author: Mr. Chief Justice Burger Me. Justice Stewaet,

text:
    STAFFORD, U. S. ATTORNEY, et al. v. BRIGGS et al.
    No. 77-1546.
    Argued April 24, 1979
    Reargued November 7, 1979
    Decided February 20, 1980

      Burger, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BlackmuN, Powell, Rehnquist, and Stevens, JJ., joined. Stewart, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Brennan, J., joined, post, p. 545. White, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the cases. Marshall, J., took no part in the decision of the cases.

      Peter Megargee Brown reargued the cause for petitioners in No. 77-1646. With him on the briefs was Earl H. Nemser. Mr. Nemser reargued the cause for petitioners in No. 78-803. With him on the briefs was Mr. Brown..

      Doris Peterson reargued the cause for respondents in No. 77-1546. With her on the briefs were Morton Stavis, Nancy Stearns, Robert L. Boehm, Cameron Cunningham, Brady Coleman, Jack Levine, and Philip Hirschkop. Melvin L. Wulf reargued the cause for respondents in No. 78-303. With him on the brief were Leon Friedman and Burt Neuborne.

      Elinor H. Stillman reargued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal in No. 78-303. On the brief urging reversal in both cases were Solicitor General McCree, Assistant Attorney General Babcock, Deputy Solicitor General Easterbrook, Allan A. Ryan, Jr., and Robért E. Kopp.

      Together with No. 78-303, Colby, Director, Central Intelligence Agency, et al. v. Driver et al., on certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

   Mr. Chief Justice Burger

delivered the opinion of the Court.

We granted certiorari in these cases to decide whether the venue provisions contained in § 2 of the Mandamus and Venue Act of 1962, 28 U. S. C. f 1391 (e), apply to actions for money damages brought against federal officials in their individual capacities. 439 U. S. 1113 (1979).

I

No. 77-1546

Stafford et al. v. Briggs et al.

In 1972, petitioner William Stafford was United States Attorney and petitioner Stuart Carrouth was an Assistant United States Attorney for the Northern District of Florida. Guy Goodwin was an attorney in the Department of Justice. Together they conducted grand jury proceedings in Florida, inquiring into the possibility that various individuals had conspired and engaged in interstate travel with intent to cause a riot. Respondents were among those subpoenaed to appear. At the request of respondents’ counsel, the District Judge responsible for the proceedings called Goodwin to the stand and asked him to state, under oath, whether any of the witnesses represented by respondents’ counsel was an agent or informant of the Government. Goodwin replied that none W&S.

Respondents later brought this suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against Goodwin, Stafford, Carrouth, and petitioner Claude Meadow, an agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Each was sued individually and in his official capacity. Respondents alleged that Goodwin had testified falsely in furtherance of a conspiracy among petitioners and Goodwin to deprive respondents of various statutory and constitutional rights. Each respondent sought a declaratory judgment, $50,000 in compensatory damages, and $100,000 in punitive damages. Petitioners, each of whom resided in Florida, were served by certified mail; Goodwin, whose residence was in the District of Columbia, was served personally.

Respondents relied on § 2 of the Mandamus and Venue Act of 1962, which, as amended and codified in Title 28 of the United States Code, provides:

“§ 1391. Venue generally
“(e) A civil action in which a defendant is an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof acting in his official capacity or under color of legal authority, or an agency of the United States, or the United States, may, except as otherwise provided by law, be brought in any judicial district in which (1) a defendant in the action resides, or (2) the cause of action arose, or (3) any real property involved in the action is situated, or (4) the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the action. Additional persons may be joined as parties to any such action in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and with such other venue requirements as would be applicable if the United States or one of its officers, employees, or agencies were not a party.
“The summons and complaint in such an action shall be served as provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure except that the delivery of the summons and complaint to the officer or agency as required by the rules may be made by certified mail beyond the territorial limits of the district in which the action is brought.”

Petitioners requested transfer of the action to the Northern District of Florida, or, alternatively, dismissal for improper venue and insufficiency of process. The District Court denied the motion to transfer but granted the motion to dismiss, ruling that venue was improper and that the court lacked in personam jurisdiction over the petitioners.

Respondents appealed the District Court’s order dismissing the case against petitioners, and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed, holding that 28 U. S. C. § 1391 (e) permits damages actions against federal officials to be brought in any district in which any one defendant resides. Briggs v. Goodwin, 186 U. S. App. D. C. 170, 569 F. 2d 1 (1977). Because Goodwin was a resident of the District of Columbia, venue there was proper. The court also held that there was no constitutional infirmity in the statute as applied. It refused to apply the “minimum contacts” analysis of International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310 (1945), and held that in a case such as this there is no constitutional requirement that defendants have any contacts with the place in which a particular federal court sits before they may be sued in that court.

No. 78-303

Colby et al. v. Driver et al.

From 1953 to 1973 at the International Airport in New York, the Central Intelligence Agency opened and made photographic copies of certain mail traveling between the United States and the Soviet Union.

Petitioner Vernon Walters was appointed Deputy Director of Central Intelligence in 1972; petitioner William Colby was appointed Director of Central Intelligence in 1973. Both petitioners were in office in 1975 when respondents, acting on behalf of themselves and others whose mail had allegedly been opened by the CIA, brought suit in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island. Respondents alleged that the interference with their mail to and from the Soviet Union violated their constitutional rights. Their suit, brought against both present and former federal officials in their individual and official capacities, requested declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief, including $20,000 for each letter opened and punitive damages of $100,000 for each member of the plaintiff class.

Petitioners and the other defendants were served outside of Rhode Island by certified mail. All the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and insufficiency of process, claiming that no defendant resided in or had substantial contacts with Rhode Island and that the complaint failed to allege that any activity had occurred there. The District Court denied these motions but certified the questions involved for an immediate appeal.

The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the order of the District Court as to petitioners, who were CIA officials when the complaint was filed, but it reversed as to those defendants who had left their Government positions at the time of filing. Driver v. Helms, 577 F. 2d 147 (1978). The court held that § 1391 (e) applied to damages actions against federal officials in their individual capacities and provided the mechanism for obtaining personal jurisdiction over them. Venue was proper in Rhode Island because one of the respondents resided there. The court also rejected petitioners’ challenge, to the constitutionality of the statute^ ruling that minimum contacts analysis was not relevant in this situation.

II

Soon after the passage of the Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat. 73, this Court held that Congress had not granted the federal trial courts generally the power to issue writs of mandamus. McIntire v. Wood, 7 Cranch 504 (1813). The federal courts in the District of Columbia, which derived power to issue the writ from the common law of the State of Maryland, were the sole exception. Kendall v. United States ex rel. Stokes, 12 Pet. 524 (1838).

To avoid this jurisdictional obstacle, litigants seeking mandamus-type relief outside of the District of Columbia often brought suits for injunctive or declaratory relief instead. But in most cases a superior federal officer was an indispensable party. See, e. g., Williams v. Fanning, 332 U. S. 490 (1947). Because of the legal fiction that officers of such rank resided only where they were stationed — usually the District of Columbia — effective service could be obtained only there. And with the restrictive venue provisions then in effect, joinder of such an official required that the action be brought in the District of Columbia. See 28 U. S. C. § 1391 (b) (1946 ed., Supp. II), amended in Pub. L. 89-714, 80 Stat. 1111 (1966). The net result was that persons in distant parts of the country claiming injury by reason of the acts or omissions of a federal officer or agency were faced with significant expense and inconvenience in bringing suits for enforcement of claimed rights.

In response to this problem, Congress enacted the Mandamus and Yenue Act of 1962. Section 1 of the Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1361, provides that actions in the nature of mandamus can be brought in any district court of the United States. Section 2 of the Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1391 (e), provides a similarly expanded choice of venue and authorizes service by certified mail on federal officers or agencies located outside the district in which such a suit is filed.

“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.”

The 1962 legislation thus makes it more convenient for aggrieved persons to file actions in the nature of mandamus. Respondents argue, however, that much more was intended. They contend that by using the general language “civil action,” Congress intended to include in the expanded venue provision not only mandamus-type actions but all civil actions, including those seeking money damages from federal officers as individuals.

The language of § 1391 (e) does refer to “a civil action.” Recitation of that fact, however, but begins our inquiry, as this Court noted over a century ago when faced with a similar problem of statutory interpretation:

“The general words used in the clause . . . taken by themselves, and literally construed, without regard to the object in view, would seem to sanction the claim of the plaintiff. But this mode of expounding a statute has never been adopted by any enlightened tribunal— because it is evident that in many cases it would defeat the object which the Legislature intended to accomplish. And it is well settled that, in interpreting a statute, the court will not look merely to a particular clause in which general words may be used, but will take in connection with it the whole statute . . . and the objects and policy of the law. . . .” Brown v. Duchesne, 19 How. 183, 194 (1857).

Looking first to “the whole statute,” two things are apparent: (1) § 1 of the Mandamus and Venue Act of 1962 is explicitly limited to “action [s] in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” 28 U. S. C. § 1361. (2) The “civil action” referred to in § 2 of the Act is one “in which a defendant is an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof acting in his official capacity or under color of legal authority. . . 28 U. S. C. § 1391 (e) (emphasis added). The highlighted language, cast by Congress in the present tense, can reasonably be read as describing the character of the defendant at the time of the suit. So read, it limits a covered “civil action” to one against a federal official or agency who is at that time acting — or failing to act — in an official or apparently official way. Such “civil actions” are those referred to in § 1 of the Act, i. e., “action [s] in the nature of mandamus.”

Our analysis does not stop with the language of the statute; we must also look to “the objects and policy of the law.” Brown v. Duchesne, 19 How., at 194. In order to “give [the Act] such a construction as will carry into execution the will of the Legislature . . . according to its true intent and meaning,” ibid., we turn to the legislative history. Schlanger v. Seamans, 401 U. S. 487, 490, n. 4 (1971). See also United States v. Culbert, 435 U. S. 371, 374, n. 4 (1978); Train v. Colorado Public Interest Research Group, 426 U. S. 1, 9-10 (1976).

Ill

H. R. 10089, 86th Cong., 2d Sess. (1960), was a precursor of the bill which eventually became the 1962 Act. Congressman Budge, the author of H. R. 10089, explained its purpose:

“As it is now, there is no opportunity for a judicial review of the action of any decision that is made by a Federal officer in charge out there [in the field], no matter how arbitrary or capricious, because it is too expensive to come back here [to Washington, D. C.] to litigate it.” Hearings on H. R. 10089 before Subcommittee No. 4 of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 86th Cong., 2d Sess., 19-20 (May 26 and June 2, I960).

As often happens, the dialogue between witnesses, Members, and Committee Counsel reveals considerable initial confusion as to the extent of the problem and the proposed solution. Of course, the very purpose of hearing witnesses is to expose problems, probe for solutions, and reach a .consensus. At one point Congressman Poff, in an obvious effort to clarify the responses, asked the Department of Justice witness, Donald MacGuineas:

“Mr. POFF. Wouldn’t you say the author’s objective is to give a citizen who has a legitimate complaint against his Government the right to sue his Government at the place where the wrong was committed?
“Mr. MacGUINEAS. The difficulty, if I may say so, Congressman, with your statement, is you speak of the right to sue his Government. Now, that proposition in itself raises very difficult and complicated legal questions which I touched upon at my appearance last week.
“You must first decide whether a particular suit is actually a suit against the man in his official capacity or whether it i[s] a suit against the Government officer in his individual capacity. If it is the latter, it is not in any sense a suit against the Government.” Id., at 54.

Committee Counsel later asked the Department of Justice witness:

“Suppose in order to take care of a body of law which seems to say that when a government official does something wrong he is acting in his individual capacity, we added the following language — 'acting in his official capacity or under color of legal authority’?” Id., at 61.

Mr. MacGuineas’ response, which must now be recognized as prophetic, was that such language might later be misinterpreted as covering a damages action against a person holding Government office. This, he said, would raise “serious policy questions” by allowing a Government official to be sued in the plaintiff’s home district while a private defendant in the same kind of action could be sued only in the district of his residence. The Chairman, Mr. Forrester, and the ranking senior Committee Member, Mr. Poff, both stated that they shared the same concern. Id., at 62-63.

Judge Albert Maris, then Chairman of the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States, testified that such an “injustice” to the Government officer could be avoided only by requiring a damages suit to be brought in the district of his residence or where the cause of action arose. “That,” said Judge Maris, “is the normal procedure in the law. That is what ordinarily happens in the ordinary law suit.” Id., at 86. Congressman Dowdy, one of the four Members present, then said:

“Speaking to the point you were talking about, I don’t understand that we have in consideration suits for money damages. That would be maybe where a person is being sued as an individual.” Id., at 87.

When Judge Maris stated his view that cases involving money damages would not be involved, Mr. Dowdy agreed: “They would not be covered by this [proposed legislation].” Ibid.

Finally, near the conclusion of the hearing, the bill’s author, Mr. Budge, stated:

“We always get off into these slander type actions which is not what I am seeking at all. When Mr. MacGuineas stated here this morning that he was not sure of the purpose of the legislation, I think that is perhaps true, because I have no intention of bringing [within this bill] tort actions against individual government employees. All I am seeking to do is to have the review of their official actions take place in the United States District Court where the determination was made.” Id., at 102 (emphasis added).

Following the hearings, the Subcommittee redrafted H. R. 10089. The revised version, H. R. 12622, 86th Cong., 2d Sess. (1960), among other things, added the language “or under color of legal' authority” to the phrase “acting in his official capacity.” Far from being intended as the master key which would unlock the door to nationwide venue for money damages actions brought against an official as an individual, this language was specifically intended only to alleviate the hardships caused by a relatively narrow but nagging problem, as the Committee Report made clear:

“By including the officer or employee, both in his official capacity and acting under color of legal authority, the committee intends to make the proposed section 1391 (e) applicable not only to those cases where an action may be brought against an officer or employee in his official capacity. It intends to include also those cases where the action is nominally brought against the officer in his individual capacity even though he was acting within the apparent scope of his authority and not as a private citizen. Such actions are also in essence against the United States but are brought against the officer or employee as an individual only to circumvent what remains of the doctrine of sovereign immunity. The considerations of policy which demand that an action against an official may be brought locally rather than in the District of Columbia require similar venue provisions where the action is based upon the fiction that the officer is acting as an individual. There is no intention, however, to alter the venue requirements of Federal law insofar as suits resulting from the official’s private actions are concerned.” H. R. Rep. No. 1936, 86th Cong., 2d Sess., 3-4 (1960) (emphasis added).

The Committee’s statement of the legislation’s purpose also sheds considerable light on the congressional intent:

“The purpose of this bill is to make it possible to bring actions against Government officials and agencies in U. S. district courts outside the District of Columbia, which, because of certain existing limitations on jurisdiction and venue, may now be brought only in the U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia.” Id., at 1 (emphasis added).

In context, this clearly confines the intended thrust of § 1391 (e) to mandamus-type actions. See supra, at 533-534. The Report continues:

“Section 2 [§ 1391 (e)] is the venue section of the bill. Its purpose is similar to that of section 1. It is designed to permit an action which is essentially against the United States to be brought locally rather than requiring that it be brought in the District of Columbia simply because Washington is the official residence of the officer or agency sued.” H. R. Rep. No. 1936, supra, at 2 (emphasis added).

Although H. R. 12622 passed the House in 1960, the Senate adjourned without acting on it. See H. R. Rep. No. 536, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., 1 (1961). The same bill was reintroduced in the next Congress as H. R. 1960, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. (1961). The Committee Report was republished as H. R. Rep. No. 536, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. (1961), and the bill was referred to the Senate.

The Senate Judiciary Committee also solicited comments on the bill from the Department of Justice. The Department suggested, inter alia, that it would be prudent to effect the venue reform by amending the Administrative Procedure Act so that “suits for money judgments against officers” would be “unquestionably eliminate [d].” See Letter from Deputy Attorney General White to Senator Eastland (Feb. 28, 1962), reprinted in S. Rep. No. 1992, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., 6 (1962). Although the Senate Committee in its Report commented on other suggestions proffered by the Justice Department, in this instance it made no response at all. Respondents and the Courts of Appeals rely on this failure to respond as indicating an intention that the venue provisions were to apply to actions for money damages brought against a federal official in his individual capacity.

We are not persuaded by this negative inference. Several passages affirmatively state the limited nature of the bill: The Senate Committee’s statement of the bill’s purpose is exactly the same as that found in the House Report. Compare S. Rep. No. 1992, supra, at 2, with H. R. Rep. No. 536, supra, at 1. The Committee also states that “ [t]he bill, as amended, is intended to facilitate review by the Federal courts of administrative actions,” S. Rep. No. 1992, supra, at 2 (emphasis added), which does not afford a basis for reading the language of the statute to include money damages actions against individuals. And the following comment as to the bill’s venue provisions appears in the Report:

“The committee is of the view that the current state of the law respecting venue in actions against Government officials is contrary to the sound and equitable administration of justice. Frequently, the administrative determinations involved are made not in Washington but in the field. In either event, these are actions which are in essence against the United States. The Government official is defended by the Department of Justice whether the action is brought in the District of Columbia or in any other district. U. S. attorneys are present in every judicial district. Requiring the Government to defend Government officials and agencies in places other than Washington would not appear to be a burdensome imposition.” S. Rep. No. 1992, supra, at 3 (emphasis added).

Here again is confirmation that there was no thought to expand the venue provisions except as to actions “in essence against the United States,” since the Government is not “required” to defend personal actions in which a Government employee is a defendant.

What emerges is that the bill’s author, the Committees, and the Congress intended nothing more than to provide nationwide venue for the convenience of individual plaintiffs in actions which are nominally against an individual officer but are in reality against the Government. A suit for money damages which must be paid out of the pocket of the private individual who happens to be — or formerly was — employed by the Federal Government plainly is not one “essentially against the United States,” and thus is not encompassed by the venue provisions of § 1391 (e).

This is not the first time an overbroad interpretation of § 1391 (e) has been rejected by this Court. In Schlanger v. Seamans, 401 U. S. 487 (1971), the question was whether in a habeas corpus proceeding “any custodian, or one in the chain of command, as well as the person detained, must be in the territorial jurisdiction of the District Court.” Id., at 489. While recognizing that habeas corpus is “a civil action,” we noted that reference to § 1391 (e) did not provide the answer. In the opinion for the Court, Mr. Justice Douglas stated:

“Although by 28 U. S. C. § 1391 (e) . . . Congress has provided for nationwide service of process in a 'civil action in which each defendant is an officer or employee of the United States,’ the legislative history of that section is barren of any indication that Congress extended habeas corpus jurisdiction. That section was enacted to broaden the venue of civil actions which could previously have been brought only in the District of Columbia. See H. R. Rep. No. 536, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., 1; S. Rep. No. 1992, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., 2.” 401 U. S., at 490, n. 4. (Emphasis added.)

As we have noted, the “civil actions which could previously have been brought only in the District of Columbia” were suits for mandamus, not actions for money damages. See supra, at 533-534. The clear purport of our statement in Schlanger is that Congress did not intend the phrase “civil action” to be given the sweeping definition argued for it in that case, and that the Court was required to turn to the legislative history to determine which “civil actions” § 1391 (e) governed.

IV

The conclusion derived from the legislative history that § 1391 (e) does not cover the type of suits here at issue is buttressed by consideration of the consequences of the broad interpretation urged upon us by respondents. The conditions and venue provisions under which officers of the United States may be sued, while in office or after leaving office, have serious implications for defendants as well as for those seeking relief. An officer of the Government while so employed may have numerous mandamus-type suits naming him or her as a party. Without doubt, under § 1391 (e), venue lies in every one of the 95 federal districts, and suits may be pending in a dozen or several dozen at any one time. Even though the burden of defending multiple suits while in office may be onerous, the United States Attorney in each of the districts and the Department of Justice carry that burden. In a mandamus suit only rarely would the officer himself be obliged to travel to the district in which the case was heard; if so obliged, the travel would be at Government expense. When an official leaves office, his personal involvement in a mandamus suit effectively ends and his successor carries on. No personal cost or inconvenience is incurred, either while in office or later. It was with this understanding that Congress sought to ameliorate the inconvenience and expense to private plaintiffs seeking relief from the action or inaction of their Government. H. R. Rep. No. 536, at 3; S. Rep. No. 1992, at 3.

Suits for money damages for which an individual officeholder may be found personally liable are quite different. If § 1391 (e) were construed to govern actions for money damages against federal officers individually, suits could be brought against these federal officers while in Government service— and could be pressed even after the official has left federal service — in any one of the 95 federal districts covering the 50 states and other areas within federal jurisdiction. This would place federal officers, solely by reason of their Government service, in a very different posture in personal damages suits from that of all other persons, since under 28 U. S. C. § 1391 (b), suits against private persons for money damages must be brought “in the judicial district where all defendants reside, or in which the claim arose.”

There is, however, no indication that a Congress concerned with “the sound and equitable administration of justice,” H. R. Rep. No. 536, at 3; S. Rep. No. 1992, at 3, intended to impose on those serving their Government the burden of defending personal damages actions in a variety of distant districts after leaving office. Absent a clear indication that Congress intended such a sweeping effect, we will not infer such a purpose npr will we interpret a statute to effect that result. “We think these laws ought to be construed in the spirit in which they were made — that is, as founded in justice — and should not be strained by technical constructions to reach cases which Congress evidently could not have contemplated, without departing from the principle upon which they were legislating, and going far beyond the object they intended to accomplish.” Brown v. Duchesne, 19 How., at 197.

The judgments of the Courts of Appeals in No. 77-1546 and No. 78-303 are reversed, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

Me. Justice White took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.

Me. Justice Maeshall took no part in the decision of these cases.

Me. Justice Stewaet,

with whom Mr. Justice Brennan joins, dissenting.

The Court today holds that in a suit against a federal officer for allegedly wrongful actions under color of legal authority, the venue provisions of § 2 of the Mandamus and Venue Act of 1962, 28 U. S. C. § 1391 (e), are applicable only if the officer is simply a nominal defendant, and the plaintiff’s real grievance is against the Government. I disagree. It is my view that § 1391 (e) means what it says, and that it thus applies as well to a suit for damages against a federal officer for his own wrongdoing.

I

When Congress enacted § 1391 (e) in 1962, this Court had recognized two types of suits against federal officers acting under color of legal authority. See Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Corp., 337 U. S. 682. The first of these two types of suits was based on a legal fiction designed to circumvent the doctrine of sovereign immunity. This fiction enabled an aggrieved party to obtain equitable relief in a case nominally directed against a federal officer if the officer had acted either unconstitutionally or in excess of his statutory authority. The theory underlying the fiction was that the relief sought was against the officer in his individual capacity, rather than against the Government. Id., at 689-690. But, since any sovereign can act only through its agents, the reality was that the relief sought was in fact against the Government itself. The second type of suit, by contrast, was a direct action against the federal officer in his individual capacity for actions taken under color of legal authority. Id., at 687. Such a suit typically sought to assess personal monetary liability against the officer.

The issue here is whether the venue and service of process provisions of § 1391 (e) were intended to apply to both of these kinds of suits. Section 1391 (e) provides in relevant part:

“A civil action in which a defendant is an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof acting in his official capacity or under color of legal authority ... , may, except as otherwise provided by law, be brought in any judicial district in which (1) a defendant in the action resides, or (2) the cause of action arose, or (3) any real property involved in the action is situated, or (4) the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the action. . . .
“The summons and complaint in such an action shall be served as provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure except that the delivery of the summons and complaint to the officer ... as required by the rules may be made by certified mail beyond the territorial limits of the district in which the action is brought.”

Since either of the two types of suits described above is properly characterized as “[a] civil action in which a defendant is an officer or employee of the United States ... acting ... under color of legal authority,” it is quite clear that they both fall within the plain meaning of § 1391 (e). Thus, by its own terms, § 1391 (e) unambiguously extends to the second type of suit against a federal officer, that is, one in which, as here, money damages are sought directly from the federal officer himself.

II

Relying on legislative history and policy considerations, the Court turns its back on the words of the statute and holds that it does not cover a suit against a federal officer for money damages. The legislative history, according to the Court, indicates that the general purpose of Congress in enacting the Mandamus and Venue Act of 1962 (Act) was to remove then existing jurisdictional and venue obstacles to suits against federal officers for mandamus-type relief outside the District of Columbia. The legislative history further indicates, in the Court’s view, that the specific, and exclusive, concern of Congress in adding to § 1391 (e) the phrase at issue here, “acting . . . under color of legal authority,” was to ensure that the provision would govern suits against federal officers for equitable relief. Thus the Court concludes that the proper construction of the phrase “acting . . . under color of legal authority” is coextensive with the sole concern to which it was purportedly addressed. This construction is said to find further support in the policies underlying the Act.

The Court thus purports to rely on-the familiar rule that “ fin interpreting a statute, the court will not look merely to a particular clause in which general words may be used, but will take in connection with it the whole statute ... and the objects and policy of the law.’ ” Ante, at 535, quoting Brown v. Duchesne, 19 How. 183, 194. See Steelworkers v. Weber, 443 U. S. 193, 201-202. This reliance is misplaced, however, since neither the legislative history nor public policy is inconsistent with the plain meaning of § 1391 (e).

A

The forerunner of the Act was introduced as H. R. 10089, 86th Cong., 2d Sess. (1960). That bill provided:

“A civil action in which each defendant is an officer of the United States in his official capacity, a person acting under him, or an agency of the United States, may be brought in any judicial district where a plaintiff in the action resides.” (Emphasis added.)

Following hearings and the submission of written comments on H. R. 10089 to a House Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary, a new bill was introduced that parallels closely the current language of the Act. The new bill, H. R. 12622, 86th Cong., 2d Sess. (1960), contained two sections: the first vested all district courts with jurisdiction to hear suits seeking mandamus-type relief; the second broadened the venue alternatives for a suit against a federal officer “acting in his official capacity or under color of legal authority.” (Emphasis added.) This bill passed the House in 1960, but the Senate adjourned without acting on it. The same bill was then reintroduced in the next Congress, H. R. 1960, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. (1961), and, with only minor amendments, was enacted by both the House and the Senate.

The question here is why Congress expanded the ambit of the second section of the Act, now § 1391 (e), to include not only a suit against a federal officer “acting in his official capacity,” but also a suit against a federal officer “acting . . . under color of legal authority.” The Court says that the legislative history reveals that the phrase “acting . . . under color of legal authority” was added to § 1391 (e) for the sole purpose of including within its coverage suits against federal officers for equitable relief. This view is said to find support in the positions announced by members of the House Subcommittee during the hearings on H. R. 10089, and in the Committee Reports that accompanied the subsequent versions of the bill.

I would have to agree that a principal purpose of adding the phrase “acting .. . under color of legal authority” to § 1391 (e) was to ensure that the venue provisions would apply to suits against federal officers for equitable relief. At the Subcommittee Hearings on H. R. 10089, the proponent of the bill, Representative Budge, explained the basic problem to which it was addressed- — that, in light of then existing venue and jurisdictional obstacles, “there is no opportunity for a judicial review of the action of any decision that is made by a Federal officer in charge out there [in the field], no matter how arbitrary or capricious, because it is too expensive to come back here [to Washington, D. C.] to litigate it.” Hearings on H. R. 10089 before Subcommittee No. 4 of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 86th Cong., 2d Sess., 19-20 (1960).

The record of the testimony at the Subcommittee hearings, however, reveals substantial confusion both as to the scope of the problem and the manner in which it ought to be resolved. During the hearings, a representative of the Justice Department observed that since the bill, as drafted, applied only to a suit against a federal officer “in his official capacity,” there would remain unresolved the venue and jurisdictional problems in the context of a suit for equitable relief brought against a federal officer in his individual capacity to sidestep the problem of sovereign immunity. Id., at 32-33. In response, the Subcommittee’s counsel proposed the addition of the language at issue here: “Suppose in order to take care of a body of law which seems to say that when a government official does something wrong he is acting in his individual capacity, we added the following language — ‘acting in his official capacity or under color of legal authority.’ ” Id., at 61 (emphasis added). That phrase was then incorporated in the redrafted bill, H. R. 12622, as well as subsequent bills. The Committee Reports accompanying those bills confirm that Congress intended § 1391 (e) to govern suits against federal officers for equitable relief.

Although a principal purpose of adding the phrase “acting... under color of legal authority” to § 1391 (e) thus undoubtedly was to ensure that the venue provision would apply to suits against federal officers for equitable relief, it is not at all clear from the legislative history that Congress sought only to include such suits within the broadened ambit of the provision. Whatever may have been the intent of the Subcommittee members who conducted the hearings on the original bill, the Committee Reports accompanying subsequent bills — all of which included the phrase “acting . . . under color of legal authority” — indicated an intent to reach suits against federal officers not only for equitable relief, but also for money damages. In describing the scope of the problem addressed by the Act, the Committee Reports indicated that “[t]he venue problem also arises in an action against a Government official seeking damages from him for actions which are claimed to be without legal authority but which were taken by the official in the course of performing his duty.” H. R. Rep. No. 1936, 86th Cong., 2d Sess., 3 (1960); H. R. Rep. No. 536, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., 3 (1961); S. Rep. No. 1992, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., 3 (1961) (emphasis added).

It is also significant that at least one of these Committee Reports, that of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was issued after the then Deputy Attorney General had recommended that the venue reform be tied in directly to the Administrative Procedure Act. Letter from Deputy Attorney General White to Senator Eastland (Feb. 28, 1962), reprinted in S. Rep. No. 1992, supra, at 6. “This,” he observed, “[would] unquestionably eliminate] suits for money judgments against officers.” Ibid. Although the Committee acted upon other suggestions in that letter, it took no steps whatsoever to narrow the ambit of § 1391 (e) to exclude suits for money damages. Rather, as stated above, the Committee Report indicated that the venue problem to which the bill was addressed applied to such suits.

B

It is also instructive that shortly after the Act was signed into law, then Deputy Attorney General Katzenbach circulated a memorandum to all United States Attorneys to assist them in defending suits brought under the newly enacted legislation. In that memorandum, he noted:

“The venue provision [§ 1391 (e)] is applicable to suits against Government officials and agencies for injunctions and damages as well as suits for mandatory relief. . . . As an example, suits for damages for alleged libel or slander by Government officials (which the Department defends on the ground that statements made by a Government official within the scope of his authority are absolutely privileged . . .) fall within the venue provision of this statute.”

It is thus clear that the Justice Department regarded § 1391 (e) as applicable to suits against federal officers for money damages for actions taken under color of legal authority.

The significance of this memorandum is twofold. First, it represents a contemporaneous interpretation of § 1391 (e) that is wholly at odds with that adopted by the Court. Second, it indicates that the Justice Department has long assumed a special responsibility for representing federal officers sued for money damages for actions taken under color of legal authority. This longstanding responsibility is carried forth in current regulations. See 28 CFR §§ 50.15, 50.16 (1979).

The fact that the Justice Department, in most circumstances, will provide such representation substantially undercuts the Court’s policy argument that to construe § 1391 (e) to govern suits for money damages would undermine the “sound and equitable administration of justice,” see H. R. Rep. No. 536, supra, at 3; S. Rep. No. 1992, supra, at 3, by “plae[ing] federal officers, solely by reason of their Government service, in a very different posture in personal damages suits from that of all other persons, since under 28 U. S. C. § 1391 (b), suits against private persons for money damages must be brought fin the judicial district where all the defendants reside, or in which the claim arose.’ ” Ante, at 544. The Court’s argument overlooks the fact that since the Government is willing to provide representation in a suit against a federal officer for money damages, the federal officer is relieved of the greatest burden involved in defending himself.

Ill

The petitioners also argue that principles of due process militate against construing § 1391 (e) to govern suits against federal officers for money damages. This argument turns on the fact that § 1391 (e) provides not only for expanded venue, but also for nationwide service of process. It is the petitioners’ position that a serious due process problem arises when the provisions of § 1391 (e) are taken to mean what they say, so as to permit a federal district court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a federal officer who lacks sufficient “minimum contacts” with the State or district in which the federal court sits.

The petitioners concede that previous cases in this area have involved the Fourteenth Amendment requirement that a state court may acquire personal jurisdiction only if there exist “minimum contacts” between the defendant and the forum State. Reasoning by analogy, however, the petitioners argue that traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice inherent in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment similarly limit the exercise of congressional power to provide for nationwide in personam jurisdiction.

The short answer to this argument is that due process requires only certain minimum contacts between the defendant and the sovereign that has created the court. See Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U. S. 186; International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310. The issue is not whether it is unfair to require a defendant to assume the burden of litigating in an inconvenient forum, but rather whether the court of a particular sovereign has power to exercise personal jurisdiction over a named defendant. The cases before us involve suits against residents of the United States in the courts of the United States. No due process problem exists.

This is not to say that a federal officer in a suit for money damages is without recourse in the event he is sued in an inconvenient place. A federal district court is vested with broad authority “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, [to] . . . transfer any civil action to any other district . . . where it might have been brought.” 28 U. S. C. § 1404 (a). It is not unreasonable to expect that district courts would look sympathetically upon a motion for a change of venue in any case where a federal officer could show that he would be substantially prejudiced if the suit were not transferred to a more convenient forum.

For the reasons stated, I think that § 1391 (e) means exactly what it says, and that its provisions present no constitutional problem whatever. Accordingly, I would affirm the judgments in both of these cases.

       Goodwin is not a party in the case before this Court.

       Goodwin joined petitioners in making the transfer request. He also moved for dismissal on grounds of prosecutorial immunity. This motion was denied. See Briggs v. Goodwin, 384 F. Supp. 1228 (DC 1974), aff’d, 186 U. S. App. D. C. 179, 569 F. 2d 10 (1977), cert. denied, 437 U. S. 904 (1978).

       See Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with respect to Intelligence Activities, Final Report, S. Rep. No. 94-755, Book 3, pp. 559-677 (1976).

       The court concluded that because 28 U. S. C. § 1391 (e) was drafted in the present tense, Congress did not mean it to apply to former officials. Although respondents sought certiorari' on this question, we declined review. 439 U. S. 1114 (1979).

       “§ 1361. Action to compel an officer of the United States to perform his duty

       Congress’ use of the language “under color of legal authority” is explained in the House Committee Report as an effort to circumvent the sovereign immunity doctrine. See infra, at 538-539.

       A certified copy of these unpublished hearings has been lodged with the Clerk of this Court.

       Respondents’ argument that § 1391 (e) should apply to personal damages actions is based on an isolated passage in the Committee Report:
      “The venue problem also arises in an action against a Government official seeking damages from him for actions which are claimed to be without legal authority but which were taken by the official in the course of performing his duty.” EL R. Rep. No. 1936, at 3.
      In the face of the consistently expressed intent of the Committee to include only actions essentially against the Government, we decline to treat this one cryptic sentence as dispositive of the legislative intent. See Blackburn v. Goodwin, 608 F. 2d 919 (CA2 1979).

       The only arguable reference is a passage taken verbatim from the House Report which mentions that the venue problem also arises in suits against officials for damages for acts taken in the course of performing official duties. See S. Rep. No. 1992, at 3. Inasmuch as this passage, like much of the Senate Report, is but a recitation of language used earlier in the House Report, see n. 8, supra, it obviously was not drafted in response to the Justice Department’s letter.

       In deciding whether an action is in reality one against the Government, the identity of the named parties defendant is not controlling; the dis-positive inquiry is “who will pay the judgment?” See Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp., 337 U. S. 682 (1949). Here, it is against individuals and not against the Government that a money judgment is sought.

       Under this provision the case against petitioner Stafford could have been brought only in the Northern District of Florida where the alleged claim arose. As to petitioner Colby, the proper venue would have been the Eastern District of New York where the alleged claim arose, or perhaps the Eastern District of Virginia, where some acts may have occurred at the headquarters of the CIA.

       For purposes of brevity, I hereafter refer to “suits against federal officers acting under color of legal authority” simply as “suits against federal officers.”

       The Court argues that since § 1391 (e) is written in the present tense (“[a] civil action in which a defendant is an officer or employee of the United States . . . acting in his official capacity or under color of legal authority” (emphasis added)), the phrase “acting . . . under color of legal authority” is properly construed as applying only to a nominal suit against a federal officer for equitable relief. Such a suit, the Court notes, is necessarily brought against a defendant who is presently serving as a federal officer. Ante, at 535-536. This argument falls short of the mark, however, for many suits against federal officers for money damages, such as those at issue here, are brought against the officers while they are still in Government service.

       The Court also finds support for its construction of § 1391 (e) in our holding in Schlanger v. Seamans, 401 U. S. 487, 490, n. 4, that § 1391 (e) does not apply to habeas corpus actions. This reliance is misplaced, because the Schlanger decision turned on the sui generis nature of habeas corpus actions which, though “technically 'civil/ . . . [are] not automatically subject to all the rules governing ordinary civil actions.” Ibid.

       This section of the bill, with minor modifications, was later enacted as § 1 of the Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1361, which provides: “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.”

       The petitioners also argue, on statutory grounds, that § 1391 (e) does not confer personal jurisdiction. It is the petitioners’ position that § 1391 (e) was designed only to govern venue and service of process, not to confer personal jurisdiction. The flaw in this argument is that, as a general rule, service of process is the means by which a court obtains personal jurisdiction over a defendant, and in the cases before us the petitioners have failed to demonstrate that there was any defect in the means by which service of process was effected.
      It cannot seriously be argued that § 1391 (e) does not authorize extraterritorial service of process, for it provides that in civil actions governed by § 1391 (e) “the delivery of the summons and complaint to the officer or agency as required by the [Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] may be made by certified mail beyond the territorial limits of the district in which the action is brought.” The legislative history, moreover, confirms that Congress intended extraterritorial service of process for all cases governed by § 1391 (e). See H. R. Rep. No. 536, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., 4 (1961).


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Mr. Justice Brennan Mr. Justice Blackmun,

license: Public Domain

text:
    FORD MOTOR CREDIT CO. et al. v. MILHOLLIN et al.
    No. 78-1487.
    Argued December 4, 1979
    Decided February 20, 1980

      BrenNan, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. BlackmtjN, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which BurgeR, C. J., joined, post, p. 570.

      William, M. Burke argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were George R. Richter, Jr., Ronald M. Bayer, Herbert H. Anderson, and John M. Berman.

      Richard A. Slottee argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were William H. Clendenen, Jr., and Richard Kanter.

      Stuart A. Smith argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief were Solicitor General McCree, Assistant Attorney General Shene-field, John J. Powers III, and Marion L. Jetton.

      Although respondents spell their name “Millhollin,” throughout this litigation their name has been misspelled as “Milhollin.” Because legal research catalogs and computers are governed by the principle of consistency, not correctness, we feel constrained to adhere to the erroneous spelling.

      Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed by Roland E. Brandel for the California Bankers Association; by Peter D. Schellie and Theodore R.

        Boehm for the Consumer Bankers Association; and by William H. Allen and Vernon L. Evans for the National Consumer Finance Association et al.

        Margaret S. Bigg and Willard P. Ogburn filed a brief for the National Clients Council, Inc., as amicus curiae urging affirmance.

   Mr. Justice Brennan

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The issue for decision in this case is whether the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 82 Stat. 146, as amended, 16 U. S. C. § 1601 et seq., requires that the existence of an acceleration clause always be disclosed on the face of a credit agreement. The Federal Reserve Board staff has consistently construed the statute and regulations as imposing no such uniform requirement. Because we believe that a high degree of deference to this administrative interpretation is warranted, we hold that TILA does not mandate a general rule of disclosure for acceleration clauses.

I

The several respondents in this case purchased automobiles from various dealers, financing their purchases through standard retail installment contracts that were assigned to petitioner Ford Motor Credit Co. (FMCC), a finance company. Each contract provided that respondents were to pay a precomputed finance charge. As required by TILA and Federal Reserve Board Regulation Z, which implements the Act, the front page of each contract disclosed and explained certain features of the agreement. See 15 U. S. C. § 1631; 12 CFR § 226.6 (a) (1979). Among these disclosures was a paragraph informing the buyer that he

“may prepay his obligations under this contract in full at any time prior to maturity of the final instalment hereunder, and, if he does so, shall receive a rebate of the unearned portion of the Finance Charge computed under the sum of the digits method. . . .”

The face of the contract also stated that temporary default on a particular installment would result in a predetermined delinquency charge. Not mentioned on the disclosure page was a clause in the body of the contract giving the creditor a right to accelerate payment of the entire debt upon the buyer’s default.

Respondents subsequently commenced four separate suits against FMCC in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, alleging, inter alia,, that FMCC had violated TILA and Regulation Z by failing to disclose on the front page of the contract that the creditor retained the right to accelerate payment of the debt. In two of the suits, the District Court held that facial disclosure of the acceleration clauses was mandated by the provision of TILA that compels publication of "default, delinquency, or similar charges payable in the event of late payments,” 15 U. S. C. §§ 1638- (a) (9), 1639 (a)(7). App. 30-31, 37, 69-71. Respondents in the other two actions prevailed on different grounds. All four cases were consolidated on appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

The Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court that TILA imposes a general acceleration-clause disclosure requirement. Rather than resting on the District Court’s holding that acceleration is a default charge, however, the Court of Appeals based its decision on the narrower principle that under Regulation Z “[t]he creditor must disclose whether a rebate of unearned interest will be made upon acceleration and also disclose the method by which the amount of unearned interest will be computed if the debt is accelerated.” 588 F. 2d 753, 757 (1978), quoting St. Germain v. Bank of Hawaii, 573 F. 2d 572, 577 (CA9 1977). See 12 CFR § 226.8 (b)(7) (1979). Implicit in the conclusion of the Court of Appeals — -and explicit in its preceding St. Germain decision— was the rejection of a contrary administrative interpretation of the pertinent statutory and regulatory provisions. In adopting its particular approach, the Court of Appeals mapped a path through the disclosure thicket that diverges from the routes traveled by the Courts of Appeals for several other Circuits. We granted certiorari, 442 U. S. 940 (1979), to resolve the conflict. We reverse.

II

The Truth in Lending Act has the broad purpose of promoting “the informed use of credit” by assuring “meaningful disclosure of credit terms” to consumers. 15 U. S. C. § 1601. Because of their complexity and variety, however, credit transactions defy exhaustive regulation by a single statute. Congress therefore delegated expansive authority to the Federal Reserve Board to elaborate and expand the legal framework governing commerce in credit. 15 U. S. C. § 1604; Mourning v. Family Publications Service, Inc., 411 U. S. 356 (1973). The Board executed its responsibility by promulgating Regulation Z, 12 CFR Part 226 (1979), which at least partly fills the statutory gaps. Even Regulation Z, however, cannot speak explicitly to every credit disclosure issue. At the threshold, therefore, interpretation of TILA and Regulation Z demands an examination of their express language; absent a clear expression, it becomes necessary to consider the implicit character of the statutory scheme. For the reasons following we conclude that the issue of acceleration disclosure is not governed by clear expression in the statute or regulation, and that it is appropriate to defer to the Federal Reserve Board and staff in determining what resolution of that issue is implied by the truth-in-lending enactments.

Respondents have advanced two theories to buttress their claim that the Act and regulation expressly mandate disclosure of acceleration clauses. In the District Court, they contended that acceleration clauses were comprehended by the general statutory prescription that a creditor shall disclose “default, delinquency, or similar charges payable in the event of late payments,” 15 U. S. C. §§ 1638 (a)(9), 1639 (a)(7), and were included within the provision of Regulation Z requiring disclosure of the “amount, or method of computing the amount, of any default, delinquency, or similar charges payable in the event of late payments,” 12 CFR § 226.8 (b)(4) (1979). Before this Court, respondents follow the Court of Appeals in arguing that 12 CFR § 226.8 (b)(7) may be the source of an obligation to disclose procedures governing the rebate of unearned finance charges that accrue under acceleration. That section commands

“[identification of the method of computing any unearned portion of the finance charge in the event of prepayment in full of an obligation which includes precomputed finance charges and a statement of the amount or method of computation of any charge that may be deducted from the amount of any rebate of such unearned finance charge that will be credited to an obligation or refunded to the customer”

A fair reading of the pertinent provisions does not sustain respondents’ contention that acceleration clauses are within their terms.

An acceleration clause cannot be equated with a “default, delinquency, or similar charg[e],” subject to disclosure under 15 U. S. C. §§ 1638 (a)(9), 1639 (a)(7), and 12 CFE § 226.8 (b)(4). The prerogative of acceleration affords the creditor a mechanism for collecting the outstanding portion of a debt on which there has been a partial default. In itself, acceleration entails no monetary penalty, although a creditor may independently impose such a penalty, for example, by failing to rebate unearned finance charges. A “default, delinquency, or similar charg[e],” on the other hand, self-evidently refers to a specific assessable sum. Thus, within the trade, delinquency charges are understood to be “the compensation a creditor receives on a precomputed contract for the debtor’s delay in making timely instalment payments,” 1 CCH Consumer Credit Guide ¶¶4230, 4231 (1977) (emphasis added). Acceleration is not compensatory; a creditor accelerates to avoid further delay by demanding immediate payment of the outstanding debt. See id., ¶ 4231; Uniform Consumer Credit Code of 1968, § 2.203, official comment 2, 7 U. L. A. 315-316 (1978); §2.204 (3), id., at 317.

The language employed in TILA §§ 1638 (a)(9) and 1639 (a)(7), and in 12 CFR §226.8 (b)(4) (1979), confirms the interpretation of “charges” as specific penalty sums. The statutory provisions speak of “charges payable in the event of late payments.” (Emphasis added.) Even if one considers the burdensomeness of acceleration as a form of “charge” upon the debtor, it would hardly make sense to speak of that burden as “payable” to the creditor. Similarly Regulation Z orders disclosure of the “amount, or method of computing the ■amount, of any default, delinquency, or similar charges. . .” (Emphasis added.) That command has no sensible application to the remedy of acceleration. In short, we would have to stretch these provisions beyond their obvious limits to construe them as a mandate for the disclosure of acceleration clauses.

The prepayment rebate disclosure regulation, 12 CFR § 226.8 (b)(7) (1979), also fails to afford direct support for an invariable specific acceleration disclosure rule. To be sure, payment by the debtor in response to acceleration might be deemed a prepayment within the ambit of that regulation. But so long as the creditor’s rebate practice under acceleration is identical to its policy with respect to voluntary prepayments, separate disclosure of the acceleration policy does not seem obligatory under a literal reading of the regulation. Section 226.8 (b)(7), therefore, squares with the position of the Federal Reserve Board staff that specific disclosure of acceleration rebate policy is only necessary when that policy varies from the custom with respect to voluntary prepayment rebates. FRB Official Staff Interpretation No. FC-0054, 12 CFR Part 226 Appendix, p. 627 (1979).

Ill

Notwithstanding the absence of an express statutory mandate that acceleration procedures be invariably disclosed, the Court of Appeals has held that the “creditor must [always] disclose whether a rebate of unearned interest will be made upon acceleration and also disclose the method by which the amount of unearned interest will be computed if the debt is accelerated.” St. Germain v. Bank of Hawaii, 573 F. 2d, at 577; accord, 588 F. 2d, at 757-758. In so deciding, the Court of Appeals in St. Germain explicitly rejected the view of the Federal Reserve Board staff that the right of acceleration need not be disclosed, and that rebate practice under acceleration must be disclosed only if it differs from the creditor’s rebate policy with respect to voluntary prepayment. FRB Official Staff Interpretation No. FC-0054, supra; see FRB Public Information Letter No. 851, [1974-1977 Transfer Binder] CCH Consumer Credit Guide ¶ 31,173; FRB Public Information Letter No. 1208, id., ¶ 31,647; FRB Public Information Letter No. 1324, 5 CCH Consumer Credit Guide ¶[ 31,827 (1979). Rather, St. Germain declared that it would “choose the direction that makes more sense to us in trying to achieve the congressional purpose of providing meaningful disclosure to the debtor about the costs of his borrowing.” 573 F. 2d, at 576-577.

It is a commonplace that courts will further legislative goals by filling the interstitial silences within a statute or a regulation. Because legislators cannot foresee all eventualities, judges must decide.unanticipated cases by extrapolating from related statutes or administrative provisions. But legislative silence is not always the result of a lack of prescience; it may instead betoken permission or, perhaps, considered abstention from regulation. In that event, judges are not accredited to supersede Congress or the appropriate agency by embellishing upon the regulatory scheme. Accordingly, caution must temper judicial creativity in the face of legislative or regulatory silence.

At the very least, that caution requires attentiveness to the views of the administrative entity appointed to apply and enforce a statute. And deference is especially appropriate in the process of interpreting the Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z. Unless demonstrably irrational, Federal Reserve Board staff opinions construing the Act or Regulation should be dispositive for several reasons.

The Court has often repeated the general proposition that considerable respect is due “ 'the interpretation given [a] statute by the officers or agency charged with its administration.’ ” Zenith Radio Corp. v. United States, 437 U. S. 443, 450 (1978), quoting Udall v. Tollman, 380 U. S. 1, 16 (1965); see, e. g., Power Reactor Co. v. Electricians, 367 U. S. 396, 408 (1961). An agency’s construction of its own regulations has been regarded as especially due that respect. See Bowles v. Seminole Rock Co., 325 U. S. 410, 413-414 (1945). This traditional acquiescence in administrative expertise is particularly apt under TILA, because the Federal Reserve Board has played a pivotal role in “setting [the statutory] machinery in motion. . . .” Norwegian Nitrogen Products Co. v. United States, 288 U. S. 294, 315 (1933). As we emphasized in Mourning v. Family Publications Service, Inc., 411 U. S. 356 (1973), Congress delegated broad administrative lawmaking power to the Federal Reserve Board when it framed TILA. The Act is best construed by those who gave it substance in promulgating regulations thereunder.

Furthermore, Congress has specifically designated the Federal Reserve Board and staff as the primary source for interpretation and application of truth-in-lending law. Because creditors need sure guidance through the “highly technical” Truth in Lending Act, S. Rep. No. 93-278, p. 13 (1973), legislators have twice acted to promote reliance upon Federal Reserve pronouncements. In 1974, TILA was amended to provide creditors with a defense from liability based upon good-faith compliance with a “rule, regulation, or interpretation” of the Federal Reserve Board itself. § 406, 88 Stat. 1518, codified at 15 U. S. C. § 1640 (f). The explicit purpose of the amendment was to relieve the creditor of the burden of choosing “between the Board’s construction of the Act and the creditor’s own assessment of how a court may interpret the Act.” S. Rep. No. 93-278, supra, at 13. The same rationale prompted a further change in the statute in 1976, authorizing a liability defense for “conformity with any interpretation or approval by an official or employee of the Federal Reserve System duly authorized by the Board to issue such interpretations or approvals. ...” § 3 (b), 90 Stat. 197, codified at 15 U. S C. § 1640 (f); see 122 Cong. Rec. 2836 (1976) (remarks of Sen. Garn); id., at 2852 (remarks of Rep. Annunzio, chairman of Consumer Affairs Subcommittee) ; ibid, (remarks of Rep. Rousselot); 121 Cong. Rec. 36927 (1975) (remarks of Rep. Annunzio); id., at 36927-36928 (remarks of Rep. Wylie).

The enactment and expansion of § 1640 (f) has significance beyond the express creation of a good-faith immunity. That statutory provision signals an unmistakable congressional decision to treat administrative rulemaking and interpretation under TILA as authoritative. Moreover, language in the legislative history evinces a decided preference for resolving interpretive issues by uniform administrative decision, rather than piecemeal through litigation. See S. Rep. No. 93-278, supra, at 13-14; 122 Cong. Rec. 2852 (1976) (remarks of Rep. Annunzio); 121 Cong. Rec. 36927 (1975) (remarks of Rep. Annunzio). Courts should honor that congressional choice. Thus, while not abdicating their ultimate judicial responsibility to determine the law, cf. generally SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U. S. 80, 92-94 (1943), judges ought to refrain from substituting their own interstitial lawmaking for that of the Federal Reserve, so long as the latter’s lawmaking is not irrational.

Finally, wholly apart from jurisprudential considerations or congressional intent, deference to the Federal Reserve is compelled by necessity; a court that tries to chart a true course to the Act’s purpose embarks upon a voyage without a compass when it disregards the'agency’s views. The concept of “meaningful disclosure” that animates TILA, see St. Germain, 573 F. 2d, at 577, cannot be applied in the abstract. Meaningful disclosure does not mean more disclosure. Rather, it describes a balance between “competing considerations of complete disclosure . . . and the need to avoid . . . [informational overload].” S. Rep 96-73, p. 3 (1979) (accompanying S. 108, Truth in Lending Simplification and Reform Act); see S. Rep. No. 95-720, pp. 2-3 (1978); 63 Federal Reserve Board Ann. Rep. 326, 349-350 (1976); Comment, Acceleration Clause Disclosure Under the Truth in Lending Act, 77 Colum. L. Rev. 649, 662-663 (1977). And striking the appropriate balance is an empirical process that entails investigation into consumer psychology and that presupposes broad experience with credit practices. Administrative agencies are simply better suited than courts to engage in such a process.

The Federal Reserve Board staff treatment of acceleration disclosure rationally accommodates the conflicting demands for completeness and for simplicity. In determining that acceleration rebate practices need be disclosed only when they diverge from other prepayment rebate practices, the Federal Reserve has adopted what may be termed a “bottom-line” approach: that the most important information in a credit purchase is that which explains differing net charges and rates. Cf. S. Rep. No. 96-73, supra, at 3-4; 63 Federal Reserve Board Ann. Rep., supra, at 350-352. Although the staff might have decided that acceleration rebates are so analytically distinct from identical voluntary prepayment rebates as to warrant separate disclosure, it was reasonable to conclude, alternatively, that ordinary .consumers would be concerned chiefly about differing financial consequences. Paced with an apparent lacuna in the express prescriptions of TILA and Regulation Z, the Court of Appeals had no ground for displacing the Federal Reserve staff's expert judgment.

Accordingly, we decide that the Court of Appeals erred in rejecting the views of the Federal Reserve Board and staff, and holding that separate disclosure of acceleration rebate practices is always required.

Reversed and remanded.

Mr. Justice Blackmun,

with whom The Chief Justice joins, concurring.

I join the Court’s opinion but write separately because I do not fully agree with the statement in note 13 of the opinion, ante, at 569, that the Federal Reserve Board’s approach to the disclosure of acceleration rebates is “equally logical” with other alternatives it might have chosen. In particular, I am concerned that the Board’s emphasis on a creditor’s rebate policy rather than its contract rights steers the Truth in Lending Act away from the moorings of contract law in a manner that may not prove salutary for the welfare of consumers of financial credit.

To be sure, consumers contemplating installment purchases are concerned with the “bottom line,” ante, at 569, of how much they will be required to pay. But there is little doubt, in my view, that consumers who read the required disclosures think that they are reading a description of their legal rights and obligations, and not merely an explanation of “practices” or “policies” of the creditor that may be changed to their detriment at the creditor’s will. Although there may be reason to believe that a major finance company, such as Ford Motor Credit Co., will adhere to its rebate practices despite the legal right to demand more upon acceleration than it said it would, I am not sanguine that a less responsible organization always will do the same. The result could be confusion and unanticipated financial loss, as well as fruitless litigation.

Ultimately, I think the interpretation adopted by the Fifth Circuit in McDaniel v. Fulton Nat. Bank, 571 F. 2d 948 (en banc), clarified, 576 F. 2d 1156 (1978) (en banc), which requires disclosure of the creditor’s right to retain finance charges upon acceleration when it differs from the right to such charges upon prepayment, may prove to be a sounder and more durable application of the statute than the position currently adopted by the Board. Nevertheless, I agree with the Court that the Board’s approach is reasonable. In order to uphold the Board’s position, “we need not find that its construction is the only reasonable one, or even that it is the result we would have reached had the question arisen in the first instance in judicial proceedings.” Udall v. Tollman, 380 U. S. 1, 16 (1965), quoting Unemployment Comm’n v. Aragon, 329 U. S. 143, 153 (1946). Accordingly, I agree that the courts should not add to the disclosure obligations that the Board has outlined through its staff opinions.

       “In the event Buyer defaults in any payment . . . Seller shall have the right to declare all amounts due or to become due hereunder to be immediately due and payable. . . .”

       The individual suits were Milhollin v. Ford Motor Credit Co., Civ. No. 75-334 (1976); Eaton v. Ford Motor Credit Co., Civ. No. 76-575 (1977); Andresen v. Ford Motor Credit Co., Civ. No. 76-1090 (1977); and Messinger v. Ford Motor Credit Co., Civ. No. 76-475 (1977).

        Milhollin and Eaton, supra n. 2.

        Andresen and Messinger, supra n. 2.

       The Court of Appeals rejected the grounds for TILA liability relied upon by the District Court in Andresen and Messinger, and remanded those two cases for consideration under the acceleration-clause theory.

       The Courts of Appeals for the Eighth and Tenth Circuits have flatly-declared that a creditor's rebate practice upon acceleration never need be disclosed. Griffith v. Superior Ford, 577 F. 2d 455 (CA8 1978); United States ex rel. Hornell v. One 1976 Chevrolet, 585 F. 2d 978 (CA10 1978). The Courts of Appeals for the Third and District of Columbia Circuits have held that acceleration rebate policies need not be separately disclosed when state law or the contract compels the creditor to rebate under acceleration, as under voluntary prepayment. Johnson v. McCrackin-Sturman Ford, Inc., 527 F. 2d 257 (CA3 1975); Price v. Franklin Investment Co., 187 U. S. App. D. C. 383, 574 F. 2d 594 (1978). The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has also adopted the position that separate disclosure is not required when the creditor is obliged to treat acceleration and voluntary prepayment alike for rebate purposes; that court has emphasized that the critical factor is the creditor’s legal obligation to rebate, rather than its unbidden rebate policy. McDaniel v. Fulton Nat. Bank, 571 F. 2d 948 (en banc), clarified, 576 F. 2d 1156 (1978) (en banc).

       Seven of the Courts of Appeals, including that for the Ninth Circuit, have refused to treat acceleration simpliciter as a “charge” within 15 U. S. C. § 1638 (a) (9) and 12 CFR § 226.8 (b) (4) (1979). Johnson v. McCrackin-Sturman Ford, Inc., 527 F. 2d, at 265-268 (CA3); McDaniel v. Fulton Nat. Bank, 576 F. 2d, at 1157 (CA5) (en banc); Croysdale v. Franklin Sav. Assn., 601 F. 2d 1340, 1342-1343, and n. 2 (CA7 1979) ; Griffith v. Superior Ford, 577 F. 2d, at 457-459 (CA8); St. Germain v. Bank of Hawaii, 573 F. 2d 572, 573-574 (CA9 1977); United States ex rel. Hornell v. One 1976 Chevrolet, 585 F. 2d, at 981 (CA10); Price v. Franklin Investment Co., 187 U. S. App. D. C., at 393, 574 F. 2d, at 604.

       Official Staff Interpretation No. FC-0054 provides, in pertinent part: “It is staff’s opinion that the phrase 'default, delinquency, or similar charges in the event of late payments,’ found in § 128 (a) (9) and § 129 (a) (7) of the Truth in Lending Act and § 226.8 (b) (4) of Regulation Z, refers to specific sums assessed against a borrower solely because of failure to make payments when due. It is staff’s opinion that the mere right to accelerate contained in a contractual provision which sets out the creditor’s right to accelerate the entire obligation upon a certain event (generally the obligor’s failure to make a payment when due) is not a charge payable in the event of late payment. Therefore, it need not be disclosed under § 226.8 (b) (4).
      “Your [sic] refer to a prior Public Information Letter, No. 851, which discusses the right of acceleration. . . . Staff understands that letter to say that early payment of the balance of a precomputed finance charge obligation by a customer upon acceleration by the creditor is essentially the same as a prepayment of the obligation. Therefore, if the creditor does not rebate unearned finance charges in accordance with the rebate provisions disclosed under § 226.8 (b) (7) when the customer pays the balance of the obligation upon acceleration, any amounts retained beyond those which would have been rebated under the disclosed rebate provisions do represent the type of charge that must be disclosed under §226.8 (b)(4).” (Emphasis added.)
      Information Letter No. 851 states, in part:
      “For the purposes of Truth in Lending disclosures, this staff views an acceleration of payments as essentially a prepayment of the contract obligation. As such, the disclosure provisions of § 226.8 (b) (7) . . . of the Regulation, which require the creditor to identify the method of rebating any unearned portion of the finance charge or to disclose that no rebate would be made, apply. If the creditor rebates under one method for acceleration and another for voluntary prepayment, both methods would need to be identified under § 226.8 (b) (7). . . .
      “If, under the acceleration provision, a rebate is made by the creditor in accordance with the disclosure of the rebate provisions of §226.8 (b)(7), we believe that there is no additional ‘charge’ for late payments made by the customer and therefore no need to disclose under the provisions of § 226.8 (b) (4). On the other hand, if upon acceleration of the unpaid remainder of the total of payments, the creditor does not rebate unearned finance charges in accordance with the rebate provisions disclosed in § 226.8 (b) (7), any amounts retained beyond those which would have been rebated under the disclosed rebate provisions represent a ‘charge’ which should be disclosed under §226.8 (b)(4).”
      Information Letter No. 1208 states, in part:
      “In FC-0054, staff took the position that a creditor’s right of acceleration upon default by the obligor need not be disclosed as a default, delinquency, or late payment charge within the context of § 226.8 (b) (4). The interpretation went on to state, however, that since early payment of the balance of an obligation upon acceleration is essentially the same as voluntary prepayment, if the creditor does not rebate unearned finance charges in the former situation in accordance with the rebate provisions disclosed under §226.8 (b)(7), any extra amounts retained represent the type of charge that must be disclosed under § 226.8 (b) (4).”
      Information Letter No. 1324 states, in part:
      “The staff’s position ... is that if a creditor rebates unearned -finance charges in connection with prepayment upon acceleration using the same method as for voluntary prepayment and that method has been properly disclosed in accordance with § 226.8 (b) (7), there is no default charge. However, any amounts retained by a creditor upon acceleration which would have been rebated under the disclosed rebate provisions would represent the type of default charge which must be disclosed pursuant to §226.8 (b)(4).”
      In St. Germain, the Court of Appeals spumed these administrative opinions as a source of interpretive guidance on the ground that the several letters were “conflicting signals.” 573 F. 2d, at 576. As we read the Staff Opinion.and Letters, however, they are fundamentally consistent, if somewhat inartfully drafted. The staff’s position in each appears to be that separate disclosure of acceleration rebate practices is unnecessary when those practices parallel voluntary prepayment rebate policy. On the other hand, where acceleration rebates are less than voluntary prepayment rebates, acceleration policy must be separately explained under §226.8 (b)(4) and, perhaps as well, under § 226.8 (b) (7). Neither the Opinion nor the Letters suggest that acceleration rebate policy must be separately disclosed in all instances.

       To be sure, the administrative interpretations proffered in this case were issued by the Federal Reserve staff rather than the Board. But to the extent that deference to administrative views is bottomed on respect for agency expertise, it is unrealistic to draw a radical distinction between opinions issued under the imprimatur of the Board and those submitted as official staff memoranda. See FRB Public Information Letter No. 444, [1969-1974 Transfer Binder] CCH Consumer Credit Guide ¶ 30,640. At any rate, it is unnecessary to explore the Board/staff difference at length, because Congress has conferred special status upon official staff interpretations. See 15 U. S. C. § 1640 (f); 12 CFR § 226.1 (d) (1979).

       Title 12 CFR § 226.1 (d) (1979) authorizes the issuance of official staff interpretations that trigger the application of § 1640 (f). Official interpretations are published in the Federal Register, and opportunity for public comment may be requested. 12 CFR § 226.1 (d). Unofficial interpretations have no special status under § 1640 (f).

       Although FMCC claims that its pre-1976 disclosure policy comported with Official Staff Interpretation No. FC-0054 (issued in 1977), it has not argued before this Court that it is entitled to the immunity afforded by the 1976 amendment to § 1640 (f). We need not decide, therefore, whether the 1976 amendment may be invoked with respect to contracts formed before its enactment or whether conformity with a subsequently issued official staff interpretation constitutes “compliance” within the terms of § 1640(f).

       That preference is understandable. As the divergence of judicial views on the acceleration disclosure issue illustrates, see n. 6, supra, litigation is not always the optimal process by means of which to formulate a coherent and predictable body of technical rules.

       The Federal Reserve might reasonably have adopted the disclosure approach of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, focusing upon a creditor’s contractual acceleration rebate rights, rather than upon the creditor’s operating rebate policy. See McDaniel v. Fulton Nat. Bank, 576 F. 2d, at 1157. But, again, it was equally logical to conclude that so long as the creditor’s actual practice upon acceleration was the same as its practice upon prepayment, it was not necessary to require disclosure of the creditor’s unexercised rights in the disclosure statement itself.
      In arguing for affirmance, respondents contend that disclosure of a creditor’s rebate policy at the time of credit contract formation is no guarantee against a change in that policy at some future date, perhaps after the TILA statute of limitations has run. See 15 U. S. C. § 1640 (e). But when a genuine change in policy occurs after disclosure, the statute itself may arguably contemplate that the creditor be immune from liability. See 15 U. S. C. § 1634; S. Rep. No. 392, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 18 (1967). On the other hand, if the creditor envisioned a change in policy at the time it disclosed practices contemporaneously in force, then the debtor might conceivably have a claim for fraud. In any event, it is open to the Federal Reserve to consider this question when reviewing its position on acceleration rebate disclosure.

       Respondents argue before this Court that even under the Federal Reserve staff’s view, petitioners violated TILA and Regulation Z because the credit contract itself contained language concerning acceleration rebates that assertedly contradicted the disclosures on the face of the contract. That contradiction, if present, could run afoul of 12 CFR §226.8 (b)(7) or §226.6 (c) (1979), as those provisions are understood by the agency staff. See FRB Public Information Letter No. 1324, supra n. 8. But respondents prevailed in the District Court and in the Court of Appeals upon broader rulings that acceleration clause disclosure was generally required; neither court addressed the specific allegation of contradiction. Therefore, if properly presented, the contradiction issue is open for decision on remand.