author: Mr. Justice Brennan

text:
    DURST et al. v. UNITED STATES
    No. 76-5935.
    Argued December 5, 1977
    Decided February 22, 1978

      Michael S. Frisch argued the cause for petitioners pro hac vice. With him on the brief was Charles G. Bernstein.

      Solicitor General McCree argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Assistant Attorney 'General Civiletti, Deputy Solicitor General Frey, Marion L. Jetton, Jerome M. Feit, and Marshall Tamor Golding.

   Mr. Justice Brennan

delivered the opinion of the Court.

We granted certiorari, 430 U. S. 929 (1977), to decide whether a trial judge (or designated United States Magistrate) who suspends a sentence of commitment and places a youth offender on probation pursuant to § 5010 (a) of the Federal Youth Corrections Act (YCA), 18 U. S. C. § 5005 et seq. (1976 ed.), may impose a fine, or require restitution, or both, as conditions of probation.

Each of the five petitioners pleaded guilty in a separate proceeding before a United States Magistrate to an offense for which penalties of fine or imprisonment or both are provided. Petitioners Durst and Rice pleaded guilty to obstruction of the mails in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1701 (1976 ed.). Petitioners Blystone and Pinnick pleaded guilty to stealing property with a value less than $100 from a Government reservation in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 661 (1976 ed.). Petitioner Flakes pleaded guilty to theft of property belonging to the United States with a value less than $100 in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 641 (1976 ed.). Each petitioner was sentenced by a Magistrate, under § 5010 (a), to probation and a suspended sentence of imprisonment. Petitioner Flakes was ordered to pay a fine of $50 as a condition of probation and each of the others $100. Petitioner Durst was also ordered to make restitution, in the amount of $160, as a condition of,probation.

Each petitioner appealed his sentence to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, which consolidated and affirmed the appeals. Crim. Action No. N-75-0828 (June 25, 1976). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed in an unpublished per curiam opinion, No. 76-1905 (Dec. 9, 1976), judgt. order reported at 549 F. 2d 799, relying on its earlier decision in United States v. Oliver, 546 F. 2d 1096 (1976), cert. pending, No. 76-5632, which had held that imposition of a fine as a condition of probation was consistent with the YCA. In addition, the per curiam in the instant case stated: “For the reasons expressed in Oliver, we believe that a requirement of restitution is also consistent.” App. 2. We agree that, when placing a youth offender on probation under § 5010 (a), the sentencing judge may require restitution, and, when the otherwise applicable penalty provision permits, impose a fine as a condition of probation, and therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

I

The YCA is primarily an outgrowth of recommendations of the Judicial Conference of the United States, see Dorssynski v. United States, 418 U. S. 424, 432 (1974), designed to reduce criminality among youth. Congress found that between the ages of 16 and 22, “special factors operated to produce habitual criminals. [Moreover,] then-existing methods of treating criminally inclined youths were found inadequate in avoiding recidivism.” Id., at 432-433 (citation omitted).

The core concept of the YCA, like that of England's Borstal System upon which it is modeled, is that rehabilitative treatment should be substituted for retribution as a sentencing goal. Both the Borstal System and the YCA incorporate three features thought essential to the operation of a successful rehabilitative treatment program: flexibility in choosing among a variety of treatment settings and programs tailored to individual needs; separation of youth offenders from hardened criminals; and careful and flexible control of the duration of commitment and of supervised release. The YCA established the framework for creation of a treatment program, incorporating these features, and, as an alternative to existing sentencing options, authorized a sentence of commitment to the Attorney General for treatment under the Act. Dorszynski, supra, at 437-440.

The Act contains four provisions regarding sentencing. Section 5010 (a) provides that “[i]f the court is of the opinion that the youth offender does not need commitment,” imposition or execution of sentence might be suspended and the youth offender placed on probation. Sections 5010 (b) and (c) provide that, if the youth is to be committed, the court might “in lieu of the penalty of imprisonment otherwise provided by law,” sentence the youth offender to the custody of the Attorney General for treatment and supervision. Section 5010 (d) provides that “[i]f the court shall find that the youth offender will not derive benefit from treatment under subsection (b) or (c),” the court may sentence the youth offender “under any other applicable penalty provision.”

A particularly valuable benefit for the offender sentenced under the YCA is the prospect of obtaining a certificate setting aside his conviction. A certificate automatically issues when a youth committed to the custody of the Attorney General under § 5010 (b) or § 5010 (c) is unconditionally released prior to expiration of the maximum sentence imposed. 18 U. S. C. § 5021 (a) (1976 ed.). In 1961, the YCA was amended to extend the benefit of a certificate to youths sentenced to probation under § 5010 (a) when the court unconditionally discharges the youth prior to expiration of the sentence of probation imposed. Act of Oct. 3, 1961, Pub. L. No. 87-336, 75 Stat. 750 (codified at 18 U. S. C. § 5021 (b) (1976 ed.)).

Petitioners make two arguments in support of their submission that sentencing judges choosing the option under § 5010 (a) of suspending sentence and placing the youth offender on probation may not impose a fine as a condition of probation. First, they argue that the sentencing provisions of the YCA are alternatives to other sentencing provisions and therefore a substitute for the penalties provided in the statute for violation of which the youth offender was convicted; since § 5010 (a) does not explicitly authorize the imposition of fines, sentencing judges have no authority to impose them when sentencing under that provision. Second, they argue that fines are necessarily punitive and their imposition therefore inconsistent with the rehabilitative goals of the YCA. Neither of these arguments has merit.

II

The language of § 5010 (a) neither grants nor withholds the authority to impose fines or orders of restitution. Another provision of the YCA, however, § 5023 (a), incorporates by reference the authority conferred under the general probation statute to permit such exactions. Section 5023 (a) provides: “Nothing in [the Act] shall limit or affect the power of any court to suspend the imposition or execution of any sentence and place a youth offender on probation or be construed in any wise to amend, repeal, or affect the provisions of chapter 231 [§§ 3651-3656] of this title . . . relative to probation.” Chapter 231 is the general probation statute and 18 U. S. C. § 3651 (1976 ed.) expressly provides, inter alia:

“While on probation and among the conditions thereof, the defendant—
“May be required to pay a fine in one or several sums ; and
“May be required to make restitution or reparation to aggrieved parties for actual damages or loss caused by the offense for which conviction was had . . . .”

Petitioners argue, however, that the sentencing provisions contained in § 5010 are separate and distinct from each other and from any other penalty provision. Recognizing that § 5023 (a) makes § 3651 applicable to a § 5010 (a) sentence, they now concede that restitution is a permissible condition of a probationary sentence under § 5010 (a), because § 3651 directly authorizes restitution without resort to any other penalty provision. On the other hand, a fine may be imposed under § 3651 only if the penalty provision of the offense under which the youth is convicted so provides. Thus, a fine is not permissible in conjunction with a § 5010 (a) sentence because it requires resort to the offense penalty provision.

Petitioners’ arguments are refuted by the legislative history of the Act. The legislative history of § 5023 (a) clearly reveals that Congress intended thereby to preserve to sentencing judges their powers under the general probation statute when sentencing youth offenders to probation under § 5010 (a). The House Report accompanying S. 2609, 81st Cong., 1st Sess. (1949), the bill which was enacted as the YCA, makes that clear in stating:

“Under [the bill’s] provisions, if the court finds that a youth offender does not need treatment, it may suspend the imposition or execution of sentence and place the youth offender on probation. Thus, the power of the court to grant probation is left undisturbed by the bill.” (Emphasis added.) H. R. Rep. No. 2979, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., 3 (1950).

The same view was expressed during the House hearings on H. R. 2140, 78th Cong., 1st Sess. (1943), a bill whose youth corrections provisions were nearly identical to those of S. 2609 introduced in 1949. Judge Phillips, Chairman of the Subcommittee responsible for drafting model youth correction legislation to be sponsored by the Judicial Conference, emphasized that “[i]t leaves [the probation system] absolutely undisturbed,” for the intent of the Judicial Conference in sponsoring the bill was to retain the existing options with respect to probation and adult punishment, while simply adding a new option of commitment for treatment. See 1943 House Hearings 34-37.

The legislative history of §§ 5010 (b) and 5010 (c) buttresses this understanding of the purpose of §5023 (a). Those subsections provide that commitment to the custody of the Attorney General is “in lieu of the penalty of imprisonment otherwise provided by law.” The words “of imprisonment” did not appear in the original bill recommended by the Judicial Conference in 1943. H. R. 2140, supra, tit. III, § 1 (a), reprinted in 1943 House Hearings 3. Addition of the words “of imprisonment” was recommended in a letter from Attorney General Biddle to the House Subcommittee. That letter, in which, according to the letter, members of the Judicial Conference concurred and which was read into the record at the Subcommittee hearings, explained the reason for adding the words “of imprisonment” as follows:

“Sentence of the youth offender to the custody of the Authority should be a permissible alternative to a penalty of imprisonment otherwise provided by law but not to a penalty of a fine. It should, moreover, be possible for the court both to impose a fine and to sentence the offender to the custody of the Authority, where the law provides both fine and imprisonment as the penalties that may be imposed.” (Emphasis added.) Letter from Francis Biddle to Francis E. Walter (June 7, 1943), reprinted in 1943 House Hearings 110-111.

When introduced, S. 2609, supra, which was enacted into law, contained the words “of imprisonment” recommended by Attorney General Biddle. This history of subsection (b) demonstrates that Congress added the words “of imprisonment” in order to preserve the pre-existing authority of judges to impose a fine in conjunction with commitment when the applicable penalty provision provided for a penalty of fine and imprisonment. The fact that Congress contemplated that a sentence under subsections (b) and (c) would permit resort to the otherwise applicable penalty provision as authority for imposition of a fine, militates in favor of the same construction with respect to subsection (a). There is no reason to believe that Congress directed that the subsections should be treated differently in that respect.

We conclude that Congress’ purpose in adopting § 5023 (a), was to assure that a sentence under § 5010 (a) would not displace the authority conferred by § 3651 to impose fines and orders of restitution as conditions of probation.

With respect to petitioners’ second argument, that fines are punitive and their imposition therefore inconsistent with the rehabilitative goals of the YCA, it is sufficient answer that Congress expressed its judgment to the contrary in preserving the authority of sentencing judges to impose them as a condition of probation. Moreover, we are not persuaded that fines should necessarily be regarded as other than rehabilitative when imposed as a condition of probation. There is much force in the observation of the District Court:

“ [A] fine could be consistent . . . with the rehabilitative intent of the Act. By employing this alternative [a fine and probation], the sentencing judge could assure that the youthful offender would not receive the harsh treatment of incarceration, while assuring that the offender accepts responsibility for his transgression. The net result of such treatment would be an increased respect for the law and would, in many cases, stimulate the young person to mature into a good law-abiding citizen.” App. 36-37.

Affirmed.

Mr. Justice Blackmun took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

       Courts of Appeals have reached conflicting conclusions concerning whether a fine is a permissible condition of a § 5010 (a) sentence. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, United States v. Bowens, 514 F. 2d 440 (1975); United States v. Mollet, 510 F. 2d 625 (1975), in disagreement with the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the instant case, has held that imposition of a fine is improper. The Ninth Circuit, United States v. Hayes, 474 F. 2d 965 (1973), and the Fifth Circuit, Cramer v. Wise, 501 F. 2d 959 (1974), have held that a fine is not permissible in conjunction with a § 5010 (b) sentence. With respect to orders of restitution, however, the Courts of Appeals that have addressed the question, the Ninth Circuit in United States v. Hix, 545 F. 2d 1247 (1976), and the Third Circuit in United States v. Buechler, 557 F. 2d 1002 (1977), agree with the Court of Appeals in this case that an order of restitution properly may be imposed in conjunction with a sentence under §5010 (a).

       Rice, a young adult, was sentenced under § 5010 (a) pursuant to 18 U. S. C. § 4216 (1976 ed.), which permits sentencing of young adult offenders under the YCA in appropriate cases.

       See S. Rep. No. 1180, 81st Cong., 1st Sess., 4 (1949); Prevention of Crime Act of 1908, 8 Edw. 7, ch. 59, pt. 1; The Criminal Justice Act of 1948, 11 & 12 Geo. 6, ch. 58; Criminal Justice Act of 1961, 9 & 10 Eliz. 2, ch. 39. For a discussion of the similarities between the Borstal System and the YCA, see Note, The Federal Youth Corrections Act: Past Concern in Need of Legislative Reappraisal, 11 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 229, 233-242 (1972).

       “The underlying theory of the bill is to substitute for retributive punishment methods of training and treatment designed to correct and prevent antisocial tendencies. It departs from the mere punitive idea of dealing with criminals and looks primarily to the objective idea of rehabilitation.” H. R. Rep. No. 2979, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., 3 (1950).

       The Act provides that committed youth “shall undergo treatment in institutions of maximum security, medium security, or minimum security types, including training schools, hospitals, farms, forestry and other camps, and other agencies ... of treatment.” 18 U. S. C. § 5011 (1976 ed.). Moreover, it provides for the examination, classification, and periodic re-evaluation of youth on an individual basis in order to tailor the Act's programs to individual needs. See 18 U. S. C. §§ 5014-5017 (1976 ed.).
      The basis for this emphasis on individualized and flexible treatment programs was the Borstal System which the Act emulated. That program was described in H. R. Rep. No. 2979, supra, at 5, as follows:
      “[The Borstal System] now embraces 13 institutions. Some are walled. Others are completely open. Each institution has its own particular specialty.
      “One provides complete facilities for trade training in metal and woodwork. Another is laid out and run as a summer camp with work and recreational programs which keep the boys out of doors. A third is largely devoted to agriculture and stock raising. One institution graduates skilled workers in the building trades.
      “While the institutions differ in, many respects, they have certain things in common. . . .
      “Second, an individual plan based on close acquaintance with individual needs and antecedents and calculated to return the young men to society as social and rehabilitated citizens.
      “Three cardinal principles dominate the system: (1) flexibility, (2) individualization, and (3) emphasis on the intangibles.”

       “By herding youth with maturity, the novice with the sophisticate, the impressionable with the hardened, and by subjecting youth offenders to the evil influences of older criminals and their teaching of criminal techniques, without the inhibitions that come from normal contacts and counteracting prophylaxis, many of our penal institutions actively spread the infection of crime and foster, rather than check, it.” H. R. Rep. No. 2979, supra, at 2-3.

       The statement of Mr. Bennett, the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, before the Senate Subcommittee explained the need for an indeterminate sentence with discretion vested in the Youth Corrections Division of the Bureau to release the offender at the appropriate time. Mr. Bennett said:
      “From the hundreds of cases of this type which have come across my desk I have formed the conclusion, that in the task of correcting the offender the crucial element is that of time. Attitudes, habits, interests, standards cannot be changed overnight. Training in work habits and skills requires time. Once the individual has received the maximum benefit from the institutional program, however, it is just as important that his release to the community be effected promptly. In the case of each person confined there comes a period when he has his best prospects of making good in the community. His release should occur at this time. If he is released earlier he will not be ready for the task of establishing himself; if later, he may have become bitter, unsure of himself, or jittery like the athlete who is overtrained.
      “Rarely does a day go by in one of our institutions for younger offenders without a youth being received whose sentence is either far too long or far too short, if the institution is to carry out its objective of correctional treatment.” Correctional System For Youth Offenders: Hearings on S. 1114 and S. 2609 before a Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 81st Cong., 1st Sess., 27 (1949).
      Congress provided the Bureau with the flexibility sought by providing in § 5017 for flexible commitment periods responsive to individual needs and progress.

       Section 5010 provides in full:
      “ (a) If the court is of the opinion that the youth offender does not need commitment, it may suspend the imposition or execution of sentence and place the youth offender on probation.
      “(b) If the court shall find that a convicted person is a youth offender, and the offense is punishable by imprisonment under applicable provisions of law other than this subsection, the court may, in lieu of the penalty of imprisonment otherwise provided by law, sentence the youth offender to the custody of the Attorney General for treatment and supervision pursuant to this chapter until discharged by the Commission as provided in section 5017 (c) of this chapter; or
      “(c) If the court shall find that the youth offender may not be able to derive maximum benefit from treatment by the Commission prior to the expiration of six years from the date of conviction it may, in lieu of the penalty of imprisonment otherwise provided by law, sentence the youth offender to the custody of the Attorney General for treatment and supervision pursuant to this chapter for any further period that may be authorized by law for the offense or offenses of which he stands convicted or until discharged by the Commission as provided in section 5017 (d) of this chapter.
      “(d) If the court shall find that the youth offender will not derive benefit from treatment under subsection (b) or (c), then the court may sentence the youth offender under any other applicable penalty provision.
      “(e) If the court desires additional information as to whether a youth offender will derive benefit from treatment under subsections (b) or (c) it may order that he be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for observation and study at an appropriate classification center or agency. Within sixty days from the date of the order, or such additional period as the court may grant, the Commission shall report to the court its findings.”

       Petitioners abandoned the contention contained in their petition for certiorari that a § 5010 (a) sentence may not be conditioned upon restitution. See n. 11, infra.

       Section 3651 provides in relevant part:
      “Upon entering a judgment of conviction of any offense not punishable by death or life imprisonment, any court having jurisdiction to try offenses against the United States when satisfied that the ends of justice and the best interest of the public as well as the defendant will be served thereby, may suspend the imposition or execution of sentence and place the defendant on probation for such period and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems best.
      “While on probation and among the conditions thereof, the defendant—
      “May be required to pay a fine in one or several sums; and
      “May be required to make restitution or reparation to aggrieved parties for actual damages or loss caused by the offense for which conviction was had . . . ."

       Petitioners apparently agree with the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which held in United, States v. Hix, 545 F. 2d 1247 (1976), that a fine is inherently punitive but restitution is essentially rehabilitative. Brief for Petitioners 11. In their brief, petitioners argued that restitution is not a permissible condition of probation, however, because “[i]t is ... a real concern that sentencing courts may use restitution as a vehicle to accomplish that which is not permitted by the statute. Further, since the Federal Youth Corrections Act is an exclusive sentencing statute, any sentence beyond the limits of the Act is improper.” Ibid. During oral argument, petitioners expressly abandoned this argument, conceding that restitution is a permissible condition of probation because it is directly authorized by § 3651. Tr. of Oral Arg. 5, 8, 9.

       The Government conceded that § 3651 permits imposition of a fine “only when the underlying statute calls for fine and/or imprisonment.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 12. We need not address the question suggested by this phrasing, that a fine may be imposed when the underlying offense statute provides only a penalty of imprisonment. Compare id., with Letter from Francis Biddle to Francis E. Walter, quoted, infra, at 552.

       The full statement of Judge Phillips’ remark regarding the bill’s effect on the probation system is as follows:
      “Mr. Cravens. Does this bill in any way affect the so-called probation system?
      “Judge Phillips. Not at all.
      “Mr. Cravens. There is no attempt to disturb that?
      “Judge Phillips. No sir; we found it was working well and concluded it ought not to be disturbed.
      “Mr. Cravens. And this bill was drafted with that in mind?
      “Judge Phillips. Yes, sir. It leaves it absolutely undisturbed.” Federal Corrections Act and Improvement in Parole: Hearings on H. R. 2139 and H. R. 2140 before Subcommittee No. 3 of the Committee on the Judiciary, 78th Cong., 1st Sess., 37 (1943) (hereinafter 1943 House Hearings).

       Petitioners argued that Congress may have intended to authorize imposition of a fine on one sentenced to commitment under subsection (b), yet to withhold such authority as to one sentenced to probation under subsection (a) based on the “qualitative” distinction between people sentenced under those subsections. Tr. of Oral Arg. 8. If that argument is based on a perceived distinction between the treatment needs of the two “classes” of youth offenders, it is without support in the history of the Act, and conflicts with the Act’s emphasis on flexibility and individualization of treatment. See n. 5, supra. If the premise of the argument is that those sentenced to commitment merit a fine as punishment, while those sentenced to probation do not, it conflicts with the basic purpose of the Act to accord youth offenders rehabilitative treatment rather than retributive punishment. See n. 4, supra.

       See ibid,., and accompanying text.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Me. Justice White Mr. Chief Justice Burger, Mr. Justice Stevens,

license: Public Domain

text:
    PROCUNIER, CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR, et al. v. NAVARETTE
    No. 76-446.
    Argued October 11, 1977
    Decided February 22, 1978

      Sanford Svetcov, Deputy Attorney General of California, argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the brief were Evelle J. Younger, Attorney General, Jack R. Winkler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Edward P. O’Brien, Assistant Attorney General, and W. Eric Collins, Deputy Attorney General.

      Michael E. Adams argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.

        Leon Friedman, Joel M. Gora, and Alvin J. Bronstein filed a brief for the American Civil Liberties Union as amicus curiae urging affirmance.

   Me. Justice White

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Respondent Navarette, an inmate of Soledad Prison in California when the events revealed here occurred, filed his second amended complaint on January 19, 1974, charging six prison officials with various types of conduct allegedly violative of his constitutional rights and of 42 U.. S. C. §§ 1983 and 1985. Three of the defendants were subordinate officials at Soledad; three were supervisory officials: the director of the State Department of Corrections and the warden and assistant warden of Soledad. The first three of nine claims for relief alleged wrongful interference with Navarette's outgoing mail. The first claim charged that the three subordinate officers, who were in charge of mail handling, had failed to mail various items of correspondence during the 15 months that respondent was incarcerated at Soledad, from September 1, 1971, to December 11, 1972. These items, described in 13 numbered paragraphs, included letters to legal assistance groups, law students, the news media, and inmates in other state prisons, as well as personal friends. Some of these items had been returned to Navarette, some the defendants had refused to send by registered mail as Navarette had requested, and, it was alleged, none of the items had ever reached the intended recipient. This “interference” or “confiscation” was asserted to have been in “knowing disregard” of the applicable statewide prisoner mail regulations and of Navarette's “constitutional rights,” including his rights to free speech and due process as guaranteed by the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The three supervisory officers were alleged to have knowingly condoned this conduct and to have conspired with their subordinates for forbidden ends.

The second claim for relief alleged wrongful failure to mail the same items of correspondence and asserted that the “interference or confiscation” had been conducted with “bad faith disregard” for Navarette’s rights. The third claim posed the same failures to mail but claimed that the “interference” or “confiscation” had occurred because the three subordinate officers had “negligently and inadvertently” misapplied the prison mail regulations and because the supervisory officers had “negligently]” failed to provide sufficient training and direction to their subordinates, all assertedly in violation of Navarette’s constitutional rights.

Petitioners moved for dismissal for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted or alternatively for summary judgment. Affidavits in support of the motion and counter-affidavits opposing it were also before the District Court. By order and without opinion, the court then granted summary judgment for petitioners on the first three claims and dismissed the remaining claims for failure to state a federal claim.

The Court of Appeals reversed as to the first three claims. Navarette v. Enomoto, 536 F. 2d 277 (CA9 1976). It held, first, that prisoners themselves are entitled to First and Fourteenth Amendment protection for their outgoing mail and that Navarette’s allegations were sufficient to encompass proof that would entitle him to relief in damages. Second, the court ruled that summary judgment on the first two claims was improper because there were issues of fact to be tried, particularly with respect to the claim that “a reasonable and good faith belief of a state official that his or her conduct is lawful, even where in fact it is not, constitutes a complete defense to a § 1983 claim for damages.” Id., at 280. Third, the Court of Appeals held that Navarette’s “allegations that state officers negligently deprived him of [his constitutional] rights state a § 1983 cause of action” and that summary judgment on the third purported claim was “improper because, as in the case of counts one and two, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Navarette, we are unable to say appellees are entitled to prevail as a matter of law.” Id., at 282, and n. 6.

We granted certiorari, 429 U. S. 1060, and the question before us is whether the Court of Appeals correctly reversed the District Court’s judgment with respect to Navarette’s third claim for relief alleging negligent interference with a claimed constitutional right.

In support of their motion for summary judgment, petitioners argued that on the record before the court they were immune from liability for damages under § 1983 and hence were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The claim was not that they shared the absolute immunity accorded judges and prosecutors but that they were entitled to the qualified immunity accorded those officials involved in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U. S. 232 (1974), and Wood v. Strickland, 420 U. S. 308 (1975). The Court of Appeals appeared to agree that petitioners were entitled to the claimed degree of immunity but held that they were nevertheless not entitled to summary judgment because in the court’s view there were issues of fact to be resolved and because when the facts were viewed most favorably to respondent, it could not be held that petitioners were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Without disagreeing that petitioners enjoyed a qualified immunity from damages liability under § 1983, respondent defends the judgment of the Court of Appeals as a proper application of § 1983 and of the Court’s cases construing it.

Although the Court has recognized that in enacting § 1983 Congress must have intended to expose state officials to damages liability in some circumstances, the section has been consistently construed as not intending wholesale revocation of the common-law immunity afforded government officials. Legislators, judges, and prosecutors have been held absolutely immune from liability for damages under § 1983. Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U. S. 367 (1951); Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 547 (1967); Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 (1976). Only a qualified immunity from damages is available to a state Governor, a president of a state university, and officers and members of a state National Guard., Scheuer v. Rhodes, supra. The same is true of local school board members, Wood v. Strickland, supra; of the superintendent of a state hospital, O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U. S. 563 (1975); and of policemen, Pierson v. Ray, supra; see Imbler v. Pachtman, supra, at 418-419.

We agree with petitioners that as prison officials and officers, they were not absolutely immune from liability in this § 1983 damages suit and could rely only on the qualified immunity described in Scheuer v. Rhodes, supra, and Wood v. Strickland, supra. Scheuer declared:

“[I]n varying scope, a qualified immunity is available to officers of the executive branch of government, the variation being dependent upon the scope of discretion and responsibilities of the office and all the circumstances as they reasonably appeared at the time of the action on which liability is sought to be based. It is the existence of reasonable grounds for the belief formed at the time and in light of all the circumstances, coupled with good-faith belief, that affords a basis for qualified immunity of executive officers for acts performed in the course of official conduct.” 416 U. S., at 247-248.

We further held in Wood v. Strickland, that “if the work of the schools is to go forward,” there must be a degree of immunity so that “public school officials understand that action taken in the good-faith fulfillment of their responsibilities and within the bounds of reason under all the circumstances will not be punished and that they need not exercise their discretion with undue timidity.” 420 U. S., at 321. This degree of immunity would be unavailable, however, if the official “knew or reasonably should have known that the action he took within his sphere of official responsibility would violate the constitutional rights of the student affected, or if he took the action with the malicious intention to cause a deprivation of constitutional rights or other injury to the student.” Id., at 322. The official cannot be expected to predict the future course of constitutional law, ibid.; Pierson v. Ray, supra, at 557, but he will not be shielded from liability if he acts “with such disregard of the [plaintiff's] clearly established constitutional rights that his action cannot reasonably be characterized as being in good faith.” 420 U. S., at 322.

Under the first part of the Wood v. Strickland rule, the immunity defense would be unavailing to petitioners if the constitutional right allegedly infringed by them was clearly established at the time of their challenged conduct, if they knew or should have known of that right, and if they knew or should have known that their conduct violated the constitutional norm. Petitioners claim that in 1971 and 1972 when the conduct involved in this case took place there was no established First Amendment right protecting the mailing privileges of state prisoners and that hence there was no such federal right about which they should have known. We are in essential agreement with petitioners in this respect and also agree that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

In ruling that petitioners’ conduct had encroached on Navarette’s First Amendment rights, the Court of Appeals relied on two of its own decisions, one in 1973 and the other in 1974, as well as upon Martinez v. Procunier, 354 F. Supp. 1092 (ND Cal.), a 1973 three-judge court opinion with which the Court of Appeals said it was in essential agreement. The court relied on no earlier opinions, and this Court, in affirming the judgment in Martinez v. Procunier, did so on the ground that the constitutional rights of the addressees of a prisoner’s correspondence were involved when prison officials interfered with a prisoner’s outgoing mail. Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U. S. 396 (1974). The question of the rights of the prisoner himself was left open. The Court referred to the “tension between the traditional policy of judicial restraint regarding prisoner complaints and the need to protect constitutional rights” which has “led the federal courts to adopt a variety of widely inconsistent approaches to the problem” of constitutional challenges to censorship of prisoner mail and to the “absence of any generally accepted standard for testing the constitutionality of prison mail censorship regulations . . . .” Id., at 406, 407. Some Courts of Appeals were said to have maintained a “hands off posture”; others to have extended various degrees of protection to prisoners’ mail. The Court referred to no relevant pronouncements by courts in the Ninth Circuit other than the one then under review; and it is apparent that Procunier, the defendant in the Martinez suit and in this one, was then maintaining that there was no established constitutional right protecting prison mail under which his mail regulations could be challenged.

Respondent relies on Hyland v. Procunier, 311 F. Supp. 749 (ND Cal. 1970); Gilmore v. Lynch, 319 F. Supp. 105 (ND Cal. 1970), aff’d sub nom. Younger v. Gilmore, 404 U. S. 15 (1971); Northern v. Nelson, 315 F. Supp. 687 (ND Cal. 1970); Payne v. Whitmore, 325 F. Supp. 1191 (ND Cal. 1971); and Brenneman v. Madigan, 343 F. Supp. 128 (ND Cal. 1972). But none of these cases deals with the rights of convicted prisoners in their mail and none furnishes an adequate basis for claiming that in 1971 and 1972 there was a “clearly established” constitutional right protecting Navarette’s correspondence involved in this case.

Whether the state of the law is evaluated by reference to the opinions of this Court, of the Courts of Appeals, or of the local District Court, there was no “clearly established” First and Fourteenth Amendment right with respect to the correspondence of convicted prisoners in 1971-1972. As a matter of law, therefore, there was no basis for rejecting the immunity defense on the ground that petitioners knew or should have known that their alleged conduct violated a constitutional right. Because they could not reasonably have been expected to be aware of a constitutional right that had not yet been declared, petitioners did not act with such disregard for the established law that their conduct “cannot reasonably be characterized as being in good faith.” Wood v. Strickland, 420 U. S., at 322.

Neither should petitioners’ immunity defense be overruled under the second branch of the Wood v. Strickland standard, which would authorize liability where the official has acted with “malicious intention” to deprive the plaintiff of a constitutional right or to cause him “other injury.” This part of the rule speaks of “intentional injury,” contemplating that the actor intends the consequences of his conduct. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 8A (1965). The third claim for relief with which we are concerned here, however, charges negligent conduct, which normally implies that although the actor has subjected the plaintiff to unreasonable risk, he did not intend the harm or injury that in fact resulted. See id., at § 282 and Comment d. Claims 1 and 2 of the complaint alleged intentional and bad-faith conduct in disregard of Navarette’s constitutional rights; but claim 3, as the court below understood it and as the parties have treated it, was limited to negligence. The prison officers were charged with negligent and inadvertent interference with the mail and the supervisory personnel with negligent failure to provide proper training. To the extent that a malicious intent to harm is a ground for denying immunity, that consideration is clearly not implicated by the negligence claim now before us.

We accordingly conclude that the District Court was correct in entering summary judgment for petitioners on the third claim of relief and that the Court of Appeals erred in holding otherwise. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is

Reversed.

Mr. Chief Justice Burger,

dissenting.

I dissent because the Court’s opinion departs from our practice of considering only the question upon which certiorari was granted or questions “fairly comprised therein.” This Court’s Rule 23(l)(c). We agreed to consider only one question: “Whether negligent failure to mail certain of a prisoner’s outgoing letters states a cause of action under section 1983?” The Court decides a different question: Whether the petitioners in this case are immune from § 1983 damages for the negligent conduct alleged in count three of Navarette’s complaint. That question is not “comprised” within the question that we agreed to consider. Nor is this case within any “well-recognized exception” to our practice. See Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University Foundation, 402 U. S. 313, 320 n. 6 (1971); R. Stern &; E. Gressman, Supreme Court Practice § 6.37, p. 298 (4th ed. 1969).

The District Court granted summary judgment for the petitioners, without opinion, on a claim that petitioners confiscated Navarette’s mail in the course of a negligent and inadvertent application of mail regulations. The meaning of that allegation is by no means clear. Navarette may have intended to allege that petitioners were aware of the nature of the mail and intentionally confiscated it because they did not understand prison regulations. Or it may be that Navarette intended to claim that petitioners, apart from their understanding of prison mail regulations, confiscated the mail because they were mistaken as to its nature. The Court of Appeals appears to have adopted the latter interpretation of the allegation although its opinion is not entirely clear. It described the pertinent cause of action as alleging acts “committed negligently.” Having decided that the complaint alleged negligent acts, the Court of Appeals addressed the issue of whether a negligent act can give rise to § 1983 liability. It decided that “a deprivation of rights need not be purposeful to be actionable under § 1983” and held that Navarette’s allegation “that state officers negligently deprived him of [his rights] state [s] a § 1983 cause of action.”

The question before us is whether deprivation of a constitutional right by negligent conduct is actionable under § 1983. Neither the language nor the legislative history of § 1983 indicates that Congress intended to provide remedies for negligent acts.

1 would hold that one who does not intend to cause and does not exhibit deliberate indifference to- the risk of causing the harm that gives rise to- a constitutional claim is not liable for damages under § 1983. I would then remand the case to the Court of Appeals to construe the ambiguous complaint and determine whether the allegation regarding misapplication of prison mail regulations states a § 1983 cause of action.

Mr. Justice Stevens,

dissenting.

Today’s decision, coupled with O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U. S. 563, strongly implies that every defendant in a § 1983 action is entitled to assert a qualified immunity from damage liability. As the immunity doctrine developed, the Court was careful to limit its holdings to specific officials, and to insist that a considered inquiry into- the common law was an essential precondition to the recognition of the proper immunity for any official. These limits have now been abandoned. In Donaldson, without explanation and without reference to the common law, the Court held that the standard for judging the immunity of the superintendent of a mental hospital is the same as the standard for school officials; today the Court purports to apply the same standard to the superintendent of a prison system and to various correction officers.

I have no quarrel with the extension of a qualified immunity defense to all state agents. A public servant who is conscientiously doing his job to the best of his ability should rarely, if ever, be exposed to the risk of damage liability. But when the Court makes the qualified immunity available to all potential defendants, it is especially important that the contours of this affirmative defense be explained with care and precision. Unfortunately, I believe today’s opinion significantly changes the nature of the defense and overlooks the critical importance of carefully examining the factual basis for the defense in each case in which it is asserted.

The facts of this case have been developed only sketchily. Because the District Court granted a motion for summary judgment, we must accept Navarette’s version of the facts as true. The Court of Appeals remanded six of his claims for trial. These claims tell us that prison officials prevented Navarette from corresponding with legal assistance groups, law students, the news media, personal friends, and other inmates with legal problems or expertise. Some of this mail was deliberately confiscated because the guards regarded Navarette as a troublesome “writ-writer" and some was mishandled simply because the guards were careless in performing their official duties.

To establish their defense, all the defendants except Pro-cunier have filed an affidavit stating that they made a good-faith effort to comply with prison mail regulations while handling Navarette’s mail. But Navarette’s affidavit challenges this assertion. According to Navarette, the prison warden took the position, despite contrary prison regulations, that officials had a right to confiscate any mail, “if we don’t feel it is right or necessary.” Record 78. Navarette also claims that his writ-writing activities led authorities to punish him by taking away his job as a prison librarian and by seizing his mail.

With the record in this state, the defendants have not established good faith. The heart of the good-faith defense is the manner in which the defendant has carried out his job. A public official is entitled to immunity for acts performed in the regular course of duty if he sincerely and reasonably believed he was acting within the sphere of his official responsibility. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U. S. 232, 247-248. The kind of evidence that will adequately support the defense will vary widely from case to case. Some defendants, especially those without policymaking responsibility, may establish their defense by showing that they abided by the institution's regulations or by its long-followed practices. Other officials, whose exercise of discretion is given greater deference by the courts, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, supra, may have a correspondingly greater duty to consider the legal implications of their conduct.

Wood v. Strickland, 420 U. S. 308, pointed out two specific instances in which an official might forfeit his good-faith defense by deviating from a reasonable performance of his job. An official does not carry out his official duties properly if he chooses a course of conduct that he knows, or should know, is unconstitutional. Id., at 322. Similarly, an official steps outside his proper role when he uses his powers to inflict constitutional or other harm on an individual for reasons unrelated to the performance of his duty. Selective and malicious enforcement of the law is not good faith.

Under this standard, Navarette may well be able to defeat these defendants' affirmative defense of good faith. He has alleged, and therefore we must assume, that the defendants did not in fact act within the sphere of their accepted responsibilities. If they carelessly disregarded the standards which their superiors directed them to follow, they would be unable to make the threshold showing necessary to establish good faith. Whether or not that showing can be made in this case depends on a resolution of the conflict between Navarette’s allegations of negligence and the statements in defendants’ affidavit.

The defendants fare no better if we limit our attention to the two examples of bad faith set out in Wood v. Strickland, supra. The Wood Court stated that actual malice — the intent to cause constitutional or other injury — cannot be good faith; a defendant may not have the benefit of the good-faith defense if he misuses his powers by singling out the plaintiff for special and unfair injuries. In this case, malice is alleged in some of the plaintiff’s claims, and we must assume that it can be proved. The evidence might show that the defendants intentionally confiscated some of Navarette’s mail as a punishment and that they negligently mislaid other letters. A jury might then find that the defendants’ animus toward Navarette so tainted their handling of his mail that the good-faith defense should be denied them even with respect to harm caused by their negligence. Only by qualifying its previous teaching about this defense can the Court regard evidence of the defendants’ ill will toward the plaintiff as totally irrelevant to any claim that he may have for harm caused by the negligent performance of their duties.

The Wood Court also noted that a plaintiff may successfully rebut a claim of immunity based on the defendant’s good-faith performance of official duties by demonstrating that the defendant knew, or should have known, that he was acting unconstitutionally. I think the Court is correct in concluding that the First Amendment’s applicability to an inmate’s correspondence was not so well established in 1971 that the defendants should have known that interfering with a prisoner’s routine mail was unconstitutional. That does not, however, foreclose the argument that the official neglect alleged in this case implicated a different constitutional right — the prisoner’s right of access to the courts. In 1971, Navarette had a well-established right of access to the courts and to legal assistance. Cutting off his communications with law students and legal assistance groups violated this right. While the lower echelon employees may have been under no obligation to read advance sheets, a jury might conclude that at least some of these defendants should have known that at least some of Navarette’s mail was entitled to constitutional protection. Certainly the question whether correction officers should be charged with knowledge of a constitutional right to communicate with law students and legal assistance groups could be better answered after, rather than before, trial. Cf. O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U. S., at 576-577; Donaldson v. O’Connor, 519 F. 2d 59 (CA5 1975).

In sum, I am persuaded that the Court has acted unwisely in reaching out to decide the merits of an affirmative defense before any evidence has been heard and that the record as now developed does not completely foreclose the possibility that the plaintiff might be able to disprove a good-faith defense that has not yet even been pleaded properly.

Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the decision to decide a question which is not properly presented and from the way the Court decides that question.

       Section 1983 provides:
      “Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.”
      Section 1985 proscribes certain conspiracies interfering with civil rights.

       The named subordinate officials were two correctional counselors at Soledad and a member of the prison staff in charge of handling incoming and outgoing prisoner mail. The complaint also referred to unnamed defendants Does I through IV.

       Regulations promulgated January 5, 1970, permitted each inmate to send letters to 10 persons on an approved correspondence list plus other special-purpose letters as authorized. Director’s Rule (“D.”) 2403. Except with permission of the institutional head, correspondence with other inmates was prohibited. D.2402 (13). The inmate was also advised:
      “You may not send or receive letters that pertain to criminal activity; are lewd, obscene, or defamatory; contain prison gossip or discussion of other inmates; or are otherwise inappropriate.” D. 2402 (8).
      The regulations assured confidentiality for correspondence with state and federal officials and also stated:
      “Nothing in these rules shall deprive you of correspondence with your attorney, or with the courts having jurisdiction over matters of legitimate concern to you.” D.2402 (10).
      These regulations controlled prisoner correspondence until August 10, 1972, and were in effect at the time that all but one of respondent’s letters were posted. Subsequent regulations expanded inmate correspondence rights.

       Claims 4, 5, and 6 concerned the termination of a law student visitation program in which respondent had participated and the removal of respondent from the post of prison librarian. Claims 7, 8, and 9 realleged the substance of claims 1 through 6 and sought to hold the supervisory officials hable upon a theory of vicarious rather than personal liability. All nine claims also claimed a conspiracy in violation of 42 U. S. C. § 1985.

       The Court of Appeals also reversed the ruling of the District Court with respect to the 4th, 5th, and 6th claims on the theory that “[t]he termination or denial of prison privileges because of a prisoner’s legal activities on his own behalf or those of other inmates is an impermissible interference with his or her constitutional right of access to the courts.” 536 F. 2d, at 280. Since this issue is not related to the question on which we granted certiorari, we express no view on the resolution of these claims by the court below.
      The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of the claims based on vicarious liability (claims 7, 8, and 9) and also affirmed its dismissal of all claims predicated on 42 U. S. C. § 1985. 536 F. 2d, at 282. Neither of these issues is raised here.

       The questions presented in the petition for certiorari were:
      “1. Whether negligent failure to mail certain of a prisoner’s outgoing letters states a cause of action under section 1983 ?

        “2. Whether removal of a prisoner as a prison law librarian and termination of a law student-inmate visitation program in which he participated states a cause of action under the Civil Rights Act for either knowingly or negligently interfering with the prisoner’s right of access to the courts?
      “3. Whether deliberate refusal to mail certain of a prisoner’s correspondence in 1971-1972 prior to Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U. S. 396 (1974), and refusal to send certain correspondence by registered mail states a cause of action for violation of his First Amendment right to free expression?”
      Our order granting the petition was limited to Question No. 1. In their submissions on the merits, the parties deal with this issue as subsuming the questions whether at the time of the occurrence of the relevant events the Federal Constitution had been construed to protect Navarette’s mailing privileges and whether petitioners knew or should have known that their alleged conduct violated Navarette’s constitutional rights. Since consideration of these issues is essential to analysis of the Court of Appeals’ reversal of summary judgment on claim 3 of the complaint, we shall also treat these questions as subsidiary issues “fairly comprised” by the question presented. This Court’s Rule 23.1 (c). In any event, our power to decide is not limited by the precise terms of the question presented. Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University Foundation, 402 U. S. 313, 320 n. 6 (1971).

       The Courts of Appeals have generally accorded prison and jail administrators performing discretionary functions a qualified immunity from monetary liability under § 1983. E. g., Knell v. Bensinger, 522 F. 2d 720 (CA7 1975); Hoitt v. Vitek, 497 F. 2d 598, 601 (CA1 1974); Dewell v. Lawson, 489 F. 2d 877 (CA10 1974); Anderson v. Nosser, 438 F. 2d 183 (CA5 1971), modified on rehearing, 456 F. 2d 835 (1972); see Bryan v. Jones, 530 F. 2d 1210 (CA5), cert. denied, 429 U. S. 865 (1976).

       416 U. S., at 406, citing McCloskey v. Maryland, 337 F. 2d 72 (CA4 1964); Lee v. Tahash, 352 F. 2d 970 (CA8 1965); Knupnick v. Crouse, 366 F. 2d 851 (CA10 1966); Pope v. Daggett, 350 F. 2d 296 (CA10 1965).

       416 U. S., at 406-407, citing, inter alia, Sostre v. McGinnis, 442 F. 2d 178, 199 (CA2 1971) (censorship of personal correspondence must have support “in any rational and constitutionally acceptable concept of a prison system”); Jackson v. Godwin, 400 F. 2d 529 (CA5 1968) (censorship of prisoner mail must be supported by a compelling state interest); Wilkinson v. Skinner, 462 F. 2d 670, 672-673 (CA2 1972) (requiring a “clear and present danger”).

       The jurisdictional statement filed by Procunier stated that “the vast majority of reported cases held that restrictions on the extent and character of prisoners’ correspondence and examination and censorship thereof are inherent incidents in the conduct of penal institutions,” but noted that in the federal courts there were “widely diverging views regarding the scope and propriety of federal intervention in matters of internal prison regulation,” particularly with respect to inmate mail. Jurisdictional Statement filed in Procunier v. Martinez, O. T. 1973, No. 72-1465, p. 9.

       In Hyland v. Procunier, the District Court enjoined correctional officials from requiring a parolee to obtain advance permission for speeches to public gatherings. The opinion did not discuss the rights of prisoners. Gilmore v. Lynch concerned regulations limiting prisoner access to. legal materials and mutual legal assistance. The decision rested on the prisoners’ right to reasonable access to the courts. Northern v. Nelson upheld an inmate’s right to receive a newspaper which was “necessary for effective exercise of plaintiff’s right to practice the Muslim religion.” 315 F. Supp., at 688. Payne v. Whitmore affirmed the inmates’ First Amendment right to receive newspapers and magazines. The theory of the decision was that “prison rules must bear a reasonable relationship to valid prison goals, and rules which infringe upon particularly important rights will require a proportionately stronger justification.” 325 F. Supp., at 1193. It contained no discussion concerning either the importance of prisoner correspondence rights or the type of correspondence rules which would be reasonable. Toward the end of the relevant period, in May 1972, Brenneman v. Madigan held that pretrial detainees had a First Amendment right in their correspondence. The court recognized, however, that “[p] re-trial detainees do not stand on the same footing as convicted inmates.” 343 F. Supp., at 142.

       Although some of the items of correspondence with which respondent claims interference concerned legal matters or were addressed to lawyers, respondent is foreclosed from asserting any claim with respect to mail interference based on infringement of his right of access to the courts because such a claim was dismissed with prejudice in an earlier phase of this case. Order of Feb. 9, 1973, No. C-72-1954 SW (ND Cal.). In his Points and Authorities Against Motion to Dismiss filed in connection with the present complaint on April 17, 1974, respondent stated that “[t]he claim against mail interference does not purport to allege denial of access to the courts,” and explained that “[i]n ruling on defendants’ previous Motion to Dismiss, in February, 1973, this Court dismissed plaintiff’s claim against mail interference insofar as it alleged denial of access to the courts.” Record 171.

       There is thus no occasion to address this case on the assumption that Navarette’s mailing privileges were protected by a constitutional rule of which petitioners could reasonably have been expected to be aware in 1971 and 1972 and to inquire whether petitioners knew or should have known that their conduct was in violation of that constitutional proscription.

         Because of the disposition of this case on immunity grounds, we do not address petitioners’ other submissions: that § 1983 does not afford a remedy for negligent deprivation of constitutional rights and that state prisoners have no First and Fourteenth Amendment rights in their outgoing mail.

      Thus, in Wood v. Strickland, 420 U. S. 308, 322, the Court stated:
      “Therefore, in the specific context of school discipline, we hold that a school board member is not immune from liability for damages under § 1983 if he knew or reasonably should have known that the action he took within his sphere of official responsibility would violate the constitutional rights of the student affected, or if he took the action with the malicious intention to cause a deprivation of constitutional rights or other injury to the student.” (Emphasis added.)

       In Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409, 421, the Court stated:
      “As noted above, our earlier decisions on § 1983 immunities were not products of judicial fiat that officials in different branches of government are differently amenable to suit under § 1983. Rather, each was predicated upon a considered inquiry into the immunity historically accorded the relevant official at common law and the interests behind it.”

       Perhaps with good reason, see Whirl v. Kern, 407 F. 2d 781, 791-792 (CA5 1969), the Court does not consult the common law to gauge the scope of a jailer’s immunity. Cf. Imbler v. Pachtman, supra, at 421; Wood v. Strickland, supra, at 818. Instead, the Court seems to rely on an un-articulated notion that prison administrators deserve as much immunity as Governors, school administrators, hospital administrators, and policemen. Ante, at 561, and n. 7. The Court also elides any distinction between discretionary and ministerial tasks. Cf. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U. S. 232, 247. One defendant in this case was joined simply because he “was in charge of handling incoming and outgoing prisoner mail.” Although the scope of this defendant’s duties is not clear, he may well have been performing wholly ministerial chores, such as bagging and delivering prison mail. By allowing summary judgment in his favor, the Court strongly suggests that the nature of his job is irrelevant to whether he should have a good-faith immunity.

       For purposes of decision, the Court also makes an assumption about the law that applies to this case. Like the Court, I shall assume, without deciding, that a guard who negligently misreads regulations and improperly interferes with a prisoner’s mail has violated § 1983.

       Procunier filed neither an answer nor an affidavit. The affidavit filed by the other defendants states:
      “Insofar as I handled, approved, returned or otherwise dealt with the mail of Apolinar Navarette, such actions were at all times taken in good faith effort to comply with the applicable regulations then in force of the Director of the Department of Corrections or the superintendent of the institution. At no time did I maliciously interfere with or confiscate plaintiff’s mail, or conspire with others to so act, in violation of applicable regulations.” Record 142.

       This is the principle we have turned to in fashioning more specific rules. In Wood v. Strickland, supra, for example, the Court said that the goal of the good-faith doctrine is to allow officials to do their jobs faithfully without fear:
      “[H]owever worded, the immunity must be such that public school officials understand that action taken in the good-faith fulfillment of their responsibilities and within the bounds of reason under all the circumstances will not be punished and that they need not exercise their discretion with undue timidity.” 420 U. S., at 321.

       Referring to Wood v. Strickland, the Court in O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U. S. 563, 577, stated:
      “Under that decision, the relevant question for the jury is whether O’Connor 'knew or reasonably should have known that the action he took within his sphere of official responsibility would violate the constitutional rights of [Donaldson], or if he took the action with the malicious intention to cause a deprivation of constitutional rights or other injury to [Donaldson].’ [420 U. S.,] at 322.”
      Thus, both in Wood and in O’Connor, the Court expressly stated that the defendant would forfeit his qualified immunity if he acted with the malicious intention to cause a deprivation of constitutional rights or if he deliberately intended to cause “other injury.”

       See n. 7, supra.

       Access to the courts through the mails has been constitutionally protected since 1941, when Ex parte Hull, 312 U. S. 546, held that the State could not constitutionally refuse to mail a prisoner’s inartful pleadings to the courts. In Johnson v. Avery, 393 U. S. 483, this Court recognized that the right of access to the courts included a right of access to legal assistance. Johnson held that, in the absence of alternative sources of assistance, prisoners must be allowed to consult inmate “writ-writers.” Id., at 490. In Younger v. Gilmore, 404 U. S. 15, this Court summarily affirmed a three-judge court decision ordering the California Department of Corrections to heed the Johnson decision and abandon a prison rule making it difficult for inmates to get legal help from writ-writers. See Gilmore v. Lynch, 319 F. Supp. 105, 112 (ND Cal. 1970). By the time of the acts in question here, the right of access to the courts clearly included a right to communicate with legal assistance groups and law students:
      “Johnson v. Avery clearly stands for the general proposition that an inmate’s right of access to the court involves a corollary right to obtain some assistance in preparing his communication with the court. Given that corollary right, we fail to see how a state, at least in the absence of some countervailing interest not here appearing, can prevent an inmate from seeking legal assistance from bona fide attorneys working in an organization such as the Civil Liberties Union.” Nolan v. Scafati, 430 F. 2d 548, 551 (CA1 1970) (footnote omitted).

       Although Navarette no longer relies on his access rights to establish the defendants’ liability, ante, at 565 n. 12, he surely may attempt to prove a violation of these rights to rebut a claim of good faith.

       The license the Court has taken with normal pleading requirements is perhaps best illustrated by the grant of immunity to the defendant Pro-cunier, the Director of the State Department of Corrections, who has filed neither an answer nor an affidavit. For all the record shows, Pro-cunier may have been 'expressly advised by counsel that the mail regulations were being unconstitutionally enforced, and despite that advice he may have deliberately instructed his subordinates to punish this uniquely bothersome writ-writer. Even such a remote possibility must be considered before summary judgment is approved. As Judge Aldrich has put it, “even an andabata holds the field until someone comes forward to defeat him.” Mack v. Cape Elizabeth School Bd., 553 F. 2d 720, 722 (CA1 1977).


author: Mr. Justice Marshall

text:
    LORILLARD, A DIVISION OF LOEW’S THEATRES, INC. v. PONS
    No. 76-1346.
    Argued December 6, 1977
    Decided February 22, 1978

      Thornton H. Brooks argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was M. Daniel McGinn.

      Norman B. Smith argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.

        Robert E. Williams and Frank C. Morris, Jr., filed a brief for the Equal Employment Advisory Council as amicus curiae urging reversal.

        Jonathan A. Weiss filed a brief for Legal Services for the Elderly Poor as amicus curiae urging affirmance.

   Mr. Justice Marshall

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case presents the question whether there is a right to a jury trial in private civil actions for lost wages under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA or Act), 81 Stat. 602, as amended, 88 Stat. 74, 29 U. S. C. § 621 et seq. (1970 ed. and Supp. V). Respondent commenced this action against petitioner, her former employer, alleging that she had been discharged because of her age in violation of the ADEA. She sought reinstatement, lost wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and costs. Respondent demanded a jury trial on all issues of fact; petitioner moved to strike the demand. The District Court granted the motion to strike but certified the issue for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1292 (b). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit allowed the appeal and vacated the trial court's order, ruling that the ADEA and the Seventh Amendment afford respondent the right to a jury trial on her claim for lost wages, 549 F. 2d 950, 952-953 (1977). We granted certiorari, 433 U. S. 907 (1977), to resolve the conflict in the Circuits on this important issue in the administration of the ADEA. We now affirm.

I

The ADEA broadly prohibits arbitrary discrimination in tne workplace based on age. §4 (a), 29 U. S. C. §623 (a). Although the ADEA contains no provision expressly granting a right to jury trial, respondent nonetheless contends that the structure of the Act demonstrates a congressional intent to grant such a right. Alternatively, she argues that the Seventh Amendment requires that in a private action for lost wages under the ADEA, the parties must be given the option of having the case heard by a jury. We turn first to the statutory question since “ ‘it is a cardinal principle that this Court will first ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the [constitutional] question may be avoided.' ” United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs, 402 U. S. 363, 369 (1971), quoting Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62 (1932). Accord, Pernell v. Southall Realty, 416 U. S. 363, 365 (1974). Because we find the statutory issue dispositive, we need not address the constitutional issue.

The enforcement scheme for the statute is complex- — the product of considerable attention during the legislative debates preceding passage of the Act. Several alternative proposals were considered by Congress. The Administration submitted a bill, modeled after §§ 10 (c), (e) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U. S. C. §§ 160 (c), (e), which would have granted power to the Secretary of Labor to issue cease-and-desist orders enforceable in the courts of appeals, but would not have granted a private right of action to aggrieved individuals, S. 830, H. R. 4221, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967). Senator Javits introduced an alternative proposal to make discrimination based on age unlawful under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U. S. C. § 201 et seq.; the normal enforcement provisions of the FLSA, 29 U. S. C. § 216 et seq. (1970 ed. and Supp. V), then would have been applicable, permitting suits by either the Secretary of Labor or the injured individual, S. 788, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967). A third alternative that was considered would have adopted the statutory pattern of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and utilized the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 42 U. S. C. §§ 2000e-4, 2000e-5 (1970 ed. and Supp. V).

The bill that was ultimately enacted is something of a hybrid, reflecting, on the one hand, Congress' desire to use an existing statutory scheme and a bureaucracy with which employers and employees would be familiar and, on the other hand, its dissatisfaction with some elements of each of the preexisting schemes. Pursuant to § 7 (b) of the Act, 29 U. S. C. § 626 (b), violations of the ADEA generally are to be treated as violations of the FLSA. “Amounts owing ... as a result of a violation” of the ADEA are to be treated as “unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensation” under the FLSA and the rights created by the ADEA are to be “enforced in accordance with the powers, remedies and procedures” of specified sections of the FLSA. 29 U. S. C. § 626 (b).

Following the model of the FLSA, the ADEA establishes two primary enforcement mechanisms. Under the FLSA provisions incorporated in § 7 (b) of the ADEA, 29 U. S. C. § 626 (b), the Secretary of Labor may bring suit on behalf of an aggrieved individual for injunctive and monetary relief. 29 U. S. C. §§ 216 (c), 217 (1970 ed. and Supp. V). The incorporated FLSA provisions together with § 7 (c) of the ADEA, 29 U. S. C. § 626 (c), in addition, authorize private civil actions for “such legal or equitable relief as will effectuate the purposes of” the ADEA. Although not required by the FLSA, prior to the initiation of any ADEA action, an individual must give notice to the Secretary of Labor of his intention to sue in order that the Secretary can attempt to eliminate the alleged unlawful practice through informal methods. § 7 (d), 29 U. S. C. § 626 (d). After allowing the Secretary 60 days to conciliate the alleged unlawful practice, the individual may file suit. The right of the individual to sue on his own terminates, however, if the Secretary commences an action on his behalf. § 7 (c), 29 U. S. C. § 626 (c).

II

Looking first to the procedural provisions of the statute, we find a significant indication of Congress’ intent in its directive that the ADEA be enforced in accordance with the “powers, remedies, and procedures” of the FLSA. § 7 (b), 29 U. S. C. §626 (b) (emphasis added). Long before Congress enacted the ADEA, it was well established that there was a right to a jury trial in private actions pursuant to the FLSA. Indeed, every court to consider the issue had so held. Congress is presumed to be aware of an administrative or judicial interpretation of a statute and to adopt that interpretation when it re-enacts a statute without change, see Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U. S. 405, 414 n. 8 (1975); NLRB v. Gullett Gin Co., 340 U. S. 361, 366 (1951); National Lead Co. v. United States, 252 U. S. 140, 147 (1920); 2A C. Sands, Sutherland on Statutory Construction § 49.09 and cases cited (4th ed. 1973). So too, where, as here, Congress adopts a new law incorporating sections of a prior law, Congress normally can be presumed to have had knowledge of the interpretation given to the incorporated law, at least insofar as it affects the new statute.

That presumption is particularly appropriate here since, in enacting the ADEA, Congress exhibited both a detailed knowledge of the FLSA provisions and their judicial interpretation and a willingness to depart from those provisions regarded as undesirable or inappropriate for incorporation. For example, in construing the enforcement sections of the FLSA, the courts had consistently declared that injunctive relief was not available in suits by private individuals but only in suits by the Secretary. Powell v. Washington Post Co., 105 U. S. App. D. C. 374, 267 F. 2d 651 (1959); Roberg v. Henry Phipps Estate, 156 F. 2d 958, 963 (CA2 1946); Bowe v. Judson C. Burns, Inc., 137 F. 2d 37 (CA3 1943). Congress made plain its decision to follow a different course in the ADEA by expressly permitting “such . . . equitable relief as may be appropriate to effectuate the purposes of [the ADEA] including without limitation judgments compelling employment, reinstatement or promotion” “in any action brought to enforce” the Act. §7 (b), 29 U. S. C. § 626 (b) (emphasis added). Similarly, while incorporating into the ADEA the FLSA provisions authorizing awards of liquidated damages, Congress altered the circumstances under which such awards would be available in ADEA actions by mandating that such damages be awarded only where the violation of the ADEA is willful. Finally, Congress expressly declined to incorporate into the ADEA the criminal penalties established for violations of the FLSA.

This selectivity that Congress exhibited in incorporating provisions and in modifying certain FLSA practices strongly suggests that but for those changes Congress expressly made, it intended to incorporate fully the remedies and procedures of the FLSA. Senator Javits, one of the floor managers of the bill, so indicated in describing the enforcement section which became part of the Act: “The enforcement techniques provided by [the ADEA] are directly analogous to those available under the Fair Labor Standards Act; in fact [the ADEA] incorporates by reference, to the greatest extent possible, the provisions of the [FLSA].” 113 Cong. Rec. 31254 (1967). And by directing that actions for lost wages under the ADEA be treated as actions for unpaid minimum wages or overtime compensation under the FLSA, § 7 (b), 29 U. S. C. § 626 (b), Congress dictated that the jury trial right then available to enforce that FLSA liability would also be available in private actions under the ADEA.

This inference is buttressed by an examination of the language Congress chose to describe the available remedies under the ADEA. Section 7 (b), 29 U. S. C. § 626 (b), empowers a court to grant “legal or equitable relief” and §7 (c), 29 U. S. C. § 626 (c), authorizes individuals to bring actions for “legal or equitable relief” (emphases added). The word “legal” is a term of art: In cases in which legal relief is available and legal rights are determined, the Seventh Amendment provides a right to jury trial. See Curtis v. Loether, 415 U. S. 189, 195-196 (1974). “[W]here words are employed in a statute which had at the time a well-known meaning at common law or in the law of this country they are presumed to have been used in that sense unless the context compels to the contrary.” Standard Oil v. United States, 221 U. S. 1, 59 (1911). See Gilbert v. United States, 370 U. S. 650, 655 (1962); Montclair v. Ramsdell, 107 U. S. 147, 152 (1883). We can infer, therefore, that by providing specifically for “legal” relief, Congress knew the significance of the term “legal,” and intended that there would be a jury trial on demand to “enforcfe] . . . liability for amounts deemed to be unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensation.” § 7 (b), 29 U. S. C. § 626 (b).

Petitioner strives to find a contrary congressional intent by comparing the ADEA with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e et seg. (1970 ed. and Supp. V), which petitioner maintains does not provide for jury trials. We, of course, intimate no view as to whether a jury trial is available under Title VII as a matter of either statutory or constitutional right. See Curtis v. Loether, supra, at 197. However, after examining the provisions of Title VII, we find petitioner’s argument by analogy to Title VII unavailing. There are important similarities between the two statutes, to be sure, both in their aims — the elimination of discrimination from the workplace — and in their substantive prohibitions. In fact, the prohibitions of the ADEA were derived in haec verba from Title VII. But in deciding whether a statutory right to jury trial exists, it is the remedial and procedural provisions of the two laws that are crucial and there we find significant differences.

Looking first to the statutory language defining the relief available, we note that Congress specifically provided for both “legal or equitable relief” in the ADEA, but did not authorize “legal” relief in so many words under Title VII. Compare § 7 (b), 29 U. S. C. § 626 (b), with 42 U. S. C. § 2000-5 (g) (1970 ed., Supp. V). Similarly, the ADEA incorporates the FLSA provision that employers “shall be liable” for amounts deemed unpaid minimum wages or overtime compensation, while under Title VII, the availability of backpay is a matter of equitable discretion, see Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U. S., at 421. Finally, rather than adopting the procedures of Title VII for ADEA actions, Congress rejected that course in favor of incorporating the FLSA procedures even while adopting Title VIPs substantive prohibitions. Thus, even if petitioner is correct that Congress did not intend there to be jury trials under Title VII, that fact sheds no light on congressional intent under the ADEA. Petitioner’s reliance on Title VII, therefore, is misplaced.

We are not unmindful of the difficulty of discerning congressional intent where the statute provides no express answer. However, we cannot assume, in the face of Congress’ extensive knowledge of the operation of the FLSA, illustrated by its selective incorporation, and amendment of the FLSA provisions for the ADEA, that Congress was unaware that courts had uniformly afforded jury trials under the FLSA. Nor can we believe that in using the word “legal,” Congress was oblivious to its long-established meaning or its significance. We are therefore persuaded that Congress intended that in a private action under the ADEA a trial by jury would be available where sought by one of the parties. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is, accordingly,

Affirmed.

Mr. Justice Blackmun took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

       Judge Butzner filed an opinion concurring specially. Since he agreed with the court that the statute entitled respondent to a jury trial, he found no occasion to address the constitutional issue. 549 F. 2d 950, 954 (1977).

       The Court of Appeals did not decide whether respondent was entitled to a jury trial on her claim for liquidated damages because according to the District Court opinion, respondent had “conceded that the liquidated damages issue would not be triable to a jury.” 69 F. R. D. 576 n. 2 (1976). We express no view on the issue of the right to jury trial on a liquidated damages claim.

        Morelock v. NCR Corp., 546 F. 2d 682 (CA6 1976) (no right to jury trial), cert. pending, No. 77-172; Rogers v. Exxon Research & Engineering Co., 550 F. 2d 834 (CA3 1977) (right to jury trial), cert. denied, post, p. 1022.

         Hearings on S. 830, S. 788 before the Subcommittee on Labor of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 24 (1967) (remarks of Sen. Javits); id., at 29 (remarks of Sen. Smathers); id., at 396 (statement of National Retail Merchants Assn.). Hearings on H. R. 3651, H. R. 3768, and H. R. 4221 before the General Subcommittee on Labor of the House Committee on Education and Labor, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 12-13 (1967) (remarks of Secretary of Labor); id., at413 (statement of Legislative Representative, AFL-CIO).

       Section 7 (b), as set forth in 29 U. S. C. § 626 (b), provides:
      “The provisions of this chapter shall be enforced in accordance with the powers, remedies, and procedures provided in sections 211 (b), 216 (except for subsection (a) thereof), and 217 of this title, and subsection (c) of this section. Any act prohibited under section 623 of this title shall be deemed to be a prohibited act under section 215 of this title. Amounts owing to a person as a result of a violation of this chapter shall be deemed to be unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensation for purposes of sections 216 and 217 of this title: Provided, That liquidated damages shall be payable only in cases of willful violations of this chapter. In any action brought to enforce this chapter the court shall have jurisdiction to grant such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate to effectuate the purposes of this chapter, including without limitation judgments compelling employment, reinstatement or promotion, or enforcing the liability for amounts deemed to be unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensation under this section. Before instituting any action under this section, the Secretary shall attempt to eliminate the discriminatory practice or practices alleged, and to effect voluntary compliance with the requirements of this chapter through informal methods of conciliation, conference, and persuasion.”

       Section 7 (c), as set forth in 29 U. S. C. § 626 (c), provides:
      “Any person aggrieved may bring a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction for such legal or equitable relief as will effectuate the purposes of this chapter: Provided, That the right of any person to bring such action shall terminate upon the commencement of an action by the Secretary to enforce the right of such employee under this chapter.”

       See, e. g., Wirtz v. Jones, 340 F. 2d 901, 904 (CA5 1965); Lewis v. Times Publishing Co., 185 F. 2d 457 (CA5 1950); Olearchick v. American Steel Foundries, 73 F. Supp. 273, 279 (WD Pa. 1947). See also Note, The Right to Jury Trial Under the Age Discrimination in Employment and Fair Labor Standards Acts, 44 U. Chi. L. Rev. 365, 376 (1977); Note, Fair Labor Standards Act and Trial by Jury, 65 Colum. L. Rev. 514 (1965). However, no right to jury trial was recognized in actions brought by the Secretary of Labor enjoining violations of the FLSA and compelling employers to pay unlawfully withheld minimum wages or overtime compensation pursuant to 29 U. S. C. §217. See, e. g., Sullivan v. Wirtz, 359 F. 2d 426 (CA5 1966); Wirtz v. Jones, supra.

       By its terms, 29 U. S. C. § 216 (b) requires that liquidated damages be awarded as a matter of right for violations of the FLSA. However, in response to its dissatisfaction with that judicial interpretation of the provision, Congress enacted the Portal-to-Portal Pay Act of 1947, 61 Stat. 84, which, inter alia, grants courts authority to deny or limit liquidated damages where the “employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that the act or omission giving rise to such action was in good faith and that he had reasonable grounds for believing that his act or omission was not a violation of” the FLSA, § 11, 29 U. S. C. § 260 (1970 ed., Supp. V). AR though § 7 (e) of the ADEA, 29 U. S. C. § 626 (e), expressly incorporates §§ 6 and 10 of the Portal-to-Portal Pay Act, 29' U. S. C. §§ 255 and 259 (1970 ed. and Supp. V), the ADEA does not make any reference to § 11, 29 U. S. C. § 260 (1970 ed., Supp. V).

       Section 10 of the ADEA, 29 U. S. C. § 629, establishes criminal penalties for interference with the performance of an authorized representative of the Secretary when he is engaged in the performance of his duties under the Act. Cf. 29 U. S. C. § 216 (a).

       Senator Javits made the only specific reference in the legislative history to a jury trial. He said:
      “The whole test is somewhat like the test in an accident case — did the person use reasonable care. A jury will answer yes or no. The question here is: Was the individual discriminated against solely because of his age? The alleged discrimination must be proved and the burden of proof is upon the one who would assert that that was actually the case.” 113 Cong. Rec. 31255 (1967).
      It is difficult to tell whether Senator Javits was referring to the issue in ADEA cases or in accident cases when he said the jury will say yes or no.

       Section 7 (b), 29 U. S. C. § 626 (b), does not specify which of the listed categories of relief are legal and which are equitable. However, since it is clear that judgments compelling “employment, reinstatement or promotion” are equitable, see 5 J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 38.21 (1977), Congress must have meant the phrase “legal relief” to refer to judgments “enforcing . . . liability for amounts deemed to be unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensation.”

       Title VII with respect to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and the ADEA with respect to age malee it unlawful for an employer “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual,” or otherwise to “discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,” on any of those bases. 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-2 (a) (1); 29 U. S. C. § 623 (a) (1). Compare 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-2 (a) (2) (1970 ed., Supp. V) with 29 U. S. C. § 623 (a) (2).

       Although we have held that the discretionary power to deny backpay should be used only where to do so “would not frustrate the central statutory purposes of eradicating discrimination throughout the economy and making persons whole for injuries suffered through past discrimination,” Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U. S., at 421, we nonetheless have recognized that under Title VII some discretion exists.

       Indeed, to the extent petitioner correctly interprets congressional intent with respect to jury trials under Title VII, the very different remedial and procedural provisions under the ADEA suggest that Congress had a very different intent in mind in drafting the later law.