author: Mr. Justice Stewart Mr. Justice White,

text:
    UNITED STATES v. GADDIS et al.
    No. 74-1141.
    Argued December 15, 1975
    Decided March 3, 1976
    Stewart, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all Members joined except Stevens, J., who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. White, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Burger, C. J., joined, post, p. 551.

      Deputy Solicitor General Frey argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor

      General Bork, Assistant Attorney General Thornburgh, and Jerome M. Feit.

      Tommy Day Wilcox, by appointment of the Court, 422 U. S. 1005, argued the cause -pro hac vice and filed a brief for respondents.
   Mr. Justice Stewart

delivered the opinion of the Court.

A federal grand jury in Georgia returned an eight-count indictment against' the respondents Gaddis and Birt, charging them with entering a federally insured bank with intent to rob it by force and violence (Count 1) and robbing the bank by force and violence (Count 2), in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 2113 (a); with possessing the funds stolen in the robbery (Count 3), in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 2113 (c); and with assaulting four people with dangerous weapons during the course of the robbery (Counts 4 to 8), in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 2113 (d). At the ensuing trial the Government's evidence showed that three armed men had on March 6, 1974, robbed the National Bank of Walton County in Loganville, Ga., and that the robbers in making their getaway had engaged in an exchange of gunfire with Loganville’s lone police officer. The Government’s evidence further showed that two of the three robbers had been Gaddis and Birt. The jury found the respondents guilty on all counts of the indictment, and the trial judge sentenced each of them to aggregate prison terms of 25 years. In imposing the prison sentences, the judge stated:

“[T]he Court realizes that twenty-five years is the maximum, and the cases say that there is a merger of all of those offenses. If there is any question as to the legality of that sentence, that’s the Court’s intention.”

The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the judgments of conviction and ordered a new trial upon the ground that the District Judge had been in error in permitting the jury to convict the respondents on all eight counts of the indictment. Specifically, the appellate court held that this Court’s decision in Heflin v. United States, 358 U. S. 415, had made it clear that “it is plain error to allow a jury to convict an accused of taking and possessing the same money obtained in the same bank robbery,” and that under this Court’s decision in Milano-vich v. United States, 365 U. S. 551, “the proper appellate remedy is to remand for a new trial.” 506 F. 2d 352, 354. We granted certiorari because of the discordant views in the Circuits regarding the proper application of the Heflin and Milanovich decisions. 421 U. S. 987.

The Court of Appeals was correct in holding that a person convicted of robbing a bank in violation of 18 U. S. C. §§ 2113 (a), (b), and (d), cannot also be convicted of receiving or possessing the proceeds of that robbery in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 2113(c). This much was clearly settled in the Heflin case. The Court there held that “subsection (c) was not designed to increase the punishment for him who robs a bank but only to provide punishment for those who receive the loot from the robber.” 358 U. S., at 419. In “subsection (c) ... Congress was trying to reach a new group of wrongdoers, not to multiply the offense of the bank robbers themselves.” Id., at 420. Thus, while there was in the present case a “merger” of the convictions under §§ 2113 (a) and (d), Prince v. United States, 352 U. S. 322, the merger could not include the conviction under § 2113 (c). Receipt or possession of the proceeds of a bank robbery in violation of §2113 (c) is simply not a lesser included offense within the total framework of the bank robbery provisions of § 2113. Rather, § 2113 (c) reaches a different “group of wrongdoers,” i. e., “those who receive the loot from the robber.”

The Court of Appeals was mistaken, however, in supposing that our decision in Milanovich required the ordering of a new trial as the “proper appellate remedy” for the District Judge’s error in this case. The very unusual facts in that case were wholly different from those presented here.

In Milanovich there was evidence that the petitioner and her husband, “as owners of an automobile, transported three others under an arrangement whereby the three were to break into a United States naval commissary building with a view to stealing government funds,” that she and her husband “were to remain outside for the return of their accomplices after the accomplishment of the theft,” but that they “drove off without awaiting the return of their friends.” If believed by the jury, this evidence was clearly sufficient to support a verdict that the petitioner was guilty of robbing the naval commissary. There was also evidence in Milanovich, however, of other and different conduct on the part of the petitioner — that about 17 days after the naval commissary robbery she had obtained and appropriated silver currency taken in the robbery and concealed the same in a suitcase in her home. If believed by the jury, this evidence was clearly sufficient to support a verdict that the petitioner was guilty of receiving and concealing the stolen property. The trial judge refused to instruct the jury that the petitioner could not be convicted for both stealing and receiving the same currency, and she was convicted and separately sentenced on both counts. This Court held that under Heflin the jury should have been instructed that the petitioner could not be separately convicted for stealing and receiving the proceeds of the same theft. Since it was impossible to say upon which count, if either, a properly instructed jury would have convicted the petitioner, and in view of the grossly disparate sentences imposed upon the petitioner and upon her husband (who was convicted only upon the larceny count), her convictions were set aside and the case was remanded for a new trial.

The present case is of a very different order. While the evidence was certainly sufficient to support a jury verdict that the respondents were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of aggravated bank robbery, there was no evidence whatever that they were guilty of receiving the proceeds “from the robber.” Indeed, except for the evidence of asportation during the robbery itself, there was nothing to show that the respondents had ever received or possessed the bank’s funds. Their share of the loot was, in fact, never found. Accordingly, the trial judge should have dismissed Count 3 of the indictment. His error in not doing so can be fully corrected now by the simple expedient of vacating the convictions and sentences under that count.

In many prosecutions under 18 U. S. C. § 2113 the evidence will not, of course, be so clearcut as in the present case. . Situations will no doubt often exist where there is evidence before a grand jury or prosecutor that a certain person participated in a bank robbery and also evidence that that person, though not himself the robber, at least knowingly received the proceeds of the robbery. In such a case there can be no impropriety for a grand jury to return an indictment or for a prosecutor to file an information containing counts charging violations of 18 U. S. C. §2113 (a), (b), or (d), as well as of § 2113 (c). “If, upon the trial of the case the District Judge is satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to go to the jury upon both counts, he must, under Heflin and Milanovich, instruct the members of the jury that they may not convict the defendant both for robbing a bank and for receiving the proceeds of the robbery. He should instruct them that they must first consider the charges' under § 2113 (a), (b), or (d), and should consider the charge under § 2113 (c) only if they find insufficient proof that the defendant himself was a participant in the robbery.

For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

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

Mr. Justice White,

with whom The Chief Justice joins, concurring.

Because the Court deems this case distinguishable from Milanovich v. United States, 365 U. S. 551 (1961), it sees no occasion to consider the continuing validity of that decision; and I do not read the Court’s opinion as reaffirming, in addition to describing, the Milanovich rule that a new trial is required when (1) a jury is erroneously permitted to convict a defendant both of bank robbery, 18 U. S. C. § 2113 (a), (b), or (d), and of knowing possession of the proceeds of that robbery, 18 U. S. C. § 2113 (c), and (2) there is evidence to support both convictions.

As the Court states, a jury, having convicted on the robbery count, should stop there without going on to consider the possession count. If the jury is erroneously permitted, however, to consider and convict on the possession count as well, such a conviction casts absolutely no doubt on the validity of the robbery conviction. Under such circumstances it is not impossible to say upon which count, if either, a properly instructed jury would have convicted the defendant. It may be concluded with satisfactory certainty that the jury, having convicted for both offenses, would have convicted of robbery if it had been properly instructed. The verdict on the robbery count shows that the jury found each element of that offense to have been established beyond a reasonable doubt. That the jury went on to find that the defendant also possessed the proceeds of the robbery — whether on a different date and on different proof or not — casts no doubt on the trustworthiness of the findings on the robbery count. The problem of erroneously permitting the jury to consider and convict on two counts — on each of which, considered separately, the jury was properly instructed — when they should have considered and convicted on only one bears no relation to that presented in Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S. 359 (1931), in which the jury was permitted to convict on a single count on both a valid and an invalid theory. In Stromberg, it was impossible to know whether a properly instructed jury would have convicted the defendant of anything. In the class of cases governed by Milanovich, the robbery count is untainted by the fact that in addition to its finding of guilty on that count the jury also made findings on the possession count, for those findings are factually consistent with the findings on the robbery count.

In all cases in which the court correctly instructs the jury on the elements of. the crime of robbery, any resulting conviction and sentence should be sustained. In those cases in which the jury also convicts of possession, that conviction and any sentence on it should simply be vacated. A new trial on the robbery count in any such case would result in an expenditure of court resources and the possibility of an acquittal — through loss of evidence or other causes — of a reliably convicted defendant for no reason.

       “(a) Whoever, by force and violence, or by intimidation, takes, or attempts to take, from the person or presence of another any property or money or any other thing of value belonging to, or in the care, custody, control, management, or possession of, any bank, credit union, or any savings and loan association; or
      “Whoever enters or attempts to enter any bank, credit union, or any savings and loan association, or any building used in whole or in part as a bank, credit union, or as a savings and loan association, with intent to commit in such bank, credit union, or in such savings and loan association, or building, or part thereof, so used, any felony affecting such bank, credit union, or such savings and loan association and in violation of any statute of the United States, or any larceny—
      “Shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.”

       “(e) Whoever receives, possesses, conceals, stores, barters, sells, or disposes of, any property or money or other thing of value knowing the same to have been taken from a bank, credit union, or a savings and loan association, in violation of subsection (b) of this section shall be subject to the punishment provided by said subsection (b) for the taker.”

       “(d) Whoever, in committing, or in attempting to commit, any offense defined in subsections (a) and (b) of this section, assaults any person, or puts in jeopardy the life of any person by the use of a dangerous weapon or device, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than twenty-five years, or both.”

       Two of the men had entered the bank, brandishing pistols, while the third man had remained in the getaway car outside.

       A third man indicted, Billy Wayne Davis, had pleaded guilty and was a principal witness for the Government at the respondents’ trial.

       The judge imposed 20-year sentences for aggravated bank robbery (18 U. S. C. §2113 (a)), 25-year sentences for assaults in the course of the bank robbery (§2113 (d)), and 10-year sentences for possession of the proceeds of the robbery (§2113 (e)), all of the sentences to run concurrently.

       See, e. g., United States v. Sharpe, 452 F. 2d 1117, 1119 (CA1); United States v. Ploof, 464 F. 2d 116, 119-120 (CA2); United States v. Roach, 321 F. 2d 1, 6 (CA3); Phillips v. United States, 518 F. 2d 108, 110 (CA4); United States v. Sellers, 520 F. 2d 1281, 1286 (CA4); United States v. Harris, 346 F. 2d 182, 184 (CA4); United States v. Abercrombie, 480 F. 2d 961, 964-965 (CA5); Ethridge v. United States, 494 F. 2d 351 (CA6); United States v. Dixon, 507 F. 2d 683 (CA8); United States v. Tyler, 466 F. 2d 920 (CA9); Keating v. United States, 413 F. 2d 1028 (CA9); Glass v. United States, 351 F. 2d 678 (CA10).

       365 U. S., at 557 (dissenting opinion).

       18 U. S. C. §§ 641, 2.

       365 U. S., at 554-555, n. 5.

       18 U. S. C. § 641.

       In light of Prince v. United States, 352 U. S. 322, the concurrent sentences under Counts 1 and 2 should also be vacated, leaving the respondents under single 25-year prison sentences for violating 18 U. S. C. § 2113 (d).

       Such a case is not hard to hypothesize. A grand jury or prosecutor may often possess clear evidence that the proceeds of a bank robbery were found in a certain person’s possession, and less certain eyewitness or circumstantial evidence that that person was an actual participant in the robbery.

       The statement to the contrary in a dissenting opinion in Milanovich, 365 U. S., at 558, is incorrect.

       If, on the other hand, the indictment or information charges only a violation of §2113 (c) , it is incumbent upon the prosecution at trial to prove beyond a reasonable doubt only the elements of that offense, and the identity of the participant or participants in the robbery or theft is irrelevant to the issue of the defendant’s guilt. While a mechanistic reading of Heflin’s language might not wholly support this rule, it is to be remembered that Heflin ultimately held no more than that a person could not be convicted and separately sentenced under §2113 (a), (b), or (d) and under § 2113 (c) because § 2113 (c) could not be used to “pyramid penalties.” 358 U. S., at 419. Heflin did not purport to, and did not, add to or alter the statutory elements of the offense under §2113 (c).

       If district judges instruct juries as the majority opinion requires, this problem will not arise. However, since this Court’s decision in Milanovich v. United States, 365 U. S. 551 (1961), district judges should have been instructing juries not to consider possession counts, if they convict of robbery. As this case and others attest, e. g., United States v. Sellers, 520 F. 2d 1281 (CA4 1975), cert. pending, Nos. 74-1476 and 74—6503; Phillips v. United States, 518 F. 2d 108 (CA4 1975) (en banc), cert. pending, Nos. 75-167 and 75—5457; United States v. Dixon, 507 F. 2d 683 (CA8 1974), cert. pending, No. 74r-5869, district judges have nonetheless made mistakes, and there is no reason to believe that the mistakes will completely cease just because the Court today reiterates the correct instructions.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Mr. Justice White Me. Justice Stewakt, Me. Justice Rehnquist,

license: Public Domain

text:
    HINES et al. v. ANCHOR MOTOR FREIGHT, INC., et al.
    No. 74-1025.
    Argued November 12, 1975
    Decided March 3, 1976

      White, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, Blackmun, and Powell, JJ., joined. Stewart, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 572. Rehnquist, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Burger, C. J., joined, post, p. 573. Stevens, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

      Niki Z. Schwartz argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioners.

      Bernard S. Goldfarb argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent Anchor Motor Freight, Inc. David Leo Uelmen and Eugene Green filed a brief for respondent Local Union No. 377. David Previant and George Kauj-mann filed a brief for respondent International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America.

         Arthur L. Fox II filed a brief for Prod, Inc., et al. as amici curiae urging reversal.

   Mr. Justice White

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The issue here is whether a suit against an employer by employees asserting breach of a collective-bargaining contract was properly dismissed where the accompanying complaint against the union for breach of duty of fair representation has withstood the union’s motion for summary judgment and remains to be tried.

I

Petitioners, who were formerly employed as truck drivers by respondent Anchor Motor Freight, Inc. (Anchor), were discharged on June 5, 1967. The applicable collective-bargaining contract forbade discharges without just cause. The company charged dishonesty. The practice at Anchor was to reimburse drivers for money spent for lodging while the drivers were on the road overnight. Anchor’s assertion was that petitioners had sought reimbursement for motel expenses in excess of the actual charges sustained by them. At a meeting between the company and the union, Local 377, International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Union), which was also attended by petitioners, Anchor presented motel receipts previously submitted by petitioners which were in excess of the charges shown on the motel’s registration cards; a notarized statement of the motel clerk asserting the accuracy of the registration cards; and an affidavit of the motel owner affirming that the registration cards were accurate and that inflated receipts had been furnished petitioners. The Union claimed petitioners were innocent and opposed the discharges. It was then agreed that the matter would be presented to the joint arbitration committee for the area, to which the collective-bargaining contract permitted either party to submit an unresolved grievance. Pending this hearing, petitioners were reinstated. Their suggestion that the motel be investigated was answered by the Union representatives’ assurances that "there was nothing to worry about” and that they need not hire their own attorney.

A hearing before the joint area committee was held on July 26, 1967. Anchor presented its case. Both the Union and petitioners were afforded an opportunity to present their case and to be heard. Petitioners denied their dishonesty, but neither they nor the Union presented any other evidence contradicting the documents presented by the company. The committee sustained the discharges. Petitioners then retained an attorney and sought rehearing based on a statement by the motel owner that he had no personal knowledge of the events, but that the discrepancy between the receipts and the registration cards could have been attributable to the motel clerk’s recording on the cards less than was actually paid and retaining for himself the difference between the amount receipted and the amount recorded. The committee, after hearing, unanimously denied rehearing “because there was no new evidence presented which would justify a reopening of this case.” App. 212.

There were later indications that the motel clerk was in fact the culprit; and the present suit was filed in June 1969, against Anchor, the Union, and its International. The complaint alleged that the charges of dishonesty made against petitioners by Anchor were false, that there was no just cause for discharge, and that the discharges had been in breach of contract. It was also asserted that the falsity of the charges could have been discovered with a minimum of investigation, that the Union had made no effort to ascertain the truth of the charges, and that the Union had violated its duty of fair representation by arbitrarily and in bad faith depriving petitioners of their employment and permitting their discharge without sufficient proof.

The Union denied the charges and relied on the decision of the joint area committee. Anchor asserted that petitioners had been properly discharged for just cause. It also defended on the ground that petitioners, diligently and in good faith represented by the Union, had unsuccessfully resorted to the grievance and arbitration machinery provided by the contract and that the adverse decision of the joint arbitration committee was binding upon the Union and petitioners under the contractual provision declaring that “[a] decision by a majority of a Panel of any of the Committees shall be final and binding on all parties, including the employee and/or employees affected.” Discovery followed, including a deposition of the motel clerk revealing that he had falsified the records and that it was he who had pocketed the difference between the sums shown on.the receipts and the registration cards. Motions for summary judgment filed by Anchor and the Unions were granted by the District Court on the ground that the decision of the arbitration committee was final and binding on the employees and “for failure to show facts comprising bad faith, arbitrariness or perfunctoriness on the part of the Unions.” 72 CCH Lab. Cas. ¶ 13,987, p. 28,131 (ND Ohio 1973). Although indicating that the acts of the Union “may not meet professional standards of competency, and while it might have been advisable for the Union to further investigate the charges . . . ,” the District Court concluded that the facts demonstrated at most bad judgment on the part of the Union, which was insufficient to prove a breach of duty or make out a prima facie case against it. Id., at 28,132.

After reviewing the allegations and the record before it, the Court of Appeals concluded that there were sufficient facts from which bad faith or arbitrary conduct on the part of the local Union could be inferred by the trier of fact and that petitioners should have been afforded an opportunity to prove their charges. To this extent the judgment of the District Court was reversed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in favor of Anchor and the International. Saying that petitioners wanted to relitigate their discharges because of the recantation of the motel clerk, the Court of Appeals, quoting from its prior opinion in Balowski v. International Union, 372 F. 2d 829 (CA6 1967), concluded that the finality provision of collective-bargaining contracts must be observed because there was “[n]o evidence of any misconduct on the part of the employer . . .” and wholly insufficient evidence of any conspiracy between the Union and Anchor. 506 F. 2d, at 1157, 1158.

It is this judgment of the Court of Appeals with respect to Anchor that is now before us on our limited grant of the employees’ petition for writ of certiorari. 421 U. S. 928 (1975). We reverse that judgment.

II

Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 61 Stat. 156, 29 U. S. C. § 185, provides for suits in the district courts for violation of collective-bargaining contracts between labor organizations and employers without regard to the amount in controversy. This provision reflects the interest of Congress in promoting “a higher degree of responsibility upon the parties to such agreements . . ..” S. Rep. No. 105, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., .17 (1947). The strong policy favoring judicial enforcement of collective-bargaining contracts was sufficiently powerful to sustain the jurisdiction of the district courts over enforcement suits even though the conduct involved was arguably or would amount to an unfair labor practice within the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board. Smith v. Evening News Assn., 371 U. S. 195 (1962); Atkinson v. Sinclair Rfg. Co., 370 U. S. 238 (1962); Teamsters v. Lucas Flour Co., 369 U. S. 95 (1962); Charles Dowd Box Co. v. Courtney, 368 U. S. 502 (1962). Section 301 contemplates suits by and against individual employees as well as between unions and employers; and contrary to earlier indications § 301 suits encompass those seeking to vindicate “uniquely personal” rights of employees such as wages, hours, overtime pay, and wrongful discharge. Smith v. Evening News Assn., supra, at 198-200. Petitioners' present suit against the employer was for wrongful discharge and is the kind of case Congress provided for in § 301.

Collective-bargaining contracts, however, generally contain procedures for the settlement of disputes through mutual discussion and arbitration. These provisions are among those which are to be enforced under § 301. Furthermore, Congress has specified in § 203 (d), 61 Stat. 154, 29 U. S. C. § 173 (d), that “[f]inal adjustment by a method agreed upon by the parties is declared to be the desirable method for settlement of grievance disputes . . . .” This congressional policy “can be effectuated only if the means chosen by the parties for settlement of their differences under a collective bargaining agreement is given full play.” Steelworkers v. American Mfg. Co., 363 U. S. 564, 566 (1960). Courts are not to usurp those functions which collective-bargaining contracts have properly “entrusted to the arbitration tribunal.” Id., at 569. They should not undertake to review the merits of arbitration awards but should defer to the tribunal chosen by the parties finally to settle their disputes. Otherwise “plenary review by a court of the merits would make-meaningless the provisions that the arbitrator’s decision is final, for in reality it would almost never be final.” Steelworkers v. Enterprise Corp., 363 U. S. 593, 599 (1960).

Pursuant to this policy, we later held that an employee could not sidestep the grievance machinery provided in the contract and that unless he attempted to utilize the contractual procedures for settling his dispute with his employer, his independent suit against the employer in the District Court would be dismissed. Republic Steel Corp. v. Maddox, 379 U. S. 650 (1965). Maddox nevertheless distinguished the situation where “the union refuses to press or only perfunctorily presses the individual’s claim .... See Humphrey v. Moore, 375 U. S. 335; Labor Board v. Miranda Fuel Co., 326 F. 2d 172.” Id., at 652 (footnote omitted).

The reservation in Maddox was well advised. The federal labor laws, in seeking to strengthen the bargaining position of the average worker in an industrial economy, provided for the selection of collective-bargaining agents with wide authority to negotiate and conclude collective-bargaining agreements on behalf of all employees in appropriate units, as well as to be the employee’s agent in the enforcement and administration of the contract. Wages, hours, working conditions, seniority, and job security therefore became the business of certified or recognized bargaining agents, as did the contractual procedures for the processing and settling of grievances, including those with respect to discharge.

Necessarily “[a] wide range of reasonableness must be allowed a statutory bargaining representative in serving the unit it represents . . . Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U. S. 330, 338 (1953). The union’s broad authority in negotiating and administering effective agreements is “undoubted,” Humphrey v. Moore, 375 U. S. 335, 342 (1964), but it is not without limits. Because “[t]he collective bargaining system as encouraged by Congress and administered by the NLRB of necessity subordinates the interests of an individual employee to the collective interests of all. employees in a bargaining unit,” Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U. S. 171, 182 (1967), the controlling statutes have long beén interpreted as imposing upon the bargaining agent a responsibility equal in scope to its authority, “the responsibility and duty of fair representation.” Humphrey v. Moore, supra, at 342. The union as the statutory representative of the employees is “subject always to complete good faith and honesty of purpose in the exercise of its discretion.” Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, supra, at 338. Since Steele v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 323 U. S. 192 (1944), with respect to the railroad industry, and Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, supra, and Syres v. Oil Workers, 350 U. S. 892 (1955), with respect to those industries reached by the National Labor Relations Act, the duty of fair representation has served as a “bulwark to prevent arbitrary union conduct against individuals stripped of traditional forms of redress by the provisions of federal labor law.” Vaca v. Sipes, supra, at 182.

Claims of union breach of duty may arise during the life of a contract when individual employees claim wrongful discharge or other improper treatment at the hands of the employer. Contractual remedies, at least in their final stages controlled by union and employer, are normally provided; yet the union may refuse to utilize them or, if it does, assertedly may do so discriminatorily or in bad faith. “The problem then is to determine under what circumstances the individual employee may obtain judicial review of his breach-of-contract claim despite his failure to secure relief through the contractual remedial procedures.” Vaca v. Sipes, supra, at 185.

Humphrey v. Moore, supra, involved a seniority dispute between the employees of two transportation companies whose operating authorities had been combined. The employees accorded lesser seniority were being laid off. Their grievances were presented to the company and taken by the union to the joint arbitration committee pursuant to contractual provisions very similar to those now before us. The decision was adverse. The employees then brought suit in the state court against the company, the union, and the favored employees, asserting breach of contract by the company and breach of its duty of fair representation by the union. They sought damages and an injunction to prevent implementation of the decision of the joint arbitration committee. The union was charged with dishonest and bad-faith representation of the employees before the joint committee. The unions and the defendant employees asserted the finality of the joint committee’s decision, if not as a final resolution of a dispute in the administration of a contract, as a bargained-for accommodation between the two parties. The state courts issued the injunction. Respondents argued here that “the decision of the Committee was obtained by dishonest union conduct in breach of its duty of fair representation and that a decision so obtained cannot be relied upon as a valid excuse for [their] discharge under the contract.” 375 U. S., at 342. We reversed the judgment of the state court but only after independently determining that the union’s conduct was not a breach of its statutory duties and that the joint committee’s decision was not infirm for that reason. Our conclusion was that the disfavored employees had not proved their case: “Neither the parties nor the Joint Committee exceeded their power under the contract and there was no fraud or breach of duty by the exclusive bargaining agent. The decision of the committee, reached after proceedings adequate under the agreement, is final and binding upon the parties, just as the contract says it is.” Id., at 351.

In Vaca v. Sipes, supra, the discharged employee sued the union alleging breach of its duty of fair representation in that it had refused in bad faith to take the employee’s grievance to arbitration as it could have under the contract. In the course of rejecting the claim that the alleged conduct was arguably an unfair practice within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Board, we ruled that “the wrongfully discharged employee may bring an action against his employer in the face of a defense based upon the failure to exhaust contractual remedies, provided the employee can prove that the union as bargaining agent breached its duty of fair representation in its handling of the employee’s grievance.” 386 U. S., at 186 (footnote omitted). This was true even though “the employer in such a situation may have done nothing to prevent exhaustion of the exclusive contractual remedies . . . ,” for “the employer has committed a wrongful discharge in breach of that agreement, a breach which could be remedied through the grievance process ... were it not for the union’s breach of its statutory duty of fair representation . . . .” Id., at 185. We could not “believe that Congress, in conferring upon employers and unions the power to establish exclusive grievance procedures, intended to confer upon unions such unlimited discretion to deprive injured employees of all remedies for breach of contract.” Id., at 186. Nor did we “think that Congress intended to shield employers from the natural consequences of their breaches of bargaining agreements by wrongful union conduct in the enforcement of such agreements.” Ibid. At the same time “we conclude [d] that a union does not breach its duty of fair representation . . . merely because it settled the grievance short of arbitration.” Id., at 192. “If the individual employee could compel arbitration of his grievance regardless of its merit,” that is, compel both employers and unions to make full use of the contractual provisions for settling disputes by arbitration, “the settlement machinery provided by the contract would be substantially undermined,” for curtailing the “power to settle the majority of grievances short of the costlier and more time-consuming steps” might deter the parties to collective-bargaining agreements from making “provision] for detailed grievance and arbitration procedures of the kind encouraged by L. M. R. A. § 203 (d).” Id., at 191-192. We also expressly indicated that suit against the employer and suit against the union could be joined in one action. Id., at 187.

Ill

Even though under Vaca the employer may not insist on exhaustion of grievance procedures when the union has breached its representation duty, it is urged that when the procedures have been followed and a decision favorable to the employer announced, the employer must be protected from relitigation by the express contractual provision declaring a decision to be final and binding. We disagree. The union’s breach of duty relieves the employee of an express or implied requirement that disputes be settled through contractual grievance procedures; if it seriously undermines the integrity of the arbitral process the union’s breach also removes the bar of the finality provisions of the contract.

It is true that Vaca dealt with a refusal by the union to process a grievance. It. is also true that where the union actually utilizes the grievance and arbitration procedures on behalf of the employee, the focus is no longer on the reasons for the union’s failure to act but on whether, contrary to the arbitrator’s decision, the employer breached the contract and whether there is substantial reason to believe that a union breach of duty contributed to the erroneous outcome of the contractual proceedings. But the judicial remedy in Humphrey v. Moore was sought after the adverse decision of the joint arbitration committee. Our conclusion in that case was not that the committee’s decision was unreviewable. On the contrary, we proceeded on the basis that it was reviewable and vulnerable if tainted by breach of duty on the part of the union, even though the employer had not conspired with the union. The joint committee’s decision was held binding on the complaining employees only after we determined that the union had not been guilty of malfeasance and that its conduct was within the range of acceptable performance by a collective-bargaining agent, a wholly unnecessary determination if the union’s conduct was irrelevant to the finality of the arbitral process.

In Vaca “we accept [ed] the proposition that a union may not arbitrarily ignore a meritorious grievance or process it in a perfunctory fashion,” 386 U. S., at 191, and our ruling that the union had not breached its duty of fair representation in not pressing the employee’s case to the last step of the grievance process stemmed from our evaluation of the manner in which the union had handled the grievance in its earlier stages. Although “the Union might well have breached its duty had it ignored [the employee’s] complaint or had it processed the grievance in a perfunctory manner,” “the Union conclude [d] both that arbitration would be fruitless and that the grievance should be dismissed” only after it had “processed the grievance into the fourth step, attempted to gather sufficient evidence to prove [the employee’s] case, attempted to secure for [him] less vigorous work at the plant, and joined in the employer’s efforts to have [him] rehabilitated.” Id., at 194.

Anchor would have it that petitioners are foreclosed from judicial relief unless some blameworthy conduct on its part disentitles it to rely on the finality rule. But it was Anchor that originated the discharges for dishonesty. If those charges were in error, Anchor has surely played its part in precipitating this dispute. Of course, both courts below held there were no facts suggesting that Anchor either knowingly or negligently relied on false evidence. As far as the record reveals it also prevailed before the joint committee after presenting its case in accordance with what were ostensibly wholly fair procedures. Nevertheless there remains the question whether the contractual protection against re-litigating an arbitral decision binds employees who assert that the process has fundamentally malfunctioned by reason of the bad-faith performance of the union, their statutorily imposed collective-bargaining agent.

Under the rule announced by the Court of Appeals, unless the employer is implicated in the Union’s malfeasance or has otherwise caused the arbitral process to err, petitioners would have no remedy against Anchor even though they are successful in proving the Union’s bad faith, the falsity of the charges against them, and the breach of contract by Anchor by discharging without cause. This rule would apparently govern even in circumstances where it is shown that a union has manufactured the evidence and knows from the start that it is false; or even if, unbeknownst to the employer, the union has corrupted the arbitrator to the detriment of disfavored union members. As is the case where there has been a failure to exhaust, however, we cannot believe that Congress intended to foreclose the employee from his § 301 remedy otherwise available against the employer if the contractual processes have been seriously flawed by the union’s breach of its duty to represent employees honestly and in good faith and without invidious discrimination or arbitrary conduct.

It is urged that the reversal of the Court of Appeals will undermine not only the finality rule but the entire collective-bargaining process. Employers, it is said, will be far less willing to give up their untrammeled right to discharge without cause and to agree to private settlement procedures. But the burden on employees will remain a substantial one, far too heavy in the opinion of some. To prevail against either the company or the Union, petitioners must not only show that their discharge was contrary to the contract but must also carry the burden of demonstrating breach of duty by the Union. As the District Court indicated, this involves more than demonstrating mere errors in judgment.

Petitioners are not entitled to relitigate their discharge merely because they offer newly discovered evidence that the charges against them were false and that in fact they were fired without cause. The grievance processes cannot be expected to be error-free. The finality provision has sufficient force to surmount occasional instances of mistake. But it is quite another matter to suggest that erroneous arbitration decisions must stand even though the employee’s representation by the union has been dishonest, in bad faith, or discriminatory; for in that event error and injustice of the grossest sort would multiply. The contractual system would then cease to qualify as an adequate mechanism to secure individual redress for damaging failure of the employer to abide by the contract. Congress has put its blessing on private dispute settlement arrangements provided in collective agreements, but it was anticipated, we are sure, that the contractual machinery would operate within some minimum levels of integrity. In our view, enforcement of the finality provision where the arbitrator has erred is conditioned upon the union’s having satisfied its statutory duty fairly to represent the employee in connection with the arbitration proceedings. Wrongfully discharged employees would be left without jobs and without a fair opportunity to secure an adequate remedy.

Except for this case the Courts of Appeals have arrived at similar conclusions. As the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit put it in Margetta v. Pam Pam Corp., 501 F. 2d 179, 180 (1974): “To us, it makes little difference whether the union subverts the arbitration process by refusing to proceed as in Vaca or follows the arbitration trail to the end, but in so doing subverts the arbitration process by failing to fairly represent the employee. In neither case, does the employee receive fair representation.”

Petitioners, if they prove an erroneous discharge and the Union’s breach of duty tainting the decision of the joint committee, are entitled to an appropriate remedy against the employer as well as the Union. It was error to affirm the District Court’s final dismissal of petitioners’ action against Anchor. To this extent the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

So ordered.

Mb. Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Me. Justice Stewakt,

concurring.

I agree with the Court that proof of breach of the Union’s duty of fair representation will remove the bar of finality from the arbitral decision that Anchor did not wrongfully discharge the petitioners. See Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U. S. 171, 194; Humphrey v. Moore, 375 U. S. 335, 348-351. But this is not to say that proof of breach of the Union’s representation duty would render Anchor potentially liable for backpay accruing between the time of the “tainted” decision by the arbitration committee and a subsequent “untainted” determination that the discharges were, after all, wrongful.

If an employer relies in good faith on a favorable arbitral decision, then his failure to reinstate discharged employees cannot be anything but rightful, until there is a contrary determination. Liability for the intervening wage loss must fall not on the employer but on the union. Such an apportionment of damages is mandated by Vaca’s holding that “damages attributable solely to the employer’s breach of contract should not be charged to the union, but increases if any in those damages caused by the union’s refusal to process the grievance should not be charged to the employer.” 386 U. S., at 197-198. To hold an employer liable for back wages for the period during which he rightfully refuses to rehire discharged employees would be to charge him with a contractual violation on the basis of conduct precisely in accord with the dictates of the collective agreement.

Me. Justice Rehnquist,

with whom The Chief Justice joins, dissenting.

Petitioners seek $1 million damages from their employer and their union on the grounds that they were wrongfully discharged from their jobs. The District Court granted summary judgment for respondents, finding that the issues had been finally decided as to respondent Anchor Motor by the arbitration committee and that petitioners had failed “to show facts comprising bad faith, arbitrariness or perfunctoriness on the part of the Unions.” The Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment as to the local Union, holding that the issue of bad faith should not have been summarily decided. However, as to respondent Anchor Motor the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that where, as here, the collective-bargaining agreement provided that arbitration would be final and binding, the decision of the arbitrator would not be upset, “absent a showing of fraud, misrepresentation, bad faith, dishonesty of purpose, or such gross mistake or inaction as to imply bad faith on the part of the Union or the employer.” 506 F. 2d 1153, 1157 (1974). This Court, assuming arguendo that the Union breached its duty of fair representation for the reasons set forth in the opinion, reverses as to Anchor Motor, holding that the Union’s breach of its duty to its members voided an otherwise valid arbitration decision in favor of the company. I find this result to be anomalous and contrary to the longstanding policy of this Court favoring the finality of arbitration awards.

In Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U. S. 171 (1967), this Court held that, where the union has prevented the employee from taking his grievance to arbitration, as provided in the collective-bargaining agreement, he may then turn to the courts for relief. This decision bolstered the consistent policy of this Court of encouraging the parties to settle their differences according to the terms of their collective-bargaining agreement. Steelworkers v. American Mfg. Co., 363 U. S. 564, 566 (1960). By subjecting the employer to a damages suit due to the union’s failure to utilize the arbitration process on behalf of the employees, the Vaca decision put pressure on both employers and unions to make full use of the contractual provisions for settling disputes by arbitration.

The decision in this case will have the exact opposite result. Here the Court has cast aside the policy of finality of arbitration decisions and established a new policy of encouraging challenges to arbitration decrees by the losing party on the ground that he was not properly represented.

The majority cites Margetta v. Pam Pam Corp., 501 F. 2d 179, 180 (CA9 1974), for the proposition that “it makes little difference whether the union subverts the arbitration process by refusing to proceed as in Vaca or follows the arbitration trail to the end, but in so doing subverts the arbitration process by failing to fairly represent the employee.” Ante, at 572. To the contrary, I believe that the existence of a final arbitration decision is the crucial difference between this case and Vaca. The duty of “fair representation” discussed in Vaca was the duty of the union to put the case to a fair and neutral arbitrator, a step which the employee could not take by himself. 386 U. S., at 185.

Here the case was presented to a concededly fair and neutral arbitrator but the claim is that that arbitration decision should be vacated because the employee did not receive “fair representation” from the Union in the sense of representation by counsel at a trial. Obviously this stretches Vaca far beyond its original meaning and adopts the novel notion that one may vacate an otherwise valid arbitration award because his “counsel” was ineffective.

As noted, such a principle violates this Court’s policy favoring the finality of arbitration awards. It also has no basis in the statutory provisions respecting arbitration. Section 12 of the Uniform Arbitration Act, which is in use in many States, sets forth the grounds for vacating an award. These include awards having been procured by corruption or fraud, and arbitrators’ exceeding their powers or exhibiting evident partiality. The federal statute governing arbitration, 9 U. S. C. §§ 1-14, provides similarly narrow grounds for vacating an award. § 10. Nowhere is any provision made for vacation of an award due to ineffective presentation of the case by a party’s attorney or representative.

The Court’s decision is particularly vexing on the facts of this case. Petitioners had at their own disposal all of the information necessary to present their case. If they had felt that the Union had not brought this information fully to the attention of the arbitration committee or that further investigation was necessary they could have so informed the committee. There is no indication that they did so. Rather, they allowed, without protest, the arbitration to proceed to a decision and when that decision was adverse they brought suit against the company and the Union.

Now the employer, which concededly acted in good faith throughout these proceedings, is to be subjected to a damages suit because of the Union’s alleged misconduct. In view of the fact that petitioners have an action for damages against the Union, see Czosek v. O’Mara, 397 U. S. 25 (1970), this additional remedy against the employer seems both undesirable and unnecessary.

For the reasons stated I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

       Two of the original petitioners, Burtice A. Hines and Arthur D. Cartwright, are deceased. Charles A. Hines and Chyra J. Cartwright have been substituted as party petitioners. 423 U. S. 816, 982 (1975).

       The contractual grievance procedure is set out in Art. 7 of the Central Conference Area Supplement to the National Master Automobile Transporters Agreement. App. 226-233. Grievances were to be taken up by the employee involved and if no settlement was reached, were then to be considered by the business agent of the local union and the employer representative. If the dispute remained unresolved, either party had the right to present the case for decision to the appropriate joint area arbitration committee. These committees are organized on a geographical area basis and hear grievances in panels made up of an equal number of representatives of the parties to the collective-bargaining agreement. Cases that deadlocked before the joint area committee could be taken to a panel of the national joint arbitration committee, composed like the area committee panels of an equal number of representatives of the parties to the agreement. If unresolved there, they would be resolved by a panel including an impartial arbitrator. The joint arbitration committee for the Detroit area is involved in this case.

       The provision is contained in § 5 of Art. 7. App. 231. In addition, § 7 (e) of the same article provides that all decisions of the national and area committees with respect to the interpretation of the contract “shall be final and conclusive and binding upon the •Employer and the Union, and the employees involved.” App. 232.

       As summarized by the Court of Appeals, the allegations relied on were:
      “They consist of the motel clerk’s admission, made a year after the discharge was upheld in arbitration, that he, not plaintiffs, pocketed the money; the claim of the union’s failure to investigate the motel clerk’s original story implicating plaintiffs despite their requests; the account of the union officials’ assurances to plaintiffs that ‘they had nothing to worry about’ and ‘that there was no need for them to investigate’; the contention that no exculpatory evidence was presented at the hearing; and the assertion that there existed political antagonism between local union officials and plaintiffs because of a wildcat strike led by some of the plaintiffs and a dispute over the appointment of a steward, resulting in denunciation of plaintiffs as ‘hillbillies’ by Angelo, the union president.” 506 F. 2d 1153, 1156 (CA6 1974).

       The quoted segment of the opinion in Balowski v. International Union, 372 F. 2d, at 833, was:
      “ 'It is apparent that what plaintiff is attempting to do is to relitigate his grievance in this proceeding. This he cannot do when the collective bargaining agreement provides for final and binding arbitration of all disputes, absent a showing of fraud, misrepresentation, bad faith, dishonesty of purpose, or such gross mistake or inaction as to imply bad faith on the part of the Union or the employer.'” 506 F. 2d, at 1157 (citation omitted).
      The rule in the Sixth Circuit, under Balowski, would appear to have been that an employee could litigate his discharge in court if he proved bad faith or gross mistake on the part of either the union or the employer.

       One judge, otherwise concurring, dissented as to affirming summary judgment against Anchor because “issues of fact . . . presented by the pleadings concerning plaintiffs’ charges against the employer . . . should not have been dealt with on summary judgment.” 506 F. 2d, at 1158.

       Our order of April 21, 1975, was as follows:
      “Certiorari granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition which reads as follows:
      “ ‘1. Whether petitioners’ claim under LMRA § 301 for wrongful discharge is barred by the decision of a joint grievance committee upholding their discharge, notwithstanding that their union breached its duty of fair representation in processing their grievance so as to deprive them and the grievance committee of overwhelming evidence of their innocence of the alleged dishonesty for which they were discharged?”’
      The affirmance of summary judgment in favor of the International is therefore not before us. Nor is the judgment of the Court of Appeals reversing the summary judgment in favor of Local 377, since the Union has not sought review of this ruling.

       §301 (a), 29 U. S. C. §185 (a):
      “Suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce as defined in this chapter, or between any such labor organizations, may be brought in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties, without respect to the amount in controversy or without regard to the citizenship of the parties.”

        Czosek v. O’Mara, 397 U. S. 25 (1970), which arose under the Railway Labor Act, 44 Stat. 577, as amended, 45 U. S. C. § 151 et seq., involved a claim that a railroad had wrongfully deprived plaintiff of his seniority and that the union had failed in its duty to protest. The suit against the union was sustained by the Court of Appeals, but dismissal of the claim against the railroad was affirmed absent allegation that the company had participated in the union’s breach. In affirming the judgment we upheld the Court of Appeals’ ruling against the union, but did not reach the question whether the railroad was properly dismissed over the employee’s objections, since the latter did not challenge the judgment in this respect.

       Mr. Justice Black, for one, was of the view that where the union refused to process a grievance, the employee should be allowed his suit in court without proof of the union’s breach of duty. Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U. S. 171, 203 (1967) (dissenting opinion).

        Steinman v. Spector Freight System, Inc., 441 F. 2d 599 (CA2 1971); Butler v. Local Union 823, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 514 F. 2d 442 (CA8), cert. denied, 423 U. S. 924 (1975); Margetta v. Pam Pam Corp., 501 F. 2d 179 (CA9 1974); Local 13, International Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union
        v. Pacific Maritime Assn., 441 F. 2d 1061 (CA9 1971), cert. denied, 404 U. S. 1016 (1972). See also Bieski v. Eastern Automobile Forwarding Co., 396 F. 2d 32, 38 (CA3 1968); Rothlein v. Armour & Co., 391 F. 2d 574, 579-580 (CA3 1968); Harris v. Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc., 437 F. 2d 167, 171 (CA5 1971); Andrus v. Convoy Co., 480 F. 2d 604, 606 (CA9), cert. denied, 414 U. S. 989 (1973).


author: Mb. Justice White

text:
    LAVINE, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES OF NEW YORK v. MILNE et al.
    No. 74-1137.
    Argued December 2, 1975
    Decided March 3, 1976

      White, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all Members joined except Stevens, J., who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

      Amy Juviler, Assistant Attorney General of New York, argued the cause for appellant. With her on the briefs were Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General, and Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Assistant Attorney General.

      Gerald A. Norlander argued the cause for appellees pro hac vice. With him on the brief was Martin A. Schwartz.

   Mb. Justice White

delivered the opinion of the Court.

A New York welfare statute, Ñ. Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 131 (11) (Supp. 1975), disqualifies from receipt of. welfare for 75 days anyone who voluntarily terminates his employment or reduces his earning capacity for the purpose of qualifying for Home Relief or Aid to Families with Dependent Children. A further provision— that at issue in this case — states that a person who applies for assistance within 75 days after voluntarily terminating his employment or reducing his earning capacity shall be “deemed” to have done so “for the purpose of qualifying for such assistance or a larger amount thereof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary supplied by such person.” The question raised by this appeal from the judgment of a three-judge court is whether this “presumption” denies due process of law.

Appellee Milne and the appellee intervenors are all applicants for New York Home Relief — a residual category of aid for needy individuals unable to qualify for other types of state or federal relief. In addition to meeting substantive financial eligibility requirements, see, e. eg., 18 NYCRR §§352.27, 352.28, Home Relief applicants must meet the requirements of N. Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 131 (11) (Supp. 1975) and 18 NYCRR § 385.7 promulgated pursuant thereto. Section 131 (11) provides:

“Any person who voluntarily terminated his employment or voluntarily reduced his earning capacity for the purpose of qualifying for home relief or aid to dependent children or a larger amount thereof shall be disqualified from receiving such assistance for seventy-five days from such termination or reduction, unless otherwise required by federal law or regulation. Any person who applies for home relief or aid to dependent children or requests an increase in his grant within seventy-five days after voluntarily terminating his employment or reducing his earning capacity shall, unless otherwise required by federal law or regulation, be deemed to have voluntarily terminated his employment or reduced his earning capacity for the purpose of qualifying for such assistance or a larger amount thereof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary supplied by such person.”

Each of the appellees was denied relief on the ground that his voluntary cessation of employment was “for the purpose of qualifying” for Home Relief; each was therefore barred from receiving aid for 75 days.

Contending that this statute and regulation violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, appellee Milne brought a class suit in the District Court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and damages against the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services and the Commissioner of the Westchester County Department of Social Services. Jurisdiction was predicated upon 28 U. S. C. § 1343 (3) and 42 U. S. C. § 1983. Since appel-lees sought an injunction against the enforcement of a state statute on the ground of its unconstitutionality, a three-judge court was convened pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §§ 2281, 2284.

Upon cross-motions for summary judgment the three-judge court certified the class and held that the second sentence of § 131 (11) and the supporting provision of 18 NYCRR § 385.7 were unconstitutional. Injunctive relief followed. The court found that § 131 (11) created a “rebuttable presumption” that an applicant who voluntarily terminated his employment did so for a wrongful purpose. Relying upon decisions of this Court holding that presumptions are permissible unless they are unreasonable, arbitrary, or invidiously discriminatory, see, e. g., Bandini Petroleum Co. v. Superior Court, 284 U. S. 8 (1931); Leary v. United States, 395 U. S. 6 (1969); Tot v. United States, 319 U. S. 463 (1943), the court held the rebuttable presumption irrational in violation of the Due Process Clause. “[Tjhere is an insufficient connection between the known fact, that is, application for public assistance within 75 days of an applicant’s termination of employment, and the fact presumed by the statute, that is, that the applicant terminated his employment for the purpose of qualifying for public assistance.” First, it found that the limits of relief were so low that no substantial number of people would leave work merely to obtain welfare benefits. Second, it determined that the poor have “the same desire to work and to obtain the fruits of work as the non-poor.” Although the court recognized that the presumption could be rebutted, it found that the fair-hearing procedure of New York took so long — frequently in excess of 75 days — that it was' “meaningless” in that even a determination favorable to the applicant would usually come after the 75-day penalty period had passed.

Appellant Lavine, the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, appealed pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1253, and we noted probable jurisdiction, 422 U. S. 1054 (1975). We reverse.

As with any other welfare scheme, New York Home Relief imposes a host of requirements; and as is the case when applying for most governmental benefits, applicants for Home Relief bear the burden of showing their eligibility in all respects. See, e. g., 18 NYCRR §§ 351.1 (b) (2)ii, 351.6, 351.8, and 370.4 (a). An applicant may not earn income or hold assets that exceed minimal levels. See 18 NYCRR §§ 352.16, 352.22, 352.28. He may be required in certain circumstances to dispose of any equity in his house, N. Y. Soc. Serv. Law §§ 104, 360 (1966 and Supp. 1975); 18 NYCRR § 352.27, or to sell his automobile, 18 NYCRR §§ 352.15 (d), 352.28 (b). If assistance is initially denied, the applicant may reapply on the basis of new evidence or may invoke his right to have his eligibility reviewed in a full administrative hearing. 18 NYCRR §§358.4-358.5. To the requirements found elsewhere in the New York welfare statutes and regulations, the first sentence of § 131 (11) imposes an additional qualification: applicants who voluntarily terminate their employment with the purpose of obtaining Home Relief are ineligible to receive such benefits for 75 days. No challenge to this provision was raised or entertained in the court below.

The second sentence of § 131 (11), at issue here, provides that a person who applies for beiiefits within 75 days after the voluntary cessation of his employment is “deemed” to have quit “for the purpose of qualifying” for benefits, “in the absence of evidence to the contrary supplied by such person.” Although the District Court found this to be an unconstitutional “rebuttable presumption,” the sole purpose of the provision is to indicate that, as with other eligibility requirements, the applicant rather than the State must establish that he did not leave employment for the purpose of qualifying for benefits. The provision carries with it no procedural consequence; it shifts to the applicant neither the burden of going forward nor the burden of proof, for he appears to carry the burden from the outset.

The offending sentence could be interpreted as a rather circumlocutory direction to welfare authorities to employ a standardized inference that if the Home Relief applicant supplies no information on the issue, he will be presumed to have quit his job to obtain welfare benefits. However, such an instruction would be superfluous for the obvious reason that the failure of an applicant to prove an essential element of eligibility will always result in the denial of benefits, much as the failure of a tort or contract plaintiff to prove an essential element of his case will always result in a nonsuit. The only "rebuttable presumption” — if, indeed, it can be so called — at work here is the normal assumption that an applicant is not entitled to benefits unless and until he proves his eligibility.

Despite the rebuttable presumption aura that the second sentence of § 131 (11) radiates, it merely makes absolutely clear the fact that the applicant bears the burden of proof on this issue, as he does on all others. And since appellees do not object to the substantive requirement that Home Relief applicants must be free of the impermissible benefit-seeking motive, their underlying complaint may be that the burden of proof on this issue has been unfairly placed on welfare applicants rather than on the State.

Where the burden of proof lies on a given issue is, of course, rarely without consequence and frequently may be dispositive to the outcome of the litigation or application. It may be that establishing the absence of an illicit motive — as § 131 (11) requires appellees to do — is difficult, although as appellant argues, an applicant’s motive should be best known by the applicant himself. However that may be, it is not for us to resolve the question of where the burden ought to lie on this issue. Outside the criminal law area, where special concerns attend, the locus of the burden of persuasion is normally not an issue of federal constitutional moment.

In both their brief and during oral argument, appellees made much of the fact that their only real opportunity to rebut the “presumption” comes at a hearing the decision of which need not be handed down until 90 days from the date the hearing was requested by the applicant. See 18 NYCRR § 358.18. Because even a decision favorable to the applicant may be issued more than 15 days after the end of the 75-day waiting period when the applicant’s motive in quitting his job is no longer relevant, appellees claim the hearing procedure is meaningless. Thus, they contend that a hearing must be held prior to the imposition of the 75-day “sanction.” Brief for Appellees 96. There are at least two answers to their contention.

First, the State’s procedure in ascertaining the applicant’s purpose in quitting his job is no different from its procedure in determining any of the other substantive requirements for eligibility. An applicant visits the local agency, is informed of the eligibility criteria, and in response to questions posited by the local official is afforded an opportunity to demonstrate his eligibility. 18 NYCRR § 351.1. The answers to these questions determine whether the applicant receives Home Relief. If an adverse determination is made, the applicant has the right to appeal and to receive a full hearing. 18 NYCRR §§ 358.4, 358.5. Certainly nothing in the Constitution requires that benefits be initiated prior to the determination of an applicant’s qualifications at an adjudicatory hearing. Second, even if it is true that an inordinately large number of Home Relief applicants are initially denied benefits incorrectly because of a false evaluation of their motives in resigning jobs, this in no way places in doubt the constitutionality of the application procedure. The Fourteenth Amendment does not guarantee that all decisions by state officials will be correct, and New York would seem to have no incentive to deny benefits wrongfully. If on appeal the initial decision to deny benefits is overturned, payments retroactive to the date of application appear to be required. 18 NYCRR § 351.8. Each wrongful decision that is successfully appealed gains the State no substantive advantage and, indeed, costs the State by way of procedural waste.

Appellees cite much data that suggest that the poor no more than the wealthy quit jobs to obtain welfare benefits. Their argument that Home Relief benefits are so small — about $3.10 per day, not including shelter allowance — that no one would be tempted to leave a job to receive them has force. It is also asserted that the practical difficulty in satisfactorily proving one’s state of mind frequently leads to the incorrect denial of benefits to qualified individuals. Even so, and even assuming, arguendo, that the burden of § 131 (11) on the industrious indigent far outweighs any conceivable gain to the State from screening out the indolent few, New York nevertheless prefers its chosen course; and it is not for this Court to assay the wisdom of that determination. The purpose of § 131 (11) is permissible, and the procedure for fulfilling that purpose, far from being unconstitutional, is one conventionally applied to applicants for governmental benefits.

For the reasons stated herein, the judgment of the District Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

So ordered.

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

       This law was formerly numbered N. Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 131 (10) (Supp. 1973). The law was renumbered without change in language by a 1974 amendment to the New York Social Services Law, N. Y. Laws 1974, c. 621, § 2.

       See N. Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 158 (a) (Supp. 1975), which provides in part:
      “Any person unable to provide for himself, or who is unable to secure support from a legally responsible relative, who is not receiving needed assistance or care under other provisions of this chapter, or from other sources, shall be eligible for home relief.”

       Title 18 NYCRR § 385.7 provides:
      “(a) A person who: (1) voluntarily terminates employment or reduces his earning capacity for the purpose of qualifying for assistance or a larger amount thereof; or (2) without good cause fails or refuses to undergo a necessary medical examination or treatment; or (3) is required under this Part to receive manpower services and certification and without good cause fails or refuses to accept manpower services and certification; or (4) is required under this Part to pick up his check semi-monthly at the State Employment Service and without good cause fails or refuses to do so; or (5) without good cause fails or refuses to accept referral to and participate in a vocational rehabilitation program,
      “shall be disqualified from receiving assistance for 30 days thereafter and until such time as he is willing to comply with the requirements of this Part, except that an applicant for or recipient of HR who voluntarily terminated employment or reduced his earning capacity shall be disqualified from receiving assistance for 75 days thereafter and until such time as he is willing to comply with the requirements of this Part.
      “(b) Any person who applies for HR or requests an increase in his grant, within 75 days after voluntarily terminating employment or reducing his earning capacity or similarly within 30 days for ADC, shall be deemed to have voluntarily terminated employment or reduced his earning capacity for the purpose of qualifying for such or larger amount thereof in the absence of evidence to the contrary supplied by such person.
      “(c) In the event a person is subject at the same time to the requirements of this Part and the requirements of the WIN program, the requirements of the WIN program shall take priority, and where a sanction is required to be imposed against a person under this Part and the WIN requirements, the WIN sanction shall be imposed.”

       The opinion below is reported sub nom. Milne v. Berman, 384 F. Supp. 206 (SDNY 1974) (three-judge court).

       The Court remanded the question of damages to the single-judge court. Id., at 213 n. 8.
      The court below enjoined enforcement of §131 (11) and 18 NYCRR § 385.7 with respect not only to Home Relief applicants, but also to applicants for Aid to Families with Dependent Children, despite the fact that no applicants for AFDC were before the court. Both appellant and appellees agree, though for different reasons, that the court below erred in adjudicating the constitutionality of the presumption as applied to AFDC applicants. Our disposition of this case obviates any need to pass on this issue.

       384 F. Supp., at 210.

       Section 370.4 (a), e. g., provides in part that:
      “Insofar as practicable, responsibility shall be placed upon the applicant for home relief to provide verified information concerning his previous maintenance, loss of income and the extent and duration of current need.”

       See n. 9, infra.

       Nor could the constitutionality of this substantive requirement be seriously questioned. Welfare benefits are not a fundamental right, and neither the State nor Federal Government is under any sort of constitutional obligation to guarantee minimum levels of support. Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 471 (1970). A provision denying benefits to those who quit their jobs to obtain relief is a perfectly legitimate and reasonable legislative response to the risk that the availability of welfare benefits might undermine the incentive to work.
      Since nothing is conclusively presumed against the applicant, who is clearly required to prove his eligibility if he is to receive relief, this Court’s prior cases dealing with so-called irrebuttable presumptions are not in point. See, e. g., United States Department of Agriculture v. Murry, 413 U. S. 508 (1973); Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U. S. 441 (1973).
      Also wide of the mark are those cases such as Western & Atlantic R. Co. v. Henderson, 279 U. S. 639, 644 (1929), which invalidated statutory “rebuttable presumptions” in the civil area for lack of rational connection between the ultimate fact presumed and the fact actually placed in evidence. Without examining whether such cases would today be decided as they were, it is evident that they involved easing the burden of proof of one party or shifting it to another. Here, as we have said, no easing or shifting takes place. Section 131 (11) places and leaves the burden of proof on the applicant from the outset.

       The cases from the criminal law relied on by the District Court, see, e. g., Leary v. United States, 395 U. S. 6 (1969); Tot v. United States, 319 U. S. 463 (1943), are not in point; they reflect the standard rule that the State does bear the burden of proving criminal guilt, Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U. S. 684 (1975); In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358 (1970), and that statutory presumptions aimed at assisting in that burden must satisfy certain standards of reliability indicated in the cases. See, e. g., Turner v. United States, 396 U. S. 398 (1970). These cases are not helpful where the burden is, as it may be, placed on the applicant for Home Relief,

       N. Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 131-a (Supp. 1975).

       Shelter allowances are provided on an “as paid” basis, up to maximums established in each welfare district. See 18 NYCRR § 352.3.


author:
Mr. Justice Powell Me. Justice White
      Mr. Justice Marshall,

text:
    RISTAINO et al. v. ROSS
    No. 74-1216.
    Argued December 8-9, 1975
    Decided March 3, 1976
    Powell, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Burger, C. J., and Stewart, Blackmun, and Rehnquist, JJ., joined. White, J., filed a statement concurring in the result, post, p. 598. Marshall, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Brennan, J., joined, post, p. 599. Stevens, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

      Barbara A. H. Smith, Assistant Attorney General of Massachusetts, argued the cause for petitioners. With her on the briefs were Francis X. Bellotti, Attorney General, John J. Irwin, Jr., and David A. Mills, Assistant Attorneys General.

      Michael G. West, by appointment of the Court, 421 U. S. 1009, argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Powell

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Respondent is a Negro convicted in a state court of violent crimes against a white security guard. The trial judge denied respondent’s motion that a question specifically directed to racial prejudice be asked during voir dire in addition to customary questions directed to general bias or prejudice. The narrow issue is whether, under our recent decision in Ham v. South Carolina, 409 U. S. 524 (1973), respondent was constitutionally entitled to require the asking of a question specifically directed to racial prejudice. The broader issue presented is whether Ham announced a requirement applicable whenever there may be a confrontation in a criminal trial between persons of different races or different ethnic origins. We answer both of these questions in the negative.

I

Respondent, James Ross, Jr., was tried in a Massachusetts court with two other Negroes for armed robbery, assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, and assault and battery with intent to murder. The victim of the alleged crimes was a white man employed by Boston University as a uniformed security guard. The voir dire of prospective jurors was to be conducted by the court, which was required, by statute to inquire generally into prejudice. See n. 3, infra. Each defendant, represented by separate counsel, made a written motion that the prospective jurors also be questioned specifically about racial prejudice. Each defendant also moved that the veniremen be asked about affiliations with law enforcement agencies.

The trial judge consulted counsel for the defendants about their motions. After tentatively indicating that he “[felt] that no purpose would be accomplished by-asking such questions in this instance/’ the judge invited the views of counsel:

“The Court: ... I thought fr.om something Mr. Donnelly [counsel for a codefendant] said, he might have wanted on the record something which was peculiar to this case, or peculiar to the circumstances which we are operating under here which perhaps he didn’t want to say in open court.
“Is there anything peculiar about it, Mr. Donnelly?
“Mr. Donnelly: No, just the fact that the victim is white, and the defendants are black.
“The Court: This, unfortunately, is a problem with us, and all we can hope and pray for is that the jurors and all of them take their oaths seriously and understand the spirit of their oath and understand the spirit of what the Court says to them— this Judge anyway — and I am sure all Judges of this Court — would take the time to impress upon them before, during, and after the trial, and before their verdict, that their oath means just what it says, that they are to decide the case on the evidence, with no extraneous considerations.
“I believe that that is the best that can be done with respect to the problems which — as I said, I regard as extremely important . . . .” App. 29-30.

Further discussion persuaded the judge that a question about law enforcement affiliations should be asked because of the victim’s status as a security guard. But he adhered to his decision not to pose a question directed specifically to racial prejudice.

The voir dire of five panels of prospective jurors then commenced. The trial judge briefly familiarized each panel with the facts of the case, omitting any reference to racial matters. He then explained to the panel that the clerk would ask a general question about impartiality and a question about affiliations with law enforcement agencies. Consistently with his announced intention to “impress upon [the jurors] . . . that they are to decide the case on the evidence, with no extraneous considerations,” the judge preceded the questioning of the panel with an extended discussion of the obligations of jurors. After these remarks the clerk posed the questions indicated to the panel. Panelists answering a question affirmatively were questioned individually at the bench by the judge, in the presence of counsel. This procedure led to the excusing of 18 veniremen for cause on grounds of prejudice, including one panelist who admitted a racial bias.

The jury eventually impaneled convicted each defendant of all counts. On direct appeal Ross contended that his federal constitutional rights were violated by the denial of his request that prospective jurors be questioned specifically about racial prejudice. This contention was rejected by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Commonwealth v. Ross, 361 Mass. 665, 282 N. E. 2d 70 (1972), and Ross sought a writ of certiorari. While his petition was pending, we held in Ham that a trial court’s failure on request to question veniremen specifically about racial prejudice had denied Ham due process of law. We granted Ross’ petition for certiorari and remanded for reconsideration in light of Ham, 410 U. S. 901 (1973); the Supreme Judicial Court again affirmed Ross’ conviction. Commonwealth v. Ross, 363 Mass. 665, 296 N. E. 2d 810 (1973). The court reasoned that Ham turned on the need for questions about racial prejudice presented by its facts and did not announce “a new broad constitutional principle requiring that [such] questions ... be put to prospective jurors in all State criminal trials when the defendant is black. . . .” Id., at 671, 296 N. E. 2d, at 815. Ross again sought certiorari, but the writ was denied. 414 U. S. 1080 (1973).

In the present case Ross renewed his contention on collateral attack in federal habeas corpus. Relying on Ham, the District Court granted a writ of habeas corpus, and the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed. 508 F. 2d 754 (1974). The Court of Appeals assumed that Ham turned on its facts. But it held that the facts of Ross’ case, involving “violence against a white” with “a status close to that of a police officer,” presented a need for specific questioning about racial prejudice similar to that in Ham. Id., at 756. We think the Court of Appeals read Ham too broadly.

II

The Constitution does not always entitle a defendant to have questions posed during voir dire specifically directed to matters that conceivably might prejudice veniremen against him. Ham, supra, at 527-528. Voir dire “is conducted under the supervision of the court, and a great deal must, of necessity, be left to its sound discretion.” Connors v. United States, 158 U. S. 408, 413 (1895); see Ham, supra, at 527-528; Aldridge v. United States, 283 U. S. 308, 310 (1931). This is so because the “determination of impartiality, in which demeanor plays such an important part, is particularly within the province of the trial judge.” Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U. S. 723, 733 (1963) (Clark, J., dissenting). Thus, the State’s obligation to the defendant to impanel an impartial jury generally can be satisfied by less than an inquiry into a specific prejudice feared by the defendant. Ham, supra, at 527-528.

In Ham, however, we recognized that some cases may present circumstances in which an impermissible threat to the fair trial guaranteed by due process is posed by a trial court’s refusal to question prospective jurors specifically about racial prejudice during voir dire. Ham involved a Negro tried in South Carolina courts for possession of marihuana. He was well known in the locale of his trial as a civil rights activist, and his defense was that law enforcement officials had framed him on the narcotics charge to “get him” for those activities. Despite the circumstances, the trial judge denied Ham’s request that the court-conducted voir dire include questions specifically directed to racial prejudice. We reversed the judgment of conviction because “the essential fairness required by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that under the facts shown by this record the [defendant] be permitted to have the jurors interrogated [during voir dire] on the issue of racial bias.” 409 U. S., at 527.

By its terms Ham did not announce a requirement of universal applicability. Rather, it reflected an assessment of whether under all of the circumstances presented there was a constitutionally significant likelihood that, absent questioning about racial prejudice, the jurors would not be as “indifferent as [they stand] unsworne.” Coke on Littleton 155b (19th ed. 1832). In this approach Ham was consistent with other determinations by this Court that a State had denied a defendant due process by failing to impanel an impartial jury. See Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U. S. 717 (1961); Bideau v. Louisiana, supra; Turner v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 466 (1965); cf. Avery v. Georgia, 345 U. S. 559 (1953).

The circumstances in Ham strongly suggested the need for voir dire to include specific questioning about racial prejudice. Ham’s defense was that he had been framed because of his civil rights activities. His prominence in the community as a civil rights.activist, if not already known to veniremen, inevitably would have been revealed to the members of the jury in the course of his presentation of that defense. Racial issues therefore were inextricably bound up with the conduct of the trial. Further, Ham’s reputation as a civil rights activist and the defense he interposed were likely to intensify any prejudice that individual members of the jury might harbor. In such circumstances we deemed a voir dire that included questioning specifically directed to racial prejudice, when sought by Ham, necessary to meet the constitutional requirement that an impartial jury be impaneled.

We do not agree with the Court of Appeals that the need to question veniremen specifically about racial prejudice also rose to constitutional dimensions in this case. The mere fact that the victim of the crimes alleged was a white man and the defendants were Negroes was less likely to distort the trial than were the special factors involved in Ham. The victim’s status as a security officer; also relied upon by the Court of Appeals, was cited by respective defense counsel primarily as a separate source of prejudice, not as an aggravating racial factor, see n. 2, supra, and the trial judge dealt with it by his question about law-enforcement affiliations. The circumstances thus did not suggest a significant likelihood that racial prejudice might infect Ross’ trial. This was made clear to the trial judge when Ross was unable to support his motion concerning voir dire by pointing to racial factors such as existed in Ham, or others of comparable significance. In these circumstances, the trial judge acted within the Constitution in determining that the demands of due process could be satisfied by his more generalized but thorough inquiry into the impartiality of the veniremen. Accordingly, the judgment is

Reversed.

Me. Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Me. Justice White

concurs in the result on the ground that Ham v. South Carolina, 409 U. S. 524 (1973), announced a new constitutional rule applicable to federal and state criminal trials and that this rule should not be applied retroactively to cases such as this involving trials which occurred prior to the decision in Ham.

Mr. Justice Marshall,

with whom Mr. Justice Brennan joins, dissenting.

In 1973, the Court refused to review the affirmance on direct appeal of Mr. Ross’ conviction. 414 U. S. 1080. In dissenting from that refusal, I observed that “[t]o deny this petition for certiorari is to see our decision in Ham v. South Carolina, [409 U. S. 524 (1973),] stillborn and to write an epitaph for those ‘essential demands of fairness’ recognized by this Court 40 years ago in Aldridge [v. United States, 283 U. S. 308 (1931)].” Id., at 1085. Today, in reversing the Court of Appeals’ affirmance of the District Court’s grant of a writ of habeas corpus, the Court emphatically confirms that the promises inherent in Ham and Aldridge will not be fulfilled. For the reasons expressed in my dissent from the earlier denial of certiorari, I cannot join in this confirmation. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

       The question proposed by Ross, who did not adopt as his own various other questions proposed by his codefendants, was: “5. Are there any of you who believe that a white person is more likely to be telling the truth than a black person?” App. 23.

       “Mr. Donnelly: There is only one thing. The only reference I would make to the facts in this case — the victim[’]s being white, and that he was a security guard in uniform and acting as a policeman.
      "Mr. Newman [counsel for Ross]: I think that factor might suggest the question — this was my series of questions — asking the jurors whether any of their relatives are policemen.
      “The Couet: I am going to adopt Mr. Newman’s suggestion that we have a double problem here, not only the problem of skin color, but we also have the problem of someone who is a quasi policeman, so I am going to ask ... [a question] in the area of relations to police . . . .” Id., at 30-31.

       The questions were, in substance, the following:
      “If any of you are related to the defendants or to the victim, or if any of you have any interest in this case, or have formed an opinion or is sensible of any bias or prejudice, you should make it known to the court at this time.
      “... Are you presently, or have you in the past worked for a police department or a district attorney’s office, or do you have any relative who is or was engaged in such work.” Id., at 71.
      The first question was required by Mass. Gen. Laws Ann., c. 234, §28 (1959).

       He addressed one panel in part as follows:
      “[The Court:] ... [U]nder your oath, you have an absolute duty to render a fair and impartial verdicts [sic] based upon the evidence that you hear in the courtroom, and no extraneous factors.
      “The Clerk in asking you the first question is giving you an opportunity to inform the Court, if you believe that you cannot render a fair and impartial verdict on the evidence in this case; giving you an opportunity to inform the Court if you have serious doubt as to whether you can render a fair and impartial verdict on the evidence in the case.
      “Under this question, and under your oath, when this question is asked, if you believe that you cannot render a fair and impartial verdict on the evidence in this case, or if you have a doubt as to whether you can so render a fair and impartial verdict on the evidence in the case, you have a duty to inform the Court when that question is asked by standing or raising your hand.” App. 72.

       At least this venireman knew that the defendants were Negroes. See id., at 42. He was a member of the first panel questioned, and the record shows that immediately before the questioning of that panel the defendants were directed to stand and were “set at the bar to be tried.” Id., at 39. It appears that this formality was pursued only before the questioning of the first panel. Cf. id., at 49-50, 73-74, 84, 97. Nothing in the record lodged in this Court indicates whether the veniremen from other panels knew that the defendants weré Negroes, although presumably the defendants remained in the courtroom throughout the questioning.

       A criminal defendant in a state court is guaranteed an "impartial jury” by the Sixth Amendment as applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145 (1968). Principles of due process also guarantee a defendant an impartial jury. See, e. g., Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U. S. 717, 722 (1961).

       The questions proposed by Ham were:
      “1. Would you fairly try this case on the basis of the evidence and disregarding the defendant’s race?

        “2. You have no prejudice against negroes? Against black people? You would not be influenced by the use of the term ‘black’?” 409 II. S., at 525 n. 2,

       In defending the judgment of the Court of Appeals Ross argues for a sweeping per se rule. At least where crimes of violence are involved, he would require defense motions for voir dire on racial prejudice to be granted in any case where the defendant was of a different race from the victim. He would require a similar result whenever any defendant sought voir dire on racial prejudice because of the race of his own or adverse witnesses. Tr. of Oral Arg. 29-34. We note that such a per se rule could not, in principle, be limited to cases involving possible racial prejudice. It would apply with equal force whenever voir dire questioning about ethnic origins was sought, and its logic could encompass questions concerning other factors, such as religious affiliation or national origin. See Aldridge v. United States, 283 U. S. 308, 313 (1931). In our heterogeneous society policy as well as constitutional considerations militate against the divisive assumption — as a per se rule — that justice in a court of law may turn upon the pigmentation of skin, the accident of birth, or the choice of religion. See Connors v. United States, 158 U. S. 408, 415 (1895).

       Although we hold that voir dire questioning directed to racial prejudice was not constitutionally required, the wiser course generally is to propound appropriate questions designed to identify racial prejudice if requested by the defendant. Under our supervisory power we would have required as much of a federal court faced with the circumstances here. See Aldridge v. United States, supra; cf. United States v. Walker, 491 F. 2d 236 (CA9), cert. denied, 416 U. S. 990 (1974); United States v. Booker, 480 F. 2d 1310 (CA7 1973). The States also are free to allow or require questions not demanded by the Constitution. In fact, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has suggested guidelines to Massachusetts trial courts for questioning about racial prejudice on voir dire. Commonwealth v. Lumley, - Mass. -, 327 N. E. 2d 683 (1975); Commonwealth v. Ross, 363 Mass. 665, 673, 296 N. E. 2d 810, 816 (1973).

       The facts here resemble in many respects those in Aldridge, supra, where the Court overturned the conviction of a Negro for the murder of a white policeman because the federal trial judge had refused the defendant’s request that the venire be questioned about racial prejudice. Ham relied in part on Aldridge in finding that the inquiry into racial prejudice on voir dire sought in Ham had “constitutional stature.” 409 U. S., at 528. While Aldridge was one factor relevant to the constitutional decision in Ham, we did not rely directly on its precedential force. Rather, we noted that Aldridge “was not expressly grounded upon any constitutional requirement.” 409 U. S., at 526. In light of our holding today, the actual result in Aldridge should be recognized as an exercise of our supervisory power over federal courts. Cf. n. 9, supra.