing division. On November 25,1996, petitioners filed this class action alleging violations of their rights under § 1981, as amended by the 1991 Act. Specifically, the three classes of plaintiffs alleged that they were subjected to a racially hostile work environment, given an inferior employee status, and wrongfully terminated or denied a transfer in connection with the closing of the Chicago plant. Respondent sought summary judgment on the ground that petitioners’ claims are barred by the applicable Illinois statute of limitations because they arose more than two years before the complaint was filed. Petitioners responded that their claims are governed by § 1658, which provides: “Except as otherwise provided by law, a civil action arising under an Act of Congress enacted after the date of the enactment of this section may not be commenced later than 4 years after the cause of action accrues.” Section 1658 was enacted on December 1, 1990. Thus, petitioners’ claims are subject to the 4-year statute of limitations if they arose under an Act of Congress enacted after that date.

The original version of the statute now codified at Rev. Stat. § 1977, 42 U. S. C. § 1981, was enacted as § 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27. It was amended in minor respects in 1870 and recodified in 1874, see Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U. S. 160, 168-169, n. 8 (1976), but its basic coverage did not change prior to 1991. As first enacted, § 1981 provided in relevant part that “all persons [within the jurisdiction of the United States] shall have the same right, in every State and Territory ... to make and enforce contracts . . . as is enjoyed by white citizens.” 14 Stat. 27. We held in Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U. S. 164 (1989), that the statutory right “to make and enforce contracts” did not protect against harassing conduct that occurred after the formation of the contract. Under that holding, it is clear that petitioners’ hostile work environment, wrongful discharge, and refusal to transfer claims do not state violations of the original version of §1981. In 1991, however, Congress responded to Patterson by adding a new subsection to § 1981 that defines the term “ ‘make and enforce contracts’ ” to include the “termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.” 42 U. S. C. § 1981(b). It is undisputed that petitioners have alleged violations of the amended statute. The critical question, then, is whether petitioners’ causes of action “ar[ose] under” the 1991 Act or under § 1981 as originally enacted.

The District Court determined that petitioners’ wrongful termination, refusal to transfer, and hostile work environment claims arose under the 1991 Act and therefore are governed by §1658. Adams v. R. R. Donnelley & Sons, 149 F. Supp. 2d 459 (ND Ill. 2001). In its view, the plain text of § 1658 compels the conclusion that, “whenever Congress, after December 1990, passes legislation that creates a new cause of action, the catch-all statute of limitations applies to that cause of action.” Id., at 464. The 1991 amendment to § 1981 falls within that category, the court reasoned, because it opened the door to claims of postcontract discrimination that, under Patterson, could not have been brought under § 1981 as enacted. 149 F. Supp. 2d, at 464.

The District Court certified its ruling for an interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1292(b), and the Court of Appeals reversed. 305 F. 3d 717 (CA7 2002). It concluded that § 1658 “applies only when an act of Congress creates a wholly new cause of action, one that does not depend on the continued existence of a statutory cause of action previously enacted and kept in force by the amendment.” Id., at 726. The 1991 amendment does not satisfy that test, the court explained, because the text of § 1981(b) “simply cannot stand on its own”; instead, it merely redefines a term in the original statute without altering the text that “provides the basic right of recovery for an individual whose constitutional rights have been violated.” Id., at 727.

The Court of Appeals’ conclusion that §1658 does not apply to a cause of action based on a post-1990 amendment to a pre-existing statute is consistent with decisions from the Third and Eighth Circuits. See Zubi v. AT&T Corp., 219 F. 3d 220, 224 (CA3 2000); Madison v. IBP, Inc., 257 F. 3d 780, 798 (CA8 2001). Conversely, the Courts of Appeals for the Sixth and Tenth Circuits have held that § 1658 applies “whenever Congress, after December 1990, passes legislation that creates a new cause of action,” whether or not the legislation amends a pre-existing statute. Harris v. Allstate Insurance Co., 300 F. 3d 1183, 1190 (CA10 2002); accord, Anthony v. BTR Automotive Sealing Systems, Inc., 339 F. 3d 506, 514 (CA6 2003). We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict in the Circuits, 538 U. S. 1030 (2003), and now reverse.

II

Petitioners, supported by the United States as amicus curiae, argue that reversal is required by the “plain language” of § 1658, which prescribes a 4-year statute.of limitations for “civil action[s] arising under an Act of Congress enacted after” December 1, 1990. They point out that the 1991 Act is, by its own terms, an “Act” of Congress that was “enacted” after December 1,1990. See Pub. L. 102-166,105 Stat. 1071. Moreover, citing our interpretations of the term “arising under” in other federal statutes and in Article III of the Constitution, petitioners maintain that their causes of action arose under the 1991 Act.

Respondent concedes that the 1991 Act qualifies as an “Act of Congress enacted” after 1991, but argues that the meaning of the term “arising under” is not so clear. We agree. Although our expositions of the “arising under” concept in other contexts are helpful in interpreting the term as it is used in § 1658, they do not point the way to one obvious answer. For example, Chief Justice Marshall’s statement that a case arises under federal law for purposes of Article III jurisdiction whenever federal law “forms an ingredient of the original cause,” Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 823 (1824), supports petitioners’ view that their causes of action arose under the 1991 amendment to § 1981, because the 1991 Act clearly “forms an ingredient” of petitioners’ claims. But the same could be said of the original version of § 1981. Thus, reliance on Osborn would suggest that petitioners’ causes of action arose under the pre-1991 version of § 1981 as well as under the 1991 Act, just as a cause of action may arise under both state and federal law. As the Court of Appeals observed, however, §1658 does not expressly “address the eventuality when a cause of action ‘aris[es] under’ two different Aets,’ one enacted before and one enacted after the effective date of §1658.” 305 F. 3d, at 724.

Petitioners argue that we should look not at Article III, but at how Congress has used the term “arising under” in federal legislation. They point in particular to the statutes in Title 28 that define the scope of federal subject-matter jurisdiction. We have interpreted those statutes to mean that a claim arises under federal law if federal law provides a necessary element of the plaintiff’s claim for relief. Petitioners recognize that we have construed the term more broadly in other statutes, but argue that the placement of § 1658 in Title 28 suggests that Congress meant to invoke our interpretation of the neighboring jurisdictional rules. We hesitate to place too much significance on the location of a statute in the United States Code. But even if we accepted the proposition that Congress intended the term “arising under” to have the same meaning in § 1658 as in other sections of Title 28, it would not follow that the text is unambiguous. We have said that “[t]he most familiar definition of the statutory ‘arising under’ limitation” is the statement by Justice Holmes that a suit “ ‘arises under the law that creates the cause of action,’ ” Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern Cal., 463 U. S. 1, 8-9 (1983) (quoting American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co., 241 U. S. 257, 260 (1916)). On one hand, that statement could support petitioners’ view that their causes of action arose under the 1991 Act, which created a statutory right that did not previously exist. On the other hand, it also could support respondent’s claim that petitioners’ causes of action arose under the original version of § 1981, which contains the operative language setting forth the elements of their claims. Justice Holmes’ formulation even could support the view that petitioners’ claims arose under both versions of the statute. Cf. T. B. Harms Co. v. Eliscu, 339 F. 2d 823, 827 (CA2 1964) (Friendly, J.) (“It has come to be realized that Mr. Justice Holmes’ formula is more useful for inclusion than for the exclusion for which it was intended”). In order to ascertain Congress’ intent, therefore, we must look beyond the bare text of § 1658 to the context in which it was enacted and the purposes it was designed to accomplish.

Ill

In Board of Regents of Univ. of State of N. Y. v. Tomanio, 446 U. S. 478, 483 (1980), we observed that Congress’ failure to enact a uniform statute of limitations applicable to federal causes of action created a “void which is commonplace in federal statutory law.” Over the years that void has spawned a vast amount of litigation. Prior to the enactment of § 1658, the “settled practice [was] to adopt a local time limitation as federal law if it [was] not inconsistent with federal law or policy to do so.” Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U. S. 261, 266-267 (1985). Such “[[limitation borrowing,” Board of Regents v. Tomanio, 446 U. S., at 484, generated a host of issues that required resolution on a statute-by-statute basis. For éxample, it often was difficult to determine which of the forum State’s statutes of limitations was the most appropriate to apply to the federal claim. We wrestled with that issue in Wilson v. Garcia, in which we considered which state statute provided the most appropriate limitations principle for claims arising under 42 U. S. C. § 1983. 471 U. S., at 268, 276-279 (resolving split of authority over whether the closest state analogue to an action brought under § 1983 was an action for tortious injury to the rights of another, an action on an unwritten contract, or an action for a liability on a statute). Before reaching that question, however, we first had to determine whether the characterization of a §1983 claim for statute of limitations purposes was an issue of state or federal law and whether all such claims should be characterized in the same way. Ibid. Two years later, in Goodman v. Lukens Steel Co., we answered the same three questions for claims arising under § 1981. 482 U. S., at 660, 661-662. Both decisions provoked dissent and further litigation.

The practice of borrowing state statutes of limitations also forced courts to address the “frequently present problem of a conflict of laws in determining which State statute [was] controlling, the law of the forum or that of the situs of the injury.” S. Rep. No. 619, 84th Cong., 1st Sess., 4-6 (1955) (discussing problems caused by borrowing state statutes of limitations for antitrust claims). Even when courts were able to identify the appropriate state statute, limitations borrowing resulted in uncertainty for both plaintiffs and defendants, as a plaintiff alleging a federal claim in State A would find herself barred by the local statute of limitations while a plaintiff raising precisely the same claim in State B would be permitted to proceed. Ibid. Interstate variances of that sort could be especially confounding in class actions because they often posed problems for joint resolution. See Memorandum from R. Marcus, Assoc. Reporter to Workload Subcommittee (Sept. 1, 1989), reprinted in App. to Vol. 1 Federal Courts Study Committee, Working Papers and Subcommittee Reports (1990), Doc. No. 5, p. 10 (hereinafter Marcus Memorandum). Courts also were forced to grapple with questions such as whether federal or state law governed when an action was “commenced,” or when service of process had to be effectuated. See Sentry Corp. v. Harris, 802 F. 2d 229 (CA7 1986) (addressing those issues in the wake of our decision in Wilson). And the absence of a uniform federal limitations period complicated the development of federal law on the question when, or under what circumstances, a statute of limitations could be tolled. See 802 F. 2d, at 234-242 (discussing conflicting authority "on whether tolling was a matter of state or federal law); Board of Regents v. Tomanio, 446 U. S., at 485 (explaining that “ ‘borrowing’ logically included [state] rules of tolling”).

'Those problems led both courts and commentators to “cal[l] upon Congress to eliminate these complex cases, that do much to consume the time and energies of judges but that do little to advance the cause of justice, by enacting federal limitations periods for all federal causes of action.” Sentry Corp. v. Harris, 802 F. 2d, at 246. Congress answered that call by creating the Federal Courts Study Committee, which recommended the enactment of a retroactive, uniform federal statute of limitations. As we have noted, § 1658 applies only to claims arising under statutes enacted after December 1, 1990, but it otherwise follows the Committee’s recommendation. The House Report accompanying the final bill confirms that Congress was keenly aware of the problems associated with the practice of borrowing state statutes of limitations, and that a central purpose of § 1658 was to minimize the occasions for that practice.

The history that led to the enactment of § 1658 strongly supports an interpretation that fills more rather than less of the void that has created so much unnecessary work for federal judges. The interpretation favored by respondent and the Court of Appeals subverts that goal by restricting § 1658 to cases in which the plaintiff’s cause of action is based solely on a post-1990 statute that “ ‘establishes a new cause of action without reference to preexisting law.’ ” 305 F. 3d, at 727 (quoting Zubi v. AT&T Corp., 219 F. 3d, at 225). On that view, § 1658 would apply only to a small fraction of post-1990 enactments. Congress routinely creates new rights of action by amending existing statutes, and “[altering statutory definitions, or adding new definitions of terms previously undefined, is a common way of amending statutes.” Rivers v. Roadway Express, Inc., 511 U. S. 298, 308 (1994). Nothing in the text or history of § 1658 supports an interpretation that would limit its reach to entirely new sections of the United States Code. An amendment to an existing statute is no less an “Act of Congress” than a new, stand-alone statute. What matters is the substantive effect of an enactment — the creation of new rights of action and corresponding liabilities — not the format in which it appears in the Code.

The Court of Appeals reasoned that § 1658 must be given a narrow scope lest it disrupt litigants’ settled expectations. The court observed that Congress refused to make §1658 retroactive because, “‘with respect to many statutes that have no explicit limitations provision, the relevant limitations period has long since been resolved by judicial decision,’ ” and “ ‘retroactively imposing a four year statute of limitations on legislation that the courts have previously ruled is subject to a six month limitations period in one [State], and a ten year period in another, would threaten to disrupt the settled expectations of... many parties.’” 305 F. 3d, at 725-726 (quoting H. R. Rep. No. 101-734, p. 24 (1990)). Concerns about settled expectations provide a valid reason to reject an interpretation of § 1658 under which any new amendment to federal law would suffice to trigger the 4-year statute of limitations, regardless of whether the plaintiff’s claim would have been available — and subject to a state statute of limitations — prior to December 1, 1990. Such concerns do not, however, carry any weight against the reading of § 1658 adopted by the District Court and urged by petitioners, under which the catchall limitations period applies only to causes of action that were not available until after § 1658 was enacted. If a cause of action did not exist prior to 1990, potential litigants could not have formed settled expectations as to the relevant statute of limitations that would then be disrupted by application of § 1658.

We conclude that a cause of action “aris[es] under an Act of Congress enacted” after December 1,1990 — and therefore is governed by § 1658’s 4-year statute of limitations — if the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant was made possible by a post-1990 enactment. That construction best serves Congress’ interest in alleviating the uncertainty inherent in the practice of borrowing state statutes of limitations while at the same time protecting settled interests. It spares federal judges and litigants the need to identify the appropriate state statute of limitations to apply to new claims but leaves in place the “borrowed” limitations periods for pre-existing causes of action, with respect to which the difficult work already has been done.

Interpreting § 1658 to apply whenever a post-1990 enactment creates a new right to maintain an action also is consistent with the common usage of the word “arise” to mean “come into being; originate” or “spring up.” Finally, that construction is consistent with our interpretations of the term “arising under” as it is used in statutes governing the scope of federal subject-matter jurisdiction. By contrast, nothing in our case law supports an interpretation as narrow as that endorsed by the Court of Appeals, under which “arising under” means something akin to “based solely upon.” We should avoid reading § 1658 in such a way as to give the familiar statutory language a meaning foreign to every other context in which it is used.

IV

In this case, petitioners’ hostile work environment, wrongful termination, and failure to transfer claims “ar[ose] under” the 1991 Act in the sense that petitioners’ causes of action were made possible by that Act. Patterson held that “racial harassment relating to the conditions of employment is not actionable under § 1981.” 491 U. S., at 171 (emphasis added). The 1991 Act overturned Patterson by defining the key “make and enforce contracts” language in § 1981 to include the “termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.” 42 U. S. C. § 1981(b). In Rivers v. Roadway Express, Inc., we recognized that the 1991 amendment “enlarged the category of conduct that is subject to § 1981 liability,” 511 U. S., at 303, and we therefore held that the amendment does not apply “to a case that arose before it was enacted,” id., at 300. Our reasoning in Rivers supports the conclusion that the 1991 Act fully qualifies as “an Act of Congress enacted after [December 1,1990]” within the meaning of §1658. Because petitioners’ hostile work environment, wrongful termination, and failure to transfer claims did not allege a violation of the pre-1990 version of § 1981 but did allege violations of the amended statute, those claims “ar[ose] under” the amendment to § 1981 contained in the 1991 Act.

While that conclusion seems eminently clear in this case, respondent has posited various hypothetical cases in which it might be difficult to determine whether a particular claim arose under the amended or the unamended version of a statute. Similarly, the Court of Appeals reasoned that applying §1658 to post-1990 amendments ’ could be problematic in some cases because “'the line between an amendment that modifies an existing right and one that creates a new right is often difficult to draw.’” 305 F. 3d, at 725 (quoting Zubi v. AT&T Corp., 219 F. 3d, at 224). We are not persuaded that any “guess work,” 305 F. 3d, at 725, is required to determine whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of the relevant statute as it stood prior to December 1, 1990, or whether her claims necessarily depend on a subsequent amendment. Courts routinely make such determinations when dealing with amendments (such as the 1991 amendment to §1981) that do not apply retroactively. In any event, such hypothetical problems pale in comparison with the difficulties that federal courts faced for decades in trying to answer all the questions raised by borrowing appropriate limitations rules from state statutes.

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.

       In 2002, Congress amended § 1658 to add a separate provision (subsection (b)) specifying the statute of limitations for certain securities law claims. Corporate and Criminal Fraud Accountability Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-204, § 804(a), 116 Stat. 801. The original language of § 1658 (quoted above) was left unchanged but is now set forth in subsection (a). See 28 U. S. C. § 1658(a) (2000 ed., Supp. III).

       The current version of § 1981 reads as follows:
      “(a) Statement of equal rights
      “All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.
      “(b) ‘Make and enforce contracts’ defined
      “For purposes of this section, the term ‘make and enforce contracts’ includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.
      “(c) Protection against impairment
      “The rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under color of State law.”

       The court found matters somewhat less clear with respect to petitioners’ claims regarding their employee status (which involved allegations that respondent has a practice of using its African-American employees as “ ‘temporary* ” or “ ‘casual’ ” employees), and directed the parties to “sort out this question amongst themselves in light of” its ruling. 149 F. Supp. 2d, at 460, 465.

       Indeed, the same would appear to be true of virtually any substantive amendment, whether or not the plaintiff could have stated a claim preamendment.

       See, e. g., 28 U. S. C. § 1331 (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States”); § 1338(a) (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, plant variety protection, copyrights and trademarks”).

       See, e. g., Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp., 486 U. S. 800, 808 (1988) (a case may “ ‘aris[e] under’ ” federal law if “ ‘federal law is a necessary element of [a claim]’ ”); Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc., 535 U. S. 826, 830 (2002) (a claim “ ‘arises under’” patent law if either “‘federal patent law creates the cause of action’ ” or “ ‘the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal patent law’ ”).

       See, e.g., Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U. S. 602, 615 (1984) (a claim arises under the Medicare Act for purposes of 42 U. S. C. §405(h) when “‘both the standing and the substantive basis for the presentation’ ” of the claim is the Medicare Act).

       See Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U. S. 261, 280 (1985) (O’Connor, J., dissenting); Goodman v. Lukens Steel Co., 482 U. S. 656, 669 (1987) (Brennan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); id., at 680 (Powell, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

       See, e. g., Smith v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 875 F. 2d 1325, 1326-1328 (CA7 1989) (concluding that the rule established in Goodman did not apply retroactively).

       The problems associated with borrowing state statutes of limitations prompted Congress in 1955 to enact a federal period of limitations governing treble damages actions under the antitrust laws. 15 U. S. C. § 15b. See S. Rep. No. 619, at 5 (explaining that “[i]t is one of the primary purposes of this bill to put an end to the confusion and discrimination present under existing law where local statutes of limitations are made applicable to rights granted under our Federal laws”).

       See also, e. g., Lowenthal, Pastuszenski, & Greenwald, Special Project, Time Bars in Specialized Federal Common Law: Federal Rights of Action and State Statutes of Limitations, 65 Cornell L. Rev. 1011, 1105 (1980); Blume & George, Limitations and the Federal Courts, 49 Mich. L. Rev. 937, 992-993 (1951); Note, Federal Statutes Without Limitations Provisions, 53 Colum. L. Rev. 68, 77-78 (1953); Note, Disparities in Time Limitations on Federal Causes of Action, 49 Yale L. J. 738, 745 (1940).

       A report prepared for the Committee concluded that “there is little to be said in favor of the current situation and there seems to be no identifiable support for continuing this situation.” Marcus Memorandum 1,

       The House Report notes “a number of practical problems” created by the practice of borrowing statutes of limitations: “ ‘It obligates judges and lawyers to determine the most analogous state law claim; it imposes uncertainty on litigants; reliance on varying state laws results in undesirable variance among the federal courts and disrupts the development of federal doctrine on the suspension of limitation periods.’” H. R. Rep. No. 101-734, p. 24 (1990).

       A few years after § 1658 was enacted, we described it as supplying “a general, 4-year limitations period for any federal statute subsequently enacted without one of its own.” North Star Steel Co. v. Thomas, 515 U. S. 29, 34, n. (1995). In his separate opinion in that case, Justice Scaua captured the basic purpose of §1658 when he observed that “a uniform nationwide limitations period for a federal cause of action is always significantly more appropriate” than a rule that applies in some States but not in others. Id., at 37 (opinion concurring in judgment).

       American Heritage Dictionary 96 (4th ed. 2000); Black’s Law Dictionary 138 (rev. 4th ed. 1968).

       Oxford English Dictionary 629 (2d ed. 1989); Black’s Law Dictionary, at 138.

       Indeed, respondent concedes that, “[i]n this case, the nature of the ‘new’ claim is clear. It is recognized that liability under § 1981 was expanded, because this Court had spoken on the scope of § 1981 and Congress reversed the Court’s interpretation in the Civil Rights Act of 1991.” Brief for Respondent 26.

       Respondent argues that the question whether a plaintiff’s cause of action would have been viable prior to a post-1991 amendment will be particularly complicated in cases in which there was a split of authority regarding the scope of the original statute. In such cases, courts will have to determine whether the amendment clarified existing law or created new rights and liabilities. Such analysis is hardly beyond the judicial ken: Courts must answer precisely the same question when deciding whether an amendment may be applied retrospectively. See, e. g., Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States ex rel. Schumer, 520 U. S. 939, 948-950 (1997). The substantial overlap between the retroactivity and statute-of-limitations inquiries undermines respondent’s claim that application of § 1658 to post-1991 amendments will generate additional work for federal judges.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Justice O’Connor Justice Stevens, Justice Kennedy,

license: Public Domain

text:
    DRETKE, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION v. HALEY
    No. 02-1824.
    Argued March 2, 2004
    Decided May 3, 2004

      R. Ted Cruz, Solicitor General of Texas, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Greg Abbott, Attorney General, Barry R. McBee, First Assistant Attorney General, and Danica L. Milios, Assistant Solicitor General.

      Matthew D. Roberts argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Olson, Assistant Attorney General Wray, and Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben.

      Eric M. Albritton, by appointment of the Court, 540 U. S. 1044, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Jeffrey L. Bleich.

       A brief of amici curiae urging reversal was filed for the State of Illinois et al. by Lisa Madigan, Attorney General of Illinois, Gary Feinerman, Solicitor General, Linda D. Woloshin and Domenica A. Osterberger, Assistant Attorneys General, and Dan Schweitzer, and by the Attorneys General for their respective States as follows: Bill Pryor of Alabama, Terry Goddard of Arizona, Mike Moore of Mississippi, Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon of Missouri, Jon Bruning of Nebraska, Jim Petro of Ohio, W. A. Drew Edmondson of Oklahoma, Hardy Myers of Oregon, Lawrence E. Long of South Dakota, Mark L. Shurtleff of Utah, and Patrick J. Crank of Wyoming.
      Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for Zachary W. Carter et al. by James Orenstein and Alison Tucher; and for James S. Lieb-man et al. by Edward C. DuMont.

   Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Out of respect for finality, comity, and the orderly administration of justice, a federal court will not entertain a procedurally defaulted constitutional claim in a petition for habeas corpus absent a showing of cause and prejudice to excuse the default. We have recognized a narrow exception to the general rule when the habeas applicant can demonstrate that the alleged constitutional error has resulted in the conviction of one who is actually innocent of the underlying offense or, in the capital sentencing context, of the aggravating circumstances rendering the inmate eligible for the death penalty. Murray v. Carrier, 477 U. S. 478 (1986); Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U. S. 333 (1992). The question before us is whether this exception applies where an applicant asserts “actual innocence” of a noncapital sentence. Because the District Court failed first to consider alternative grounds for relief urged by respondent, grounds that might obviate any need to reach the actual innocence question, we vacate the judgment and remand.

I

In 1997, respondent Michael Wayne Haley was arrested after stealing a calculator from a local Wal-Mart and attempting to exchange it for other merchandise. Respondent was charged with, and found guilty at trial of, theft of property valued at less than $1,500, which, because respondent already had two prior theft convictions, was a “state jail felony” punishable by a maximum of two years in prison. App. 8; Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03(e)(4)(D) (Supp. 2004). The State also charged respondent as a habitual felony offender. The indictment alleged that respondent had two prior felony convictions and that the first — a 1991 conviction for delivery of amphetamine — “became final prior to the commission” of the second — a 1992 robbery. App. 9. The timing of the first conviction and the second offense is significant: Under Texas’ habitual offender statute, only a defendant convicted of a felony who “has previously been finally convicted of two felonies, and the second previous felony conviction is for an offense that occurred subsequent to the first previous conviction having become final,... shall be punished for a second-degree felony.” § 12.42(a)(2) (emphasis added). A second degree felony carries a minimum sentence of 2 and a maximum sentence of 20 yeárs in prison. § 12.33(a) (2003).

Texas provides for bifurcated trials in habitual offender cases. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 37.07, § 3 (Vernon Supp. 2004). If a defendant is found guilty of the substantive offense, the State, at a separate penalty hearing, must prove the habitual offender allegations beyond a reasonable doubt. Ibid. During the penalty phase of respondent’s trial, the State introduced records showing that respondent had been convicted of delivery of amphetamine on October 18,1991, and attempted robbery on September 9,1992. The record of the second conviction, however, showed that respondent had committed the robbery on October 15, 1991— three days before his first conviction became final. Neither the prosecutor, nor the defense attorney, nor the witness tendered by the State to authenticate the records, nor the trial judge, nor the jury, noticed the 3-day discrepancy. Indeed, the defense attorney chose not to cross-examine the State’s witness or to put on any evidence.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty on the habitual offender charge and recommended a sentence of I6V2 years; the court followed the recommendation. Respondent appealed. Appellate counsel did not mention the 3-day discrepancy nor challenge the sufficiency of the penalty-phase evidence to support the habitual offender enhancement. The State Court of Appeals affirmed respondent’s conviction and sentence; the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals refused respondent’s petition for discretionary review.

Respondent thereafter sought state postconviction relief, arguing for the first time that he was ineligible for the habitual offender enhancement based on the timing of his second conviction. App. 83, 87-88. The state habeas court refused to consider the merits of that claim because respondent had not raised it, as required by state procedural law, either at trial or on direct appeal. Id., at 107, 108. The state habeas court rejected respondent’s related ineffective assistance of counsel claim, saying only that “counsel was not ineffective” for failing to object to or to appeal the enhancement. Id., at 108. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals summarily denied respondent’s state habeas application. Id., at 109.

In August 2000, respondent filed a timely pro se application for a federal writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2254, renewing his sufficiency of the evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel claims. App. 110, 118-119; id., at 122, 124, 126-127. The State conceded that respondent was “correct in his assertion that the enhancement paragraphs as alleged in the indictment do not satisfy section 12.42(a)(2) of the Texas Penal Code.” Id., at 132, 140. Rather than agree to resentencing, however, the State argued that respondent had procedurally defaulted the sufficiency of the evidence claim by failing to raise it before the state trial court or on direct appeal. Id., at 142-144. The Magistrate Judge, to whom the habeas application had been referred, recommended excusing the procedural default and granting the sufficiency of the evidence claim because respondent was “ ‘actually innocent’ of a sentence for a second-degree felony.” Haley v. Director, Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, Institutions Div., Civ. No. 6:00cv518 (ED Tex., Sept. 13, 2001), p. 10, App. to Pet. for Cert. 49a (citing Sones v. Hargett, 61 F. 3d 410, 419 (CA5 1995)). Because she recommended relief on the erroneous enhancement claim, the Magistrate Judge did not address respondent’s related ineffective assistance of counsel challenges. App. to Pet. for Cert. 50a-52a. The District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s report, granted the application, and ordered the State to re-sentence respondent “without the improper enhancement.” Id., at 36a-37a (Oct. 27, 2001).

The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding narrowly that the actual innocence exception “applies to noncapital sentencing procedures involving a career or habitual felony offender.” Haley v. Cockrell, 306 F. 3d 257, 264 (2002). The Fifth Circuit thus joined the Fourth Circuit in holding that the exception should not extend beyond allegedly erroneous recidivist enhancements to other claims of noncapital factual sentencing error: “[T]o broaden the exception further would ‘swallow’ the ‘cause portion of the cause and prejudice requirement’ and it ‘would conflict squarely with Supreme Court authority indicating that generally more than prejudice must exist to excuse a procedural default.’ ” Id., at 266 (quoting United States v. Mikalajunas, 186 F. 3d 490, 494-495 (CA4 1999)). Finding the exception satisfied, the panel then granted relief on the merits of respondent’s otherwise defaulted sufficiency of the evidence claim. In so doing, the panel assumed that challenges to the sufficiency of noncapital sentencing evidence are cognizable on federal habeas under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (1979). 306 F. 3d, at 266-267 (citing French v. Estelle, 692 F. 2d 1021, 1024-1025 (CA5 1982)).

The Fifth Circuit’s decision exacerbated a growing divergence of opinion in the Courts of Appeals regarding the availability and scope of the actual innocence exception in the noncapital sentencing context. Compare Embrey v. Hershberger, 131 F. 3d 739 (CA8 1997) (en banc) (no actual innocence exception for noncapital sentencing error); Reid v. Oklahoma, 101 F. 3d 628 (CA10 1996) (same), with Spence v. Superintendent, Great Meadow Correctional Facility, 219 F. 3d 162 (CA2 2000) (actual innocence exception applies in noncapital sentencing context when error is related to finding of predicate act forming the basis for enhancement), and Mikalajunas, supra (actual innocence exception applies in noncapital sentencing context where error relates to a recidivist enhancement). We granted the State’s request for. a writ of certiorari, 540 U. S. 945 (2003), and now vacate and remand.

II

The procedural default doctrine, like the abuse of writ doctrine, “refers to a complex and evolving body of equitable principles informed and controlled by historical usage, statutory developments, and judicial decisions.” McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U. S. 467, 489 (1991). A corollary to the habeas statute’s exhaustion requirement, the doctrine has its roots in the general principle that federal courts will not disturb state court judgments based on adequate and independent state law procedural grounds. Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U. S. 72, 81 (1977); Brown v. Allen, 344 U. S. 443, 486-487 (1953). But, while an adequate and independent state procedural disposition strips this Court of certiorari jurisdiction to review a state court’s judgment, it provides only a strong prudential reason, grounded in “considerations of comity and concerns for the orderly administration of criminal justice,” not to pass upon a defaulted constitutional claim presented for federal habeas review. Francis v. Henderson, 425 U. S. 536, 538-539 (1976); see also Fay v. Noia, 372 U. S. 391, 399 (1963) (“[T]he doctrine under which state procedural defaults are held to constitute an adequate and independent state law ground barring direct Supreme Court review is not to be extended to limit the power granted the federal courts under the federal habeas statute”). That being the case, we have recognized an equitable exception to the bar when a habeas applicant can demonstrate cause and prejudice for the procedural default. Wainwright, supra, at 87. The cause and prejudice requirement shows due regard for States’ finality and comity interests while ensuring that “fundamental fairness [remains] the central concern of the writ of habeas corpus.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668, 697 (1984).

The cause and prejudice standard is not a perfect safeguard against fundamental miscarriages of justice. Murray v. Carrier, 477 U. S. 478 (1986), thus recognized a narrow exception to the cause requirement where a constitutional violation has “probably resulted” in the conviction of one who is “actually innocent” of the substantive offense. Id., at 496; accord, Schlup v. Delo, 513 U. S. 298 (1995). We subsequently extended this exception to claims of capital sentencing error in Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U. S. 333 (1992). Acknowledging that the concept of “ ‘actual innocence’ ” did not translate neatly into the capital sentencing context, we limited the exception to cases in which the applicant could show “by clear and convincing evidence that, but for a constitutional error, no reasonable juror would have found the petitioner eligible for the death penalty under the applicable state law.” Id., at 336.

We are asked in the present case to extend the actual innocence exception to procedural default of constitutional claims challenging noncapital sentencing error. We decline to answer the question in the posture of this case and instead hold that a federal court faced with allegations of actual innocence, whether of the sentence or of the crime charged, must first address all nondefaulted claims for comparable relief and other grounds for cause to excuse the procedural default.

This avoidance principle was implicit in Carrier itself, where we expressed confidence that, “for the most part, Victims of a fundamental miscarriage of justice will meet the cause-and-prejudice standard.’” 477 U. S., at 495-496 (quoting Engle v. Isaac, 456 U. S. 107, 135 (1982)). Our confidence was bolstered by the availability of ineffective assistance of counsel claims — either as a ground for cause or as a freestanding claim for relief — to safeguard against miscarriages of justice. The existence of such safeguards, we observed, “may properly inform this Court’s judgment in determining ‘[w]hat standards should govern the exercise of the habeas court’s equitable discretion’ with respect to procedurally defaulted claims.” Carrier, supra, at 496 (quoting Reed v. Ross, 468 U. S. 1, 9 (1984)).

Petitioner here conceded at oral argument that respondent has a viable and “significant” ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Tr. of Oral Arg. 18 (“[W]e agree at this point there is a very significant argument of ineffective assistance of counsel”); see also id., at 7 (agreeing “not [to] raise any procedural impediment” to consideration of the merits of respondent’s ineffective assistance claim on remand). Success on the merits would give respondent all of the relief that he seeks — i. e., resentencing. It would also provide cause to excuse the procedural default of his sufficiency of the evidence claim. Carrier, supra, at 488.

Contrary to the dissent’s view, see post, at 397 (opinion of Stevens, J.), it is precisely because the various exceptions to the procedural default doctrine are judge-made rules that courts as their stewards must exercise restraint, adding to or expanding them only when necessary. To hold otherwise would be to license district courts to riddle the cause and prejudice standard with ad hoc exceptions whenever they perceive an error to be “clear” or departure from the rules expedient. Such an approach, not the rule of restraint adopted here, would have the unhappy effect of prolonging the pendency of federal habeas applications as each new exception is tested in the courts of appeals. And because petitioner has assured us that the State will not seek to reincar-cerate respondent during the pendency of his ineffective assistance claim, Tr. of Oral Arg. 52 (“[T]he state is willing to allow the ineffective assistance case to be litigated before proceeding to reincarcerate [respondent]”), the negative consequences for respondent of our judgment to vacate and remand in this case are minimal.

While availability of other remedies alone would be sufficient justification for a general rule of avoidance, the many threshold legal questions often accompanying claims of actual innocence provide additional reason for restraint. For instance, citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (1979), respondent here seeks to bring through the actual innocence gateway his constitutional claim that the State’s penalty-phase evidence was insufficient to support the recidivist enhancement. But the constitutional hook in Jackson was In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358 (1970), in which we held that due process requires proof of each element of a criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt. We have not extended Winship’s protections to proof of prior convictions used to support recidivist enhancements. Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U. S. 224 (1998); see also Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U. S. 466, 488-490 (2000) (reserving judgment as to the validity of Almendarez-Torres); Monge v. California, 524 U. S. 721, 734 (1998) (Double Jeopardy Clause does not preclude retrial on a prior conviction used to support recidivist enhancement). Respondent contends that Almendarez-Torres should be overruled or, in the alternative, that it does not apply because the recidivist statute at issue required the jury to find not only the existence of his prior convictions but also the additional fact that they were sequential. Brief for Respondent 30-31. These difficult constitutional questions, simply assumed away by the dissent, see post, at 397 (citing Jackson, supra, and Thompson v. Louisville, 362 U. S. 199 (1960)), are to be avoided if possible.

To be sure, not all claims of actual innocence will involve threshold constitutional issues. Even so, as this case and the briefing illustrate, such claims are likely to present equally difficult questions regarding the scope of the actual innocence exception itself. Whether and to what extent the exception extends to noncapital sentencing error is just one example. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Justice Stevens,

with whom Justice Kennedy and Justice Souter join,

dissenting.

The unending search for symmetry in the law can cause judges to forget about justice. This should be a simple case.

Respondent was convicted of the theft of a calculator. Because of his prior theft convictions, Texas law treated respondent’s crime as a “state jail felony,” which is punishable by a maximum sentence of two years in jail. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.35(a) (2003). But as a result of a congeries of mistakes made by the prosecutor, the trial judge, and his attorney, respondent was also erroneously convicted and sentenced under Texas’ habitual offender law, § 12.42(a)(2) (Supp. 2004). Respondent consequently received a sentence of more than 16 years in the penitentiary. The State concedes that respondent does not qualify as a habitual offender and that the 16-year sentence was imposed in error. Respondent has already served more than 6 years of that sentence — a sentence far in excess of the 2-year maximum that Texas law authorizes for respondent’s crime.

Because, as all parties agree, there is no factual basis for respondent’s conviction as a habitual offender, it follows inexorably that respondent has been denied due process of law. Thompson v. Louisville, 362 U. S. 199 (1960); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (1979). And because that constitutional error clearly and concededly resulted in the imposition of an unauthorized sentence, it also follows that respondent is a “victim of a miscarriage of justice,” Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U. S. 72, 91 (1977), entitled to immediate and unconditional release.

The Magistrate Judge, the ^District Court, and the Court of Appeals all concluded that respondent is entitled to such relief. Not a word in any federal statute or any provision of the Federal Rules of Procedure provides any basis for challenging that conclusion. The Court’s contrary determination in this case rests entirely on a procedural rule of its own invention. But having also invented the complex jurisprudence that requires a prisoner to establish “cause and prejudice” as a basis for overcoming procedural default, the Court unquestionably has the authority to recognize a narrow exception for the unusual case that is as clear as this one.

Indeed, in the opinion that first adopted the cause and prejudice standard, the Court explained its purpose as providing “an adequate guarantee” that a procedural default would “not prevent a federal habeas court from adjudicating for the first time the federal constitutional claim of a defendant who in the absence of such an adjudication will be the victim of a miscarriage of justice.” Ibid. The Court has since held that in cases in which the cause and prejudice standard is inadequate to protect against fundamental miscarriages of justice, the cause and prejudice requirement “must yield to the imperative of correcting a fundamentally unjust incarceration.” Engle v. Isaac, 456 U. S. 107, 135 (1982).

If there were some uncertainty about the merits of respondent’s claim that he has been incarcerated unjustly, it might make sense to require him to pursue other avenues for comparable relief before deciding the claim. But in this case, it is universally acknowledged that respondent’s incarceration is unauthorized. The miscarriage of justice is manifest. Since the “imperative of correcting a fundamentally unjust incarceration” will lead to the issuance of the writ regardless of the outcome of the cause and prejudice inquiry, the Court’s ruling today needlessly postpones final adjudication of respondent’s claim and perversely prolongs the very injustice that the cause and prejudice standard was designed to prevent.

That the State has decided to oppose the grant of habeas relief in this case, even as it concedes that respondent has already served more time in prison than the law authorized, might cause some to question whether the State has forgotten its overriding “obligation to serve the cause of justice.” United States v. Agurs, 427 U. S. 97, 111 (1976); see post, p. 399 (Kennedy, J., dissenting). But this Court is surely no less at fault. In its attempt to refine the boundaries of the judge-made doctrine of procedural default, the Court has lost sight of the basic reason why the “writ of habeas corpus indisputably holds an honored position in bur jurisprudence.” Engle, 456 U. S., at 126. Habeas corpus is, and has for centuries been, a “bulwark against convictions that violate fundamental fairness.” Ibid, (internal quotation marks omitted). Fundamental fairness should dictate the outcome of this unusually simple case.

I respectfully dissent.

Justice Kennedy,

dissenting.

For the reasons Justice Stevens sets forth, the respondent should be entitled to immediate relief, and I join his dissenting opinion. The case also merits this further comment concerning the larger obligation of state or federal officials when they know an individual has been sentenced for a crime he did not commit.

In 1997, Michael Haley was sentenced to serve 16 years and 6 months in prison for violating the Texas habitual offender law. Texas officials concede Haley did not violate this law. They agree that Haley is guilty only of theft, a crime with a 2-year maximum sentence. Yet, despite the fact that Haley served more than two years in prison for his crime, Texas officials come before our Court opposing Haley’s petition for relief. They wish to send Haley back to prison for a crime they agree he did not commit.

The rigors of the penal system are thought to be mitigated to some degree by the discretion of those who enforce the law. See, e. g., Jackson, The Federal Prosecutor, 31 J. Am. Inst. Crim. L. & C. 3, 6 (1940-1941). The clemency power is designed to serve the same function. Among its benign if too-often ignored objects, the clemency power can correct injustices that the ordinary criminal process seems unable or unwilling to consider. These mechanisms hold out the promise that mercy is not foreign to our system. The law must serve the cause of justice.

These mitigating elements seem to have played no role in Michael Haley’s case. Executive discretion and clemency can inspire little confidence if officials sworn to fight injustice choose to ignore it. Perhaps some would say that Haley’s innocence is a mere technicality, but that would miss the point. In a society devoted to the rule of law, the difference between violating or not violating a criminal statute cannot be shrugged aside as a minor detail.

It may be that Haley’s case provides a convenient mechanism to vindicate an important legal principle. Beyond that, however, Michael Haley has a greater interest in knowing that he will not be reincarcerated for a crime he did not commit. It is not clear to me why the State did not exercise its power and perform its duty to vindicate that interest in the first place.

       Brief for Petitioner 4; Tr. of Oral Arg. 4 (“[l]t’s almost a law school hypothetical, because the error is so clean”).

       Because it is not always easy to discern the difference between “constitutional claims that call into question the reliability of an adjudication of legal guilt,” to which the cause and prejudice requirement applies, and claims that a constitutional violation “probably resulted in the conviction of one who is actually innocent,” for which failure to show cause is excused, Murray v. Carrier, 477 U. S. 478, 495-496 (1986), a court reviewing a claim of actual innocence must generally proceed with caution. But that type of caution is plainly unwarranted in a case in which constitutional error has concededly resulted in the imposition of an unlawful sentence. In such a case, there is simply no risk that entertaining the habeas applicant’s procedurally defaulted claim will result in an unwarranted encroachment on the principles of comity and finality that underlie the procedural default doctrine.