author: Justice O’Connor Justice Stevens, Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer,

text:
    SCHAFFER, a minor, by his parents and next friends, SCHAFFER et vir, et al. v WEAST, SUPERINTENDENT, MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, et al.
    No. 04-698.
    Argued October 5, 2005
    Decided November 14, 2005

      O’Connor, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, and Thomas, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 62. Ginsburg, J., post, p. 63, and Breyer, J., post, p. 67, filed dissenting opinions. Roberts, G. J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

      William, H. Hurd argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Siran S. Faulders, Michael J. Eig, and Haylie M. Iseman.

      Gregory G. Garre argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Maree F. Sneed, Jonathan S. Franklin, Zvi Greismann, Judith S. Bresler, Eric C. Brousaides, and Jeffrey A. Krew.

      David B. Salmons argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Clement, Assistant Attorney General Keisler, Acting Assistant Attorney General Schlozman, Marleigh D. Dover, Stephanie R. Marcus, and Kent D. Talbert

      Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the Commonwealth of Virginia et al. by Judith Williams Jagdmann, Attorney General of Virginia, William E. Thro, State Solicitor General, Eric A Gregory and Joel C. Hoppe, Associate State Solicitors General, and Maureen Riley Matsen, Deputy Attorney General, and by the Attorneys General for their respective States as follows: Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Lisa Madigan of Illinois, Phill Kline of Kansas, Mike Hatch of Minnesota, Brian Sandoval of Nevada, Patricia Lynch of Rhode Island, Rob Mc-Kenna of Washington, and Peggy A Lautenschlager of Wisconsin; for The ARC of the United States et al. by Drew S. Days III, Seth M. Galanter, and Linda A Amsbarger; for the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates et al. by Ankur J. Goel and M. Miller Baker; and for Various Autism Organizations by Gregory A Castanias, Thomas F. Urban II, and Beth T. Sigall.

      Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the State of Hawaii et al. by Mark J. Bennett, Attorney General of Hawaii, and Girard D. Lau, Deputy Attorney General, and by the Attorneys General for their respective jurisdictions as follows: David W. Marquez of Alaska, Douglas B. Moylan of Guam, and W. A Drew Edmondson of Oklahoma; for the Council of the Great City Schools et al. by Julie Wright Halbert and Pamela Harris; for the National School Boards Association by Leslie Robert Stellman, Rochelle S. Eisenberg, Lisa Y. Settles, Julie Underwood, Naomi Gittins, and Thomas Hutton; and for the Virginia School Boards Association et al. by Joseph Thomas Tokarz II and Kathleen Shepherd Mehfoud.

   Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA or Act), 84 Stat. 175, as amended, 20 U. S. C. § 1400 et seq. (2000 ed. and Supp. V), is a Spending Clause statute that seeks to ensure that “all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education,” § 1400(d)(1)(A) (2000 ed., Supp. V). Under IDEA, school districts must create an “individualized education program” (IEP) for each disabled child. § 1414(d). If parents believe their child’s IEP is inappropriate, they may request an “impartial due process hearing.” § 1415(f). The Act is silent, however, as to which party bears the burden of persuasion at such a hearing. We hold that the burden lies, as it typically does, on the party seeking relief.

I

A

Congress first passed IDEA as part of the Education of the Handicapped Act in 1970, 84 Stat. 175, and amended it substantially in the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, 89 Stat. 773. At the time the majority of disabled children in America were “either totally excluded from schools or sitting idly in regular classrooms awaiting the time when they were old enough to ‘drop out,’” H. R. Rep. No. 94-332, p. 2 (1975). IDEA was intended to reverse this history of neglect. As of 2003, the Act governed the provision of special education services to nearly 7 million children across the country. See Dept, of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Data Analysis System, http:// www.ideadata.org/tables27th/ar_ aa9.htm (as visited Nov. 9, 2005, and available in Clerk of Court’s case file).

IDEA is “frequently described as a model of ‘cooperative federalism.’ ” Little Rock School Dist v. Mauney, 183 F. 3d 816, 830 (CA8 1999). It “leaves to the States the primary responsibility for developing and executing educational programs for handicapped children, [but] imposes significant requirements to be followed in the discharge of. that responsibility.” Board of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist., Westchester Cty. v. Rowley, 458 U. S. 176, 183 (1982). For example, the Act mandates cooperation and reporting between state and federal educational authorities. Participating States must certify to the Secretary of Education that they have “policies and procedures” that will effectively meet the Act’s conditions. 20 U. S. C. § 1412(a). (Unless otherwise noted, all citations to the Act are to the pre-2004 version of the statute because this is the version that was in effect during the proceedings below. We note, however, that nothing in the recent 2004 amendments, 118 Stat. 2674, appears to materially affect the rule announced here.) State educational agencies, in turn, must ensure that local schools and teachers are meeting the State’s educational standards. §§ 1412(a)(11), 1412(a)(15)(A). Local educational agencies (school boards or other administrative bodies) can receive IDEA funds only if they certify to a state educational agency that they are acting in accordance with the State’s policies and procedures. § 1413(a)(1).

The core of the statute, however, is the cooperative process that it establishes between parents and schools. Row-ley, supra, at 205-206 (“Congress placed every bit as much emphasis upon compliance with procedures giving parents and guardians a large measure of participation at every stage of the administrative process,... as it did upon the measurement of the resulting IEP against a substantive standard”). The central vehicle for this collaboration is the IEP process. State educational authorities must identify and evaluate disabled children, §§ 1414(a)-(c), develop an IEP for each one, § 1414(d)(2), and review every IEP at least once a year, § 1414(d)(4). Each IEP must include an assessment of the child’s current educational performance, must articulate measurable educational goals, and must specify the nature of the special services that the school will provide. § 1414(d)(1)(A).

Parents and guardians play a significant role in the IEP process. They must be informed about and consent to evaluations of their child under the Act. § 1414(c)(3). Parents are included as members of “IEP teams.” § 1414(d)(1)(B). They have the right to examine any records relating to their child, and to obtain an “independent educational evaluation of the[ir] child.” § 1415(b)(1). They must be given written prior notice of any changes in an IEP, § 1415(b)(3), and be notified in writing of the procedural safeguards available to them under the Act, § 1415(d)(1). If parents believe that an IEP is not appropriate, they may seek an administrative “impartial due process hearing.” § 1415(f). School districts may also seek such hearings, as Congress clarified in the 2004 amendments. See S. Rep. No. 108-185, p. 37 (2003). They may do so, for example, if they wish to change an existing IEP but the parents do not consent, or if parents refuse to allow their child to be evaluated. As a practical matter, it appears that most hearing requests come from parents rather than schools. Brief for Petitioners 7.

Although state authorities have limited discretion to determine who conducts the hearings, § 1415(f)(1), and responsibility generally for establishing fair hearing procedures, § 1415(a), Congress has chosen to legislate the central components of due process hearings. It has imposed minimal pleading standards, requiring parties to file complaints setting forth “a description of the nature of the problem,” § 1415(b)(7)(B)(ii), and “a proposed resolution of the problem to the extent known and available ... at the time,” § 1415(b)(7)(B)(iii). At the hearing, all parties may be accompanied by counsel, and may “present evidence and confront, cross-examine, and compel the attendance of witnesses.” §§ 1415(h)(1) — (2). After the hearing, any aggrieved party may bring a civil action in state or federal court. § 1415(i)(2). Prevailing parents may also recover attorney’s fees. § 1415(i)(3)(B). Congress has never explicitly stated, however, which party should bear the burden of proof at IDEA hearings.

B

This case concerns the educational services that were due, under IDEA, to petitioner Brian Schaffer. Brian suffers from learning disabilities and speech-language impairments. From prekindergarten through seventh grade he attended a private school and struggled academically. In 1997, school officials informed Brian’s mother that he needed a school that could better accommodate his needs. Brian’s parents contacted respondent Montgomery County Public Schools System (MCPS) seeking a placement for him for the following school year.

MCPS evaluated Brian and convened an IEP team. The committee generated an initial IEP offering Brian a place in either of two MCPS middle schools. Brian’s parents were not satisfied with the arrangement, believing that Brian needed smaller classes and more intensive services. The Schaffers thus enrolled Brian in another private school, and initiated a due process hearing challenging the IEP and seeking compensation for the cost of Brian’s subsequent private education.

In Maryland, IEP hearings are conducted by administrative law judges (ALJs). See Md. Educ. Code Ann. § 8-413(c) (Lexis 2004). After a 3-day hearing, the ALJ deemed the evidence close, held that the parents bore the burden of persuasion, and ruled in favor of the school district. The parents brought a civil action challenging the result. The United States District Court for the District of Maryland reversed and remanded, after concluding that the burden of persuasion is on the school district. Brian S. v. Vance, 86 F. Supp. 2d 538 (2000). Around the same time, MCPS offered Brian a placement in a high school with a special learning center. Brian’s parents accepted, and Brian was educated in that program until he graduated from high school. The suit remained alive, however, because the parents sought compensation for the private school tuition and related expenses.

Respondents appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. While the appeal was pending, the ALJ reconsidered the case, deemed the evidence truly in “equipoise,” and ruled in favor of the parents. The Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded the appeal so that it could consider the burden of proof issue along with the merits on a later appeal. The District Court reaffirmed its ruling that the school district has the burden of proof. 240 F. Supp. 2d 396 (Md. 2002). On appeal, a divided panel of the Fourth Circuit reversed. Judge Michael, writing for the majority, concluded that petitioners offered no persuasive reason to “depart from the normal rule of allocating the burden to the party seeking relief.” 377 F. 3d 449, 453 (2004). We granted certiorari, 543 U. S. 1145 (2005), to resolve the following question: At an administrative hearing assessing the appropriateness of an IEP, which party bears the burden of persuasion?

II

A

The term “burden of proof” is one of the “slipperiest member[s] of the family of legal terms.” 2 J. Strong, McCormick on Evidence §342, p. 433 (5th ed. 1999) (hereinafter McCormick). Part of the confusion surrounding the term arises from the fact that historically, the concept encompassed two distinct burdens: the “burden of persuasion,” i. e., which party loses if the evidence is closely balanced, and the “burden of production,” i. e., which party bears the obligation to come forward with the evidence at different points in the proceeding. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs v. Greenwich Collieries, 512 U. S. 267, 272 (1994). We note at the outset that this case concerns only the burden of persuasion, as the parties agree, Brief for Respondents 14; Reply Brief for Petitioners 15, and when we speak of burden of proof in this opinion, it is this to which we refer.

When we are determining the burden of proof under a statutory cause of action, the touchstone of our inquiry is, of course, the statute. The plain text of IDEA is silent on the allocation of the burden of persuasion. We therefore begin with the ordinary default rule that plaintiffs bear the risk of failing to prove their claims. McCormick § 337, at 412 (“The burdens of pleading and proof with regard to most facts have been and should be assigned to the plaintiff who generally seeks to change the present state of affairs and who therefore naturally should be expected to bear the risk of failure of proof or persuasion”); C. Mueller & L. Kirkpatrick, Evidence §3.1, p. 104 (3d ed. 2003) (“Perhaps the broadest and most accepted idea is that the person who seeks court action should justify the request, which means that the plaintiffs bear the burdens on the elements in their claims”).

Thus, we have usually assumed without comment that plaintiffs bear the burden of persuasion regarding the essential aspects of their claims. For example, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e et seq., does not directly state that plaintiffs bear the “ultimate” burden of persuasion, but we have so concluded. St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U. S. 502, 511 (1993); id., at 531 (Souter, J., dissenting). In numerous other areas, we have presumed or held that the default rule applies. See, e. g., Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 561 (1992) (standing); Cleveland v. Policy Management Systems Corp., 526 U. S. 795, 806 (1999) (Americans with Disabilities Act); Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U. S. 541, 553 (1999) (equal protection); Wharf (Holdings) Ltd. v. United Int’l Holdings, Inc., 532 U. S. 588, 593 (2001) (securities fraud); Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U. S. 922, 931 (1975) (preliminary injunctions); Mt. Healthy City Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U. S. 274, 287 (1977) (First Amendment). Congress also expressed its approval of the general rule when it chose to apply it to administrative proceedings under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. § 556(d); see also Greenwich Collieries, supra, at 271.

The ordinary default rule, of course, admits of exceptions. See McCormick § 337, at 412-415. For example, the burden of persuasion as to certain elements of a plaintiff’s claim may be shifted to defendants, when such elements can fairly be characterized as affirmative defenses or exemptions. See, e. g., FTC v. Morton Salt Co., 334 U. S. 37, 44-45 (1948). Under some circumstances this Court has even placed the burden of persuasion over an entire claim on the defendant. See Alaska Dept, of Environmental Conservation v. EPA, 540 U. S. 461, 494 (2004). But while the normal default rule does, not solve all cases, it certainly solves most of them. Decisions that place the entire burden of persuasion on the opposing party at the outset of a proceeding — as petitioners urge us to do here — are extremely rare. Absent some reason to believe that Congress intended otherwise, therefore, we will conclude that the burden of persuasion lies where it usually falls, upon the party seeking relief.

B

Petitioners contend first that a close reading of IDEA’S text compels a conclusion in their favor. They urge that we should interpret the statutory words “due process” in light of their constitutional meaning, and apply the balancing test established by Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319 (1976). Even assuming that the Act incorporates constitutional due process doctrine, Eldridge is no help to petitioners because “[o]utside the criminal law area, where special concerns attend, the locus of the burden of persuasion is normally not an issue of federal constitutional moment.” Lavine v. Milne, 424 U. S. 577, 585 (1976).

Petitioners next contend that we should take instruction from the lower court opinions of Mills v. Board of Education, 348 F. Supp. 866 (DC 1972), and Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Pennsylvania, 334 F. Supp. 1257 (ED Pa. 1971) (hereinafter PARC). IDEA’S drafters were admittedly guided “to a significant extent” by these two landmark cases. Rowley, 458 U. S., at 194. As the court below noted, however, the fact that Congress “took a number of the procedural safeguards from PARC and Mills and wrote them directly into the Act” does not allow us to “conclude ... that Congress intended to adopt the ideas that it failed to write into the text of the statute.” 377 F. 3d, at 455.

Petitioners also urge that putting the burden of persuasion on school districts will further IDEA’S purposes because it will help ensure that children receive a free appropriate public education. In truth, however, very few cases will be in evidentiary equipoise. Assigning the burden of persuasion to school districts might encourage schools to put more resources into preparing lEPs and presenting their evidence. But IDEA is silent about whether marginal dollars should be allocated to litigation and administrative expenditures or to educational services. Moreover, there is reason to believe that a great deal is already spent on the administration of the Act. Litigating a due process complaint is an expensive affair, costing schools approximately $8,000 to $12,000 per hearing. See Department of Education, J. Chambers, J. Harr, & A. Dhanani, What Are We Spending on Procedural Safeguards in Special Education 1999-2000, p. 8 (May 2003) (prepared under contract by American Institutes for Research, Special Education Expenditure Project). Congress has also repeatedly amended the Act in order to reduce its administrative and litigation-related costs. For example, in 1997 Congress mandated that States offer mediation for IDEA disputes. § 615(e) of IDEA, as added by § 101 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, Pub. L. 105-17, 111 Stat. 90, 20 U. S. C. § 1415(e). In 2004, Congress added a mandatory “resolution session” prior to any due process hearing. § 615(f)(1)(B) of IDEA, as added by § 101 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. 108-446, 118 Stat. 2720, 20 U. S. C. A. § 1415(f)(1)(B) (Supp. 2005). It also made new findings that “[pjarents and schools should be given expanded opportunities to resolve their disagreements in positive and constructive ways,” and that “[tjeachers, schools, local educational agencies, and States should be relieved of irrelevant and unnecessary paperwork burdens that do not lead to improved educational outcomes.” §§ 1400(c)(8)-(9).

Petitioners in effect ask this Court to assume that every IEP is invalid until the school district demonstrates that it is not. The Act does not support this conclusion. IDEA relies heavily upon the expertise of school districts to meet its goals. It also includes a so-called “stay-put” provision, which requires a child to remain in his or her “then-current educational placement” during the pendency of an IDEA hearing. §1415(j). Congress could have required that a child be given the educationál placement that a parent requested during a dispute, but it did no such thing. Congress appears to have presumed instead that, if the Act’s procedural requirements are respected, parents will prevail when they have legitimate grievances. See Rowley, supra, at 206 (noting the “legislative conviction that adequate compliance with the procedures prescribed would in most cases assure much if not all of what Congress wished in the way of substantive content in an IEP”).

Petitioners’ most plausible argument is that “[t]he ordinary rule, based on considerations of fairness, does not place the burden upon a litigant of establishing facts peculiarly within the knowledge of his adversary.” United States v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 355 U. S. 253, 256, n. 5 (1957); see also Concrete Pipe & Products of Cal., Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern Cal., 508 U. S. 602, 626 (1993). But this “rule is far from being universal, and has many qualifications upon its application.” Green-leaf’s Lessee v. Birth, 6 Pet. 302, 312 (1832); see also McCormick §337, at 413 (“Very often one must plead and prove matters as to which his adversary has superior access to the proof”). School districts have a “natural advantage” in information and expertise, but Congress addressed this when it obliged schools to safeguard the procedural rights of parents and to share information with them. See School Comm. of Burlington v. Department of Ed. of Mass., 471 U. S. 359, 368 (1985). As noted above, parents have the right to review all records that the school possesses in relation to their child. § 1415(b)(1). They also have the right to an “independent educational evaluation of the[ir] child.” Ibid. The regulations clarify this entitlement by providing that a “parent has the right to an independent educational evaluation at public expense if the parent disagrees with an evaluation obtained by the public agency.” 34 CFR § 300.502(b)(1) (2005). IDEA thus ensures parents access to an expert who can evaluate all the materials that the school must make available, and who can give an independent opinion. They are not left to challenge the government without a realistic opportunity to access the necessary evidence, or without an expert with the firepower to match the opposition.

Additionally, in 2004, Congress added provisions requiring school districts to answer the subject matter of a complaint in writing, and to provide parents with the reasoning behind the disputed action, details about the other options considered and rejected by the IEP team, and a description of all evaluations, reports, and other factors that the school used in coming to its decision. § 615(c)(2)(B)(i)(I) of IDEA, as added by § 101 of Pub. L. 108-446,118 Stat. 2718, 20 U. S. C. § 1415(e)(2)(B)(i)(I) (2000 ed., Supp. V). Prior to a hearing, the parties must disclose evaluations and recommendations that they intend to rely upon. 20 U. S. C. § 1415(f)(2). IDEA hearings are deliberately informal and intended to give AUs the flexibility that they need to ensure that each side can fairly present its evidence. IDEA, in fact, requires state authorities to organize hearings in a way that guarantees parents and children the procedural protections of the Act. See § 1415(a). Finally, and perhaps most importantly, parents may recover attorney’s fees if they prevail. § 1415(i)(3)(B). These protections ensure that the school bears no unique informational advantage.

III

Finally, respondents and several States urge us to decide that States may, if they wish, override the default rule and put the burden always on the school district. Several States have laws or regulations purporting to do so, at least under some circumstances. See, e. g., Minn. Stat. § 125A.091, subd. 16 (2004); Ala. Admin. Code Rule 290-8-9-.08(8)(c)(6) (Supp. 2004); Alaska Admin. Code, tit. 4, § 52.550(e)(9) (2003); Del. Code Ann., Tit. 14, §3140 (1999). Because no such law or regulation exists in Maryland, we need not decide this issue today. Justice Breyer contends that the allocation of the burden ought to be left entirely up to the States. But neither party made this argument before this Court or the courts below. We therefore decline to address it.

We hold no more than we must to resolve the case át hand: The burden of proof in an administrative hearing challenging an IEP is properly placed upon the party seeking relief. In this, case, that party is Brian, as represented by his parents. But the rule applies with equal effect to school districts: If they seek to challenge an IEP, they will in turn bear the burden of persuasion before an ALJ. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is, therefore, affirmed.

It is so ordered.

The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Justice Stevens,

concurring.

It is common ground that no single principle or rule solves all cases by setting forth a general test for ascertaining the incidence of proof burdens when both a statute and its legislative history are silent on the question. See Alaska Dept, of Environmental Conservation v. EPA, 540 U. S. 461, 494, n. 17 (2004); see also ante, at 57; post, at 63 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting). Accordingly, I do not understand the majority to disagree with the proposition that a court, taking into account “‘policy considerations, convenience, and fairness,’” post, at 63 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting), could conclude that the purpose of a statute is best effectuated by placing the burden of persuasion on the defendant. Moreover, I agree with much of what Justice Ginsburg has written about the special aspects of this statute. I have, however, decided to join the Court’s disposition of this case, not only for the reasons set forth in Justice O’Connor’s opinion, but also because I believe that we should presume that public school officials are properly performing their difficult responsibilities under this important statute.

Justice Ginsburg,

dissenting.

When the legislature is silent on the burden of proof, courts ordinarily allocate the burden to the party initiating the proceeding and seeking relief. As the Fourth.Circuit recognized, however, “other factors,” prime among them “policy considerations, convenience, and fairness,” may warrant a different allocation. 377 F. 3d 449, 452 (2004) (citing 2 J. Strong, McCormick on Evidence §337, p. 415 (5th ed. 1999) (allocation of proof burden “will depend upon the weight . . . given to any one or more of several factors, including: . . . special policy considerations!,] convenience, [and] fairness”)); see also 9 J. Wigmore, Evidence §2486, p. 291 (J. Chadbourn rev. ed. 1981) (assigning proof burden presents “a question of policy and fairness based on experience in the different situations”). The Court has followed the same counsel. See Alaska Dept, of Environmental Conservation v. EPA, 540 U. S. 461, 494, n. 17 (2004) (“No ‘single principle or rule . .. solve[s] all cases and afford[s] a general test for ascertaining the incidence’ of proof burdens.” (quoting Wigmore, supra, § 2486, p. 288; emphasis deleted)). For reasons well stated by Circuit Judge Luttig, dissenting in the Court of Appeals, 377 F. 3d, at 456-459, I am persuaded that “policy considerations, convenience, and fairness” call for assigning the burden of proof to the school district in this case.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U. S. C. § 1400 et seq., was designed to overcome the pattern of disregard and neglect disabled children historically encountered in seeking access to public education. See § 1400(c)(2) (congressional findings); S. Rep. No. 94-168, pp. 6, 8-9 (1975); Mills v. Board of Ed. of District, of Columbia, 348 F. Supp. 866 (DC 1972); Pennsylvania Assn. for Retarded Children v. Pennsylvania, 334 F. Supp. 1257 (ED Pa. 1971), and 343 F. Supp. 279 (ED Pa. 1972). Under typical civil rights and social welfare legislation, the complaining party must allege and prove discrimination or qualification for statutory benefits. See, e. g., St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U. S. 502, 511 (1993) (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e et seq.); Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs v. Greenwich Collieries, 512 U. S. 267, 270 (1994) (Black Lung Benefits Act, 30 U. S. C. § 901 et seq.). The IDEA is atypical in this respect: It casts an affirmative, beneficiary-specific obligation on providers of public education. School districts are charged with responsibility to offer to each disabled child an individualized education program (IEP) suitable to the child’s special needs. 20 U. S. C. §§ 1400(d)(1), 1412(a)(4), 1414(d). The proponent of the IEP, it seems to me, is properly called upon to demonstrate its adequacy.

Familiar with the full range of education facilities in the area, and informed by “their experiences with other, similarly-disabled children,” 377 F. 3d, at 458 (Luttig, J., dissenting), “the school district is ... in a far better position to demonstrate that it has fulfilled [its statutory] obligation than the disabled student’s parents are in to show that the school district has failed to do so,” id., at 457. Accord Oberti v. Board of Ed. of Borough of Clementon School Dist., 995 F. 2d 1204, 1219 (CA3 1993) (“In practical terms, the school has an advantage when a dispute arises under the Act: the school has better access to relevant information, greater control over the potentially more persuasive witnesses (those who have been directly involved with the child’s education), and greater overall educational expertise than the parents.”); Lascari v. Board of Ed. of Ramapo Indian Hills Regional High School Dist., 116 N. J. 30, 45-46, 560 A. 2d 1180, 1188-1189 (1989) (in view of the school district’s “better access to relevant information,” parent’s obligation “should be merely to place in issue the appropriateness of the IEP. The school board should then bear the burden of proving that the IEP was appropriate. In reaching that result, we have sought to implement the intent of the statutory and regulatory schemes.”).

Understandably, school districts striving to balance their budgets, if “[l]eft to [their] own devices,” will favor educational options that enable them to conserve resources. Deal v. Hamilton County Bd. of Ed., 392 F. 3d 840, 864-865 (CA6 2004). Saddled with a proof burden in administrative “due process” hearings, parents are likely to find a district-proposed IEP “resistant to challenge.” 377 F. 3d, at 459 (Luttig, J., dissenting). Placing the burden on the district to show that its plan measures up to the statutorily mandated “free appropriate public education,” 20 U. S. C. § 1400(d)(1)(A), will strengthen school officials’ resolve to choose a course genuinely tailored to the child’s individual needs.

The Court acknowledges that “[assigning the burden of persuasion to school districts might encourage schools to put more resources into preparing IEPs.” Ante, at 58. Curiously, the Court next suggests that resources spent on developing IEPs rank as “administrative expenditures” not as expenditures for “educational services.” Ante, at 59. Costs entailed in the preparation of suitable IEPs, however, are the very expenditures necessary to ensure each child covered by the IDEA access to a free appropriate education. These outlays surely relate to “educational services.” Indeed, a carefully designed IEP may ward off disputes productive of large administrative or litigation expenses.

This case is illustrative. Not until the District Court ruled that the school district had the burden of persuasion did the school design an IEP that met Brian Schaffer’s special educational needs. See ante, at 55; Tr. of Oral Arg. 21-22 (Counsel for the Schaffers observed that “Montgomery County . . . gave [Brian] the kind of services he had sought from the beginning . . . once [the school district was] given the burden of proof.”). Had the school district, in the first instance, offered Brian a public or private school placement equivalent to the one the district ultimately provided, this entire litigation and its attendant costs could have been avoided.

Notably, nine States, as friends of the Court, have urged that placement of the burden of persuasion on the school district best comports with the IDEA’S aim. See Brief for Commonwealth of Virginia et al. as Amici Curiae. If allocating the burden to school districts would saddle school systems with inordinate costs, it is doubtful that these States would have filed in favor of petitioners. Cf. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Appellees Urging Affirmance in No. 00-1471 (CA4), p. 12 (“Having to carry the burden of proof regarding the adequacy of its proposed IEP ... should not substantially increase the workload for the school.”).

One can demur to the Fourth Circuit’s observation that courts “do not automatically assign the burden of proof to the side with the bigger guns,” 377 F. 3d, at 453, for no such-reflexive action is at issue here. It bears emphasis that “the vast majority of parents whose children require the benefits and protections provided in the IDEA” lack “knowledg[e] about the educational resources available to their [child]” and the “sophisticat[ion]” to mount an effective case against a district-proposed IEP. Id., at 458 (Luttig, J., dissenting); cf. 20 U. S. C. § 1400(c)(7H10). See generally Department of Education, M. Wagner, C. Marder, J. Blackorby, & D. Cardoso, The Children We Serve: The Demographic Characteristics of Elementary and Middle School Students with Disabilities and their Households (Sept. 2002) (prepared under contract by SRI International, Special Education Elementary Longitudinal Study), http://www.seels.net/designdocs/ SEELS_Children_We_Serve_ Report.pdf (as visited Nov. 8, 2005, and available in Clerk of Court’s case file). In this setting, “the party with the ‘bigger guns’ also has better access to information, greater expertise, and an affirmative obligation to provide the contested services.” 377 F. 3d, at 458 (Luttig, J., dissenting). Policy considerations, convenience, and fairness, I think it plain, point in the same direction. Their collective weight warrants a rule requiring a school district, in “due process” hearings, to explain persuasively why its proposed IEP satisfies the IDEA’S standards. Ibid. I would therefore reverse the judgment of the Fourth Circuit.

Justice Breyer,

dissenting.

As the majority points out, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Act), 20 U. S. C. § 1400 et seq., requires school districts to “identify and evaluate disabled children, . . . develop an [Individualized Education Program] for each one..., and review every IEP at least once a year.” Ante, at 53. A parent dissatisfied with “any matter relating [1] to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child,” or [2] to the “provision of a free appropriate public education” of the child, has the opportunity “to resolve such disputes through a mediation process.” 20 U. S. C. §§ 1415(a), (b)(6)(A), (k) (2000 ed., Supp. V). The Act further provides the parent with “an opportunity for an impartial due process hearing” provided by the state or local education agency. § 1415(f)(1)(A). If provided locally, either party can appeal the hearing officer’s decision to the state educational agency. § 1415(g). Finally, the Act allows any “party aggrieved” by the results of the state hearing^) “to bring a civil action” in a federal district court. § 1415(i)(2)(A). In sum, the Act provides for school board action, followed by (1) mediation, (2) an impartial state due process hearing with the possibility of state appellate review, and (3) federal district court review.

The Act also sets forth minimum procedures that the parties, the hearing officer, and the federal court must follow. See, e. g., § 1415(f)(1) (notice); § 1415(f)(2) (disclosures); § 1415(f)(3) (limitations on who may conduct the hearing); § 1415(g) (right to appeal); § 1415(h)(1) (“the right to be accompanied and advised by counsel”); § 1415(h)(2) (“the right to present evidence and confront, cross-examine, and compel the attendance of witnesses”); § 1415(h)(3) (the right to a transcript of the proceeding); § 1415(h)(4) (“the right to written . . . findings of fact and decisions”). Despite this detailed procedural scheme, the Act is silent on the question of who bears the burden of persuasion at the state “due process” hearing.

The statute’s silence suggests that Congress did not think about the matter of the burden of persuasion. It is, after all, a relatively minor issue that should not often arise. That is because the parties will ordinarily introduce considerable evidence (as in this case where the initial 3-day hearing included testimony from 10 witnesses, 6 qualified as experts, and more than 50 exhibits). And judges rarely hesitate to weigh evidence, even highly technical evidence, and to decide a matter on the merits, even when the case is a close one. Thus, cases in which an administrative law judge (AU) finds the evidence in precise equipoise should be few and far between. Cf. O’Neal v. McAninch, 513 U. S. 432, 436-437 (1995). See also Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. 108-446, §§615(f)(3)(A)(ii)-(iv), 118 Stat. 2721, 20 U. S. C. §§ 1415(f)(3)(A)(ii)-(iv) (2000 ed., Supp. V) (requiring appointment of ALJ with technical capacity to understand Act).

Nonetheless, the hearing officer held that before him was that rara avis — a case of perfect evidentiary equipoise. Hence we must infer from Congress’ silence (and from the rest of the statutory scheme) which party — the parents or the school district — bears the burden of persuasion.

One can reasonably argue, as the Court holds, that the risk of nonpersuasion should fall upon the “individual desiring change.” That, after all, is the rule courts ordinarily apply when an individual complains about the lawfulness of a government action. E. g., ante, at 56-61 (opinion of the Court); 377 F. 3d 449 (CA4 2004) (case below); Devine v. Indian River County School Bd., 249 F. 3d 1289 (CA11 2001). On the other hand, one can reasonably argue to the contrary, that, given the technical nature of the subject matter, its human importance, the school district’s superior resources, and the district’s superior access to relevant information, the risk of nonpersuasion ought to fall upon the district. E. g., ante, p. 63 (GlNSBURG, J., dissenting); 377 F. 3d, at 456-459 (Luttig, J., dissenting); Oberti v. Board of Ed. of Borough of Clementon School Dist., 995 F. 2d 1204 (CA3 1993); Lascari v. Board of Ed. of Ramapo Indian Hills High School Dist., 116 N. J. 30, 560 A. 2d 1180 (1989). My own view is that Congress took neither approach. It did not decide the “burden of persuasion” question; instead it left the matter to the States for decision.

The Act says that the “establish[ment]” of “procedures” is a matter for the “State” and its agencies. § 1415(a). It adds that the hearing in question, an administrative hearing, is to be conducted by the “State” or “local educational agency.” 20 U. S. C. § 1415(f)(1)(A) (2000 ed., Supp. V). And the statute as a whole foresees state implementation of federal standards. § 1412(a); Cedar Rapids Community School Dist. v. Garret F., 526 U. S. 66, 68 (1999); Board of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist., Westchester Cty. v. Rowley, 458 U. S. 176, 208 (1982). The minimum federal procedural standards that the Act specifies are unrelated to the “burden of persuasion” question. And different States, consequently and not surprisingly, have resolved it in different ways. See, e. g., Alaska Admin. Code, tit. 4, § 52.550(e)(9) (2003) (school district bears burden); Ala. Admin. Code Rule 290-8-9-.08(8)(c)(6)(ii)(I) (Supp. 2004) (same); Conn. Agencies Regs. § 10-76h-14 (2005) (same); Del. Code Ann., Tit. 14, §3140 (1999) (same); 1 D. C. Mun. Regs., tit. 5, §3030.3 (2003) (same); W. Va. Code Rules § 126-16-8.1.11(c) (2005) (same); Ind. Admin. Code, tit. 511, Rule 7-30-3 (2003) (incorporating by reference Ind. Code §4-21.5-3-14 (West 2002)) (moving party bears burden); 7 Ky. Admin. Regs., tit. 707, ch. 1:340, § 7(4) (2004) (incorporating by reference Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13B.090(7) (Lexis 2003)) (same); Ga. Comp. Rules & Regs., Rule 160-4-7-.18(1)(g)(8) (2002) (burden varies depending upon remedy sought); Minn. Stat. Ann. § 125A.091, subd. 16 (West Supp. 2005) (same). There is no indication that this lack of uniformity has proved harmful.

Nothing in the Act suggests a need to fill every interstice of the Act’s remedial scheme with a uniform federal rule. See Kamen v. Kemper Financial Services, Inc., 500 U. S. 90, 98 (1991) (citations omitted). And should some such need arise — i. e., if nonuniformity or a particular state approach were to prove problematic — the Federal Department of Education, expert in the area, might promulgate a uniform federal standard, thereby limiting state choice. 20 U. S. C. § 1406(a) (2000 ed., Supp. V); Irving Independent School Dist. v. Tatro, 468 U. S. 883, 891-893 (1984); see also Barn-hart v. Walton, 535 U. S. 212, 217-218 (2002); NationsBank of N. C., N. A. v. Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co., 513 U. S. 251, 256-257 (1995); Chevron U. S. A Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 842-845 (1984).

Most importantly, Congress has made clear that the Act itself represents an exercise in “cooperative federalism.” See ante, at 52-53 (opinion of the Court). Respecting the States’ right to decide this procedural matter here, where education is at issue, where expertise matters, and where costs are shared, is consistent with that cooperative approach. See Wisconsin Dept, of Health and Family Servs. v. Blumer, 534 U. S. 473, 495 (2002) (when interpreting statutes “designed to advance cooperative federalism[,] ... we have not been reluctant to leave a range of permissible choices to the States”). Cf. Smith v. Robbins, 528 U. S. 259, 275 (2000); New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U. S. 262, 311 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). And judicial respect for such congressional determinations is important. Indeed, in today’s technologically and legally complex world, whether court decisions embody that kind of judicial respect may represent the true test of federalist principle. See AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Bd., 525 U. S. 366, 420 (1999) (Breyer, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

Maryland has no special state law or regulation setting forth a special IEP-related burden of persuasion standard. But it does have rules of state administrative procedure and a body of state administrative law. The state ALJ should determine how those rules, or other state law, applies to this case. Cf., e. g., Ind. Admin. Code, tit. 511, Rule 7-30-3 (2003) (hearings under the Act conducted in accord with general state administrative law); 7 Ky. Admin. Regs., tit. 707, ch. 1:340, Section 7(4) (same). Because the state ALJ did not do this (i. e., he looked for a federal, not a state, burden of persuasion rule), I would remand this case.

       The Court suggests that the IDEA’S stay-put provision, 20 U. S. C. § 1415(j), supports placement of the burden of persuasion on the parents. Ante, at 59-60. The stay-put provision, however, merely preserves the status quo. It would work to the advantage of the child and the parents when the school seeks to cut services offered under a previously established IEP. True, Congress did not require that “a child be given the educational placement that a parent requested during a dispute.” Ibid. But neither did Congress require that the IEP advanced by the school district go into effect during the pendency of a dispute.

       The Court observes that decisions placing “the entire burden of persuasion on the opposing party at the outset of a proceeding . . . are extremely rare.” Ante, at 57. In cases of this order, however, the persuasion burden is indivisible. It must be borne entirely by one side or the other: Either the school district must establish the adequacy of the IEP it has proposed or the parents must demonstrate the plan’s inadequacy.

       Before the Fourth Circuit, the United States filed in favor of the Schaf-fers; in this Court, the United States supported Montgomery County.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Per Curiam.

license: Public Domain

text:
    MARYLAND v. BLAKE
    No. 04-373.
    Argued November 1, 2005
    Decided November 14, 2005

      Kathryn Grill Graeff, Assistant Attorney General of Maryland, argued the cause for petitioner. With her on the briefs were J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, and Annabelle L. Lisie and Diane E. Keller, Assistant Attorneys General.

      James A. Feldman argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Clement, Acting Assistant Attorney General Richter, Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben, John P. Elwood, and Joel M. Gershowitz.

      Kenneth W. Ravenell argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Ivan J. Bates, Matthew A. S. Esworthy, and Jeffrey T. Green.

      Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the State of Texas et al. by Greg Abbott, Attorney General of Texas, Barry R. McBee, First Assistant Attorney General, R. Ted Cruz, Solicitor General, Don Clemmer, Deputy Attorney General, and Gena Bunn, Edward L. Marshall, and Fredericka Sargent, Assistant Attorneys General, and by the Attorneys General for their respective jurisdictions as follows: M. Jane Brady of Delaware, Robert J. Spagnoletti of the District of Columbia, Charles J. Crist, Jr., of Florida, Mark J. Bennett of Hawaii, Lawrence G. Wasden of Idaho, Lisa Madigan of Illinois, Michael A Cox of Michigan, Jim Petro of Ohio, W. A Drew Edmondson of Oklahoma, Hardy Myers of Oregon, Thomas W. Corbett, Jr., of Pennsylvania, Henry D. McMaster of South Carolina, Lawrence E. Long of South Dakota, Mark L. Shurtleff of Utah, and William Sorrell of Vermont; and for the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation by Kent S. Scheidegger and Charles L. Hobson.

      Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers by James J. Tomkovicz and Joshua L. Dratel; and for the National Legal Aid and Defender Association by Steven B. Duke.

   Per Curiam.

The writ of certiorari is dismissed granted. as improvidently

It is so ordered.


text:
    BRADSHAW, WARDEN v. RICHEY
    No. 05-101.
    Decided November 28, 2005
   Per Curiam.

In 1987, respondent Kenneth T. Richey was tried in Ohio for aggravated murder committed in the course of a felony. Evidence showed that respondent set fire to the apartment of his neighbor, Hope Collins, in an attempt to kill his ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend, who were spending the night together in the apartment below. The intended victims escaped unharmed, but Hope Collins’ 2-year-old daughter Cynthia died in the fire. At trial, the State presented evidence of respondent’s intent to kill his ex-girlfriend and her boyfriend, but not of specific intent to kill Cynthia Collins. The State also offered expert forensic evidence to show that the fire had been started deliberately. Respondent did not contest this forensic evidence at trial because his retained arson expert had reported that the State’s evidence conclusively established arson. Respondent was convicted of aggravated felony murder on a theory of transferred intent and sentenced to death. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal, where he was represented by new counsel.

Respondent sought postconviction relief in state court. The state trial court denied his request for an evidentiary hearing and denied relief on all claims, and the state appellate court affirmed. Respondent then sought federal habeas relief. The District Court permitted discovery on certain issues, but ultimately denied all of respondent’s claims. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that respondent was entitled to habeas relief on two alternative grounds. First, that transferred intent was not a permissible theory for aggravated felony murder under Ohio law, and that the evidence of direct intent was constitutionally insufficient to support conviction. Second, that the performance of respondent’s trial counsel had been constitutionally deficient under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (1984), in his retaining and mishandling of his arson expert and in his inadequate treatment of the State’s expert testimony.

We now grant the State’s petition for writ of certiorari and vacate the judgment below.

HH

The Sixth Circuit erred in holding that the doctrine of transferred intent was inapplicable to aggravated felony murder for the version of Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2903.01(B) (Anderson 1982) under which respondent was convicted. See Richey v. Mitchell, 395 F. 3d 660, 675 (2005). The Ohio Supreme Court’s interpretation of that section, as announced in its review of respondent’s case, directly contradicts the Sixth Circuit’s analysis:

“The fact that the intended victims escaped harm, and that an innocent child, Cynthia Collins, was killed instead, does not alter Richey’s legal and moral responsibility. ‘The doctrine of transferred intent is firmly rooted in Ohio law.’ Very simply, ‘the culpability of a scheme designed to implement the calculated decision to kill is not altered by the fact that the scheme is directed at someone other than the actual victim.’” State v. Richey, 64 Ohio St. 3d 353, 364, 595 N. E. 2d 915, 925 (1992) (citations omitted).

This statement was dictum, since the only sufficiency-of-evidence elaim raised by respondent pertained to his setting of the fire. Nonetheless, its explanation of Ohio law was perfectly clear and unambiguous. We have repeatedly held that a state court’s interpretation of state law, including one announced on direct appeal of the challenged conviction, binds a federal court sitting in habeas corpus. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U. S. 62, 67-68 (1991); Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U. S. 684, 691 (1975).

The Sixth Circuit held that the Ohio Supreme Court’s opinion should not be read to endorse transferred intent in respondent’s case because such a construction would likely constitute “an unforeseeable and retroactive judicial expansion of narrow and precise statutory language,” Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U. S. 347, 352 (1964), in violation of the Due Process Clause. 395 F. 3d, at 677 (citing United States v. Lanier, 520 U. S. 259 (1991)-, Bouie, 378 U. S., at 351). It is doubtful whether this principle of fair notice has any application to a case of transferred intent, where the defendant’s contemplated conduct was exactly what the relevant statute forbade, see id., at 351. And it is further doubtful whether the doctrine of constitutional doubt permits such a flatly countertextual interpretation of what the Ohio Supreme Court said, see Salinas v. United States, 522 U. S. 52, 59-60 (1997). But assuming all that, Ohio law at the time of respondent’s offense provided fully adequate notice of the applicability of transferred intent. The relevant mens rea provision in § 2903.01(D) required only that “[n]o person shall be convicted of aggravated murder unless he is specifically found to have intended to cause the death of another.” Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2903.01(D) (Anderson 1982) (emphasis added). Respondent’s intention to kill his ex-girlfriend and her boyfriend plainly came within this provision. There was no reason to read “another” (countertex-tually) as meaning only “the actual victim,” since the doctrine of transferred intent was “firmly rooted in Ohio law.” State v. Sowell, 39 Ohio St. 3d 322, 332, 530 N. E. 2d 1294, 1305 (1988) (citing Wareham v. State, 25 Ohio St. 601 (1874)). Respondent could not plausibly claim unfair surprise that the doctrine applied in his case. See Lanier, supra, at 269-270 (requiring, as adequate notice for due process purposes, only “reasonable warning,” rather than fundamentally similar prior cases).

The foregoing provision was in effect at the time of respondent’s crime in 1986. The Sixth Circuit reasoned, however, that the following subsequent clause in the version of § 2903.01(D) that existed in 1986 foreclosed transferred intent in this case:

“If a jury in an aggravated murder case is instructed that a person who commits or attempts to commit any offense listed in division (B) of this section may be inferred, because he engaged in a common design with others to commit the offense by force or violence or because the offense and the manner of its commission would be likely to produce death, to have intended to cause the death of any person who is killed during the commission of . . . the offense, the jury also shall be instructed that ... it is to consider all evidence introduced by the prosecution to indicate the person’s intent and by the person to indicate his lack of intent in determining whether the person specifically intended to cause the death of the person killed . . . .” Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2903.01(D) (Anderson 1982) (emphasis added).

Contrary to the Sixth Circuit’s reading, see 395 F. 3d, at 673, this clause by its terms did not apply to every case in which the defendant was charged with aggravated felony murder, but rather only to those in which intent to kill was sought to be proved from the inherent dangerousness of the relevant felony. See State v. Phillips, 74 Ohio St. 3d 72, 100, 656 N. E. 2d 643, 668 (1995) (“R. C. § 2903.01(D) does not apply in this case because the trial court never instructed that the jury could infer purpose to kill from the commission of an underlying felony in a manner ‘likely to produce death’”). Here, however, intent to kill was proved directly. It was not inferred from the dangerousness of the arson; it was shown to be the purpose of the arson.

The Sixth Circuit also argued that dicta in a case decided by an intermediate Ohio appellate court, prior to the Ohio Supreme Court’s opinion here, rejected transferred intent for respondent’s crime, and thus rendered its application in respondent’s case unforeseeable and retroactive. 395 F. 3d, at 675-676 (citing State v. Mullins, 76 Ohio App. 3d 633, 602 N. E. 2d 769 (1992)). But that case was decided long after the 1986 offense for which respondent was convicted, and thus has no bearing on whether the law at the time of the charged conduct was clear enough to provide fair notice. Lanier, supra; see also Marks v. United States, 430 U. S. 188, 196 (1977).

Because the Sixth Circuit disregarded the Ohio Supreme Court’s authoritative interpretation of Ohio law, its ruling on sufficiency of the evidence was erroneous.

J — I » — I

The Sixth Circuit also held that respondent was entitled to relief on the ground that the state courts’ denial of his Strickland claim was unreasonable. 395 F. 3d, at 688. As petitioner contends, the Sixth Circuit erred in its adjudication of this claim by relying on evidence that was not properly presented to the state habeas courts without first determining (1) whether respondent was at fault for failing to develop the factual bases for his claims in state court, see Williams v. Taylor, 529 U. S. 420, 430-432 (2000), or (2) whether respondent satisfied the criteria established by 28 U. S. C. § 2254(e)(2). See Holland v. Jackson, 542 U. S. 649, 653 (2004) (per curiam). Similarly, the Sixth Circuit erred by disregarding the state habeas courts’ conclusion that the forensic expert whom respondent’s trial counsel hired was a “properly qualified expert,” App. to Pet. for Cert. 347a, without analyzing whether the state court’s factual finding had been rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. See 28 U. S. C. § 2254(e)(1). Compare App. to Pet. for Cert. 347a with 395 F. 3d, at 683. In addition, as petitioner contends, the Sixth Circuit erred in relying on certain grounds that were apparent from the trial record but not raised on direct appeal — namely, that trial counsel (1) inadequately cross-examined experts called by the State, (2) erred by prematurely placing the forensic expert counsel had hired on the witness list, and (3) failed to present competing scientific evidence against the State’s forensic experts — without first determining whether respondent’s procedural default of these subclaims could be excused by a showing of cause and prejudice or by the need to avoid a miscarriage of justice. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 340a-341a, 351a-354a (state courts’ holding that these subclaims should have been raised on direct appeal); id., at 109a-110a (District Court’s holding that this default was not excusable under Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U. S. 722, 749-750 (1991)). Respondent, however, contends that the State failed to preserve its objection to the Sixth Circuit’s reliance on evidence not presented in state court by failing to raise this argument properly before the Sixth Circuit. See Brief in Opposition 24-26. Because the relevant errors had not yet occurred, the Sixth Circuit has had no opportunity to address the argument that the State failed to preserve its Holland argument. It is better situated to address this argument in the first instance.

* * *

For the foregoing reásons, the judgment of the Sixth Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.


author: Justice Ginsbubg

text:
    LINCOLN PROPERTY CO. et al. v. ROCHE et ux.
    No. 04-712.
    Argued October 11, 2005
    Decided November 29, 2005

      Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

      David C. Frederick argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Scott K. Attaway, Connie N Bertram, Richard A. Dean, and Carol T Stone.

      Gregory P. Joseph argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Sandra M. Lipsman and Douglas J. Pepe

      Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the Beal Estate Boundtable et al. by Gregory G. Garre; and for the Washington Legal Foundation by Daniel J. Popeo and Rickard A Samp.

   Justice Ginsbubg

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case concerns 28 U. S. C. § 1441, which authorizes the removal of civil actions from state court to federal court when the action initiated in state court is one that could have been brought, originally, in a federal district court. § 1441(a). When federal-court jurisdiction is predicated on the parties’ diversity of citizenship, see §1332, removal is permissible “only if none of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which [the] action [was] brought.” § 1441(b).

Christophe and Juanita Roche, plaintiffs below, respondents here, are citizens of Virginia. They commenced suit in state court against diverse defendants, including Lincoln Property Company (Lincoln), a corporation chartered and having its principal place of business in Texas. The defendants removed the litigation to a Federal District Court where, after discovery proceedings, they successfully moved for summary judgment. Holding the removal improper, the Court of Appeals instructed remand of the action, to state court. 373 F. 3d 610, 620-622 (CA4 2004). The appellate court so ruled on the ground that the Texas defendant failed to show the nonexistence of an affiliated Virginia entity that was the “real party in interest.” Id., at 622.

We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals. Defendants may remove an action on the basis of diversity of citizenship if there is complete diversity between all named plaintiffs and all named defendants, and no defendant is a citizen of the forum State. It is not incumbent on the named defendants to negate the existence of a potential defendant whose presence in the action would destroy diversity.

I

Christophe and Juanita Roche leased an apartment in the Westfield Village complex in Fairfax County, Virginia. About a year after moving in, they discovered evidence of toxic mold in their apartment. Expert inspection confirmed the presence of mold, which the inspection report linked to hair loss, headaches, irritation of the respiratory tract, fatigue, and dermatitis. App. 184-190. The report stated that spores from toxigenic mold species were airborne in the apartment and had likely contaminated the carpeting and fabric surfaces throughout the dwelling. Id., at 188. The Roches moved out of their apartment for the remediation process, leaving their personal belongings in the care of Lincoln, the designated property manager of Westfield Village, and the mold treatment firm. 373 F. 3d, at 612.

Some months later, the Roches commenced suit, filing two substantially similar complaints in the Circuit Court for Fair-fax County, Virginia. App. 27-50, 53-75. Both complaints asserted serious medical ailments from the Roches’ year-long exposure to toxic mold, and sought damages under multiple headings, including negligence, breach of contract, actual fraud, constructive fraud, and violations of Virginia housing regulations. Id., at 38-48, 64-74. In addition, the Roches alleged loss, theft, or destruction of their personal property (including irreplaceable family keepsakes) during the remediation process. Regarding these losses, they sought damages for conversion and infliction of emotional distress. Id., at 49-50, 74-75.

In state court, the Roches’ complaints named three defendants: Lincoln; INVESCO Institutional, an investment management group; and State of Wisconsin Investment Board, the alleged owner of Westfield Village. Id., at 26-28,52-54. The complaints described Lincoln as “a developer and manager of residential communities, including . .. Westfield Village.” Id., at 27,53. “[A]cting by and through [its] agents,” the Roches alleged, Lincoln caused the personal injuries of which they complained. Id., at 30, 56.

Defendants timely removed the twin cases to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, invoking that court’s diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction. See 28 U. S. C. §§ 1332(a)(1), 1441(a). The notice of removal described Lincoln as a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Texas, INVESCO as a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Georgia, and State of Wisconsin Investment Board as an independent agency of Wisconsin. App. 81. In their consolidated federal-court complaint, the Roches identified themselves as citizens of Virginia and Lincoln as a corporation headquartered in Texas, just as they did in their state-court complaints. Id,., at 27, 53, 114-115. Further, they stated affirmatively that the federal court “has jurisdiction of this matter.” Id., at 114. Lincoln, in its answer to the complaint, admitted that, through its regional offices, “it manages Westfield Village.” Id., at 137, 138. Lincoln did not seek to avoid liability by asserting that some other entity was responsible for managing the property.

In both their state- and federal-court complaints, the Roches stated that, “[u]pon further discovery in this case,” they would “determine if additional defendant or defendants will be named.” Id., at 28, 54, 116. Although they engaged in some discovery concerning Lincoln’s affiliates, their efforts in this regard were not extensive, Tr. of Oral Arg. 9, 14, 38-39, 48-49, 53, and at no point did they seek to join any additional defendant.

After discovery, the parties cross-moved for summary judgment. The District Court granted defendants’ motion and denied plaintiffs’ motion, noting that it would set forth its reasons in a forthcoming memorandum order. App. to Pet. for Cert. 20a-21a. The promised memorandum order issued a few months later, id., at 22a-40a, and the District Court entered final judgment for the defendants the same day, id., at 41a.

Six days after the District Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, but before final judgment was entered, the Roches moved to remand the case to the state court, alleging for the first time the absence of federal subject-matter jurisdiction. Specifically, the Roches alleged that Lincoln “is not a Texas Corporation, but a Partnership with one of its partners residing in the Commonwealth of Virginia.” App. 226. The District Court denied the remand motion, concluding that Lincoln is a Texas corporation and that removal was proper because the requisite complete diversity existed between all plaintiffs and all defendants. App. to Pet. for Cert. 84a-93a.

The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed and instructed the District Court to remand the case to the state court. 373 F. 3d, at 622. Although recognizing that Lincoln is a Texas citizen and a proper party to the action, id., at 620-621, the Court of Appeals observed that “Lincoln operates under many different structures,” id., at 617. Describing Lincoln as “the nominal party and ultimate parent company,” the appellate court suspected that an unidentified “Virginia subsidiary, be it a partnership, corporation or otherwise, rather than the Texas parent” was “the real and substantial party in interest.” Id., at 620-621. Lincoln, the party invoking federal-court jurisdiction, had not demonstrated the nonexistence of “the Virginia sub-‘partnership,’ ” the Court of Appeals reasoned, id., at 621, and therefore had not met its burden of establishing diversity, id., at 621-622.

We granted certiorari, 543 U. S. 1186 (2005), to resolve a division among the Circuits on the question whether an entity not named or joined as a defendant can nonetheless be deemed a real party in interest whose presence would destroy diversity. Compare 373 F. 3d, at 620-622, with Plains Growers, Inc. v. Ickes-Braun Glasshouses, Inc., 474 F. 2d 250, 252 (CA5 1973) (“The citizenship of one who has an interest in the lawsuit but who has not been made a party ... by plaintiff cannot be used by plaintiff on a motion to remand to defeat diversity jurisdiction.”), and Simpson v. Providence Washington Ins. Group, 608 F. 2d 1171, 1173-1175 (CA9 1979) (Kennedy, J.) (upholding removal where Alaska plaintiff sued Rhode Island parent company without joining as well potentially liable Alaska subsidiary, and the parties did not act collusively to create diversity jurisdiction).

The Court of Appeals correctly identified Lincoln as a proper party to the action, but it erred in insisting that some other entity affiliated with Lincoln should have been joined as a codefendant, and that it was Lincoln's obligation to name that entity and show that its joinder would not destroy diversity.

We stress, first, that, at this stage of the case, the existence of complete diversity between the Roches and Lincoln is not in doubt. The Roches, both citizens of Virginia, acknowledge that Lincoln is indeed a corporation, not a partnership, and that Lincoln is chartered in and has its principal place of business in Texas. Tr. of Oral Arg. 40-41; see App. 114 (“Upon information and belief, Lincoln Property Company is a corporation with corporate headquarters [in] Texas.”); 373 F. 3d, at 620. Accordingly, for jurisdictional purposes, Lincoln is a citizen of Texas and of no other State. 28 U. S. C. § 1332(c)(1) (“a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business”).

We turn now to the reasons why the Fourth Circuit erred in determining that diversity jurisdiction was not proved by the removing parties. 373 F. 3d, at 612 (concluding that “[defendants failed to carry their burden of proof with respect to their allegedly diverse citizenship”). The principal federal statute governing diversity jurisdiction, 28 U. S. C. § 1332, gives federal district courts original jurisdiction of all civil actions “between ... citizens of different States” where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. § 1332(a)(1). Since Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch 267 (1806), we have read the statutory formulation “between . . . citizens of different States” to require complete diversity between all (plaintiffs and all defendants. Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U. S. 61, 68 (1996); cf. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Tashire, 386 U. S. 523, 530-531 (1967) (explaining that complete diversity is not constitutionally required and upholding interpleader under § 1335 based on minimal diversity, i. e., diversity between two or more adverse parties).

While § 1332 allows plaintiffs to invoke the federal courts’ diversity jurisdiction, § 1441 gives defendants a corresponding opportunity. Section 1441(a) states: “Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.” The scales are not evenly balanced, however. An in-state plaintiff may invoke diversity jurisdiction, but § 1441(b) bars removal on the basis of diversity if any “part[y] in interest properly joined and served as [a] defendan[t] is a citizen of the State in which [the] action is brought.” In the instant case, Virginia plaintiffs Christophe and Juanita Roche joined and served no Virginian as a party defendant. Hence the action qualified for the removal defendants effected.

Neither Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a), captioned “Real Party in Interest,” nor Rule 19, captioned “Joinder of Persons Needed for Just Adjudication,” requires plaintiffs or defendants to name and join any additional parties to this action. Both Rules, we note, address party joinder, not federal-court subject-matter jurisdiction. See Rule 82 (“[The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] shall not be construed to extend or limit the jurisdiction of the United States district courts . . . .”); Advisory Committee’s Notes on Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 19,28 U. S. C. App., pp. 696-698. Rule 17(a) directs that “[e]very action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” (Emphasis added.) That Rule, as its text displays, speaks to joinder of plaintiffs, not defendants.

Rule 19 provides for the joinder of parties who should or must take part in the litigation to achieve a “[j]ust [adjudication.” See Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson, 390 U. S. 102, 118-123 (1968).. The Roches place no reliance on Rule 19 and maintain that the Rule “played no part, explicitly or implicitly, in the Court of Appeals’ conclusion.” Brief for Respondents 36. Given Lincoln’s admission that it managed Westfield Village when mold contaminated the Roches’ apartment, see supra, at 86, it does indeed appear that no absent person, formally or practically, was “[n]eeded for [j]ust [adjudication.” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 19; cf. Simpson, 608 F. 2d, at 1174 (diverse corporate defendant accepted full liability for any eventual adverse judgment; nondiverse subsidiary need not be joined as a defendant, although arguably it had joint liability with its parent); 16 J. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 107.14[2][c], p. 107-67 (3d ed. 2005) (hereinafter Moore) (“In general, the plaintiff is the master of the complaint and has the option of naming only those parties the plaintiff chooses to sue, subject only to the rules of joinder [of] necessary parties.”).

While Rule 17(a) applies only to joinder of parties who assert claims, the Court of Appeals and the Roches draw from decisions of this Court a jurisdictional “real parties to the controversy” rule applicable in diversity cases to complaining and defending parties alike. See Navarro Savings Assn. v. Lee, 446 U. S. 458, 462, n. 9 (1980) (citing Note, Diversity Jurisdiction over Unincorporated Business Entities: The Real Party in Interest as a Jurisdictional Rule, 56 Texas L. Rev. 243, 247-250 (1978)). But no decision called to our attention supports the burden the Court of Appeals placed on a properly joined defendant to negate the existence of a potential codefendant whose presence in the action would destroy diversity.

III

Our decisions employing “real party to the controversy” terminology in describing or explaining who counts and who can be discounted for diversity purposes bear scant resemblance to the action the Roches have commenced. No party here has been “improperly or collusively” named solely to create federal jurisdiction, see 28 U. S. C. § 1359 (“A district court shall not have jurisdiction of a civil action in which any party, by assignment or otherwise, has been improperly or collusively made or joined to invoke the jurisdiction of such court.”); Kramer v. Caribbean Mills, Inc., 394 U. S. 823, 830 (1969) (assignment for collection only, motivated by desire to make diversity jurisdiction available, falls within the “very core” of § 1359); Little v. Giles, 118 U. S. 596, 600-607 (1886) (where land was purportedly sold to out-of-state farmer but no money or deed changed hands, quiet title action could not be maintained based on farmer’s diverse citizenship), nor to defeat it, see Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co. v. Cockrell, 232 U. S. 146, 152 (1914) (diverse defendants, upon showing that join-der of nondiverse party was “without right and made in bad faith,” may successfully remove the action to federal court).

Nor are the Roches aided by cases in which actions against a state agency have been regarded as suits against the State itself. See, e. g., State Highway Comm’n of Wyo. v. Utah Constr. Co., 278 U. S. 194, 199-200 (1929) (“[State] Commission was but the arm or alter ego of the State with no funds or ability to respond in damages.”). Decisions of this genre are bottomed on this Court’s recognition of a State’s asserted Eleventh Amendment right not to be haled into federal court. See, e. g., Federal Maritime Comm’n v. South Carolina Ports Authority, 535 U. S. 743, 769 (2002). They are not pertinent to suits between private parties.

Unlike cases in which a party was named to satisfy state pleading rules, e. g., McNutt ex rel. Leggett, Smith, & Lawrence v. Bland, 2 How. 9, 14 (1844), or was joined only as designated performer of a ministerial act, e. g., Walden v. Skinner, 101 U. S. 577, 589 (1880), or otherwise had no control of, impact on, or stake in the controversy, e. g., Wood v. Davis, 18 How. 467, 469-470 (1856), Lincoln has a vital interest in this case. Indeed, Lincoln accepted responsibility, in the event that the Roches prevailed on the merits of their claims, by admitting that, “[since 1996,] it has managed West-field Village Apartments.” App. 137. A named defendant who admits involvement in the controversy and would be liable to pay a resulting judgment is not “nominal” in any sense except that it is named in the complaint. Cf. Knapp v. Railroad Co., 20 Wall. 117, 122 (1874).

In any event, we emphasize, the Fourth Circuit had no warrant in this case to inquire whether some other person might have been joined as an additional or substitute defendant. See ibid, (federal courts should not “inquir[e] outside of the case in order to ascertain whether some other person may not have an equitable interest in the cause of action”); Little, 118 U. S., at 603 (if named party’s interest is real, the fact that other interested parties are not joined “will not affect the jurisdiction of the [federal courts]”); 16 Moore § 107.14[2][c], p. 107-67 (“Ordinarily, a court will not interfere with the consequences of a plaintiff’s selection in naming parties, unless the plaintiff has impermissibly manufactured diversity or used an unacceptable device to defeat diversity.”).

Congress, empowered to prescribe the jurisdiction of the federal courts, sometimes has specified that a named party’s own citizenship does not determine its diverse status. Thus, as a procedural matter, executors, administrators, and guardians “may sue in [their] own name[s] without joining the party for whose benefit the action is brought.” Rule 17(a). As to diversity jurisdiction, however, § 1332(c)(2) directs that “the legal representative of [a decedent’s] estate . . . shall be deemed to be a citizen only of the same State as the decedent, and the legal representative of an infant or incompetent shall be deemed to be a citizen only of the same State as the infant or incompetent.” Congress has also provided that in direct action suits against insurers to which the insured is not made a party, the “insurer shall be deemed a citizen of the State of which the insured is a citizen, as well as of any State by which the insurer has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business.” § 1332(c)(1).

But Congress surely has not directed that a corporation, for diversity-of-citizenship purposes, shall be deemed to have acquired the citizenship of all or any of its affiliates. For cases of the kind the Roches have instituted, Congress has provided simply and only this instruction: “[A] corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business.” Ibid. The jurisdictional rule governing here is unambiguous and it is not amenable to judicial enlargement. Under § 1332(c)(1), Lincoln is a citizen of Texas alone, and under § 1441(a) and (b), this case was properly removed.

* * *

The Roches sued the entity they thought responsible for managing their apartment. Lincoln affirmed that it was so responsible. Complete diversity existed. The potential liability of other parties was a matter plaintiffs’ counsel might have assiduously explored through discovery devices. It was not incumbent on Lincoln to propose as additional defendants persons the Roches, as masters of their complaint, permissively might have joined.

For the reasons stated, the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

       Defendants below, petitioners here, presented a second question in their petition for certiorari: Can a limited partnership be deemed a citizen of a State on the sole ground that the partnership’s business activities bear a “very close nexus” with the State? Because no partnership is or need be a party to this action, that question is not live for adjudication. We note, however, that our prior decisions do not regard as relevant to subject-matter jurisdiction the locations at which partnerships conduct business. See Carden v. Arkoma Associates, 494 U. S. 185, 189, 192-197 (1990) (for diversity purposes, a partnership entity, unlike a corporation, does not rank as a citizen; to meet the complete diversity requirement, all partners, limited as well as general, must be diverse from all parties on the opposing side).

       Some weeks after the removal, the District Court dismissed INVESCO as a defendant. App. 112. Nothing turns on the presence or absence of INVESCO as a defending party. State of Wisconsin Investment Board, alleged owner of Westfield Village, remains a defendant-petitioner. Its status as a Wisconsin citizen for diversity purposes is not currently contested.

       The Roches state that they preferred to litigate in state court for two principal reasons: Virginia does not permit summary judgment based on affidavits or deposition testimony, and Virginia has not adopted the rule of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U. S. 579 (1993), to assess expert evidence. Brief for Respondents 3, and n. 1.

       Confusion about Lincoln’s structure is understandable. Real estate businesses typically operate through a web of affiliated entities, see Brief for Real Estate Roundtable et al. as Amici Curiae 6-13, and certain Lincoln-affiliated responders to the Roches’ discovery inquiries stated that Lincoln was a partnership, e. g., App. 175, 176, 179. In response to the Roches’ motion to remand, Lincoln proffered its 1979 Texas incorporation papers and an affidavit attesting to its status as a Texas corporation. Id., at 238-246. That matter is no longer debated; at oral argument, counsel for the Roches acknowledged that Lincoln is a Texas corporation. Tr. of Oral Arg. 40-41.

       The Roches sought damages well in excess of the jurisdictional minimum. App. 40-50, 66-75, 131-134.

       Although we have not addressed the issue, several lower courts have held that the presence of a diverse but in-state defendant in a removed action is a “procedural” defect, not a “jurisdictional” bar, and that the defect is waived if not timely raised by the plaintiff See 14C C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure §3739, pp. 451-457, and nn. 32-37 (3d ed. 1998).

       Similarly inapposite are cases invoking our original jurisdiction in which we have inquired into the capacity in which a sovereign party appears. See, e. g., Oklahoma ex rel. Johnson v. Cook, 304 U. S. 387, 395-396 (1938) (original jurisdiction improper where State was acting as trustee for its citizens); United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. United States ex rel. Kenyon, 204 U. S. 349, 358 (1907) (original jurisdiction upheld where United States was “a real and not a mere nominal plaintiff”).

       The Roches’ complaints cast Lincoln as the primary tortfeasor, alleging that Lincoln engaged in “a conscious and predetermined plan” to conceal the hazards of mold from apartment residents. App. 34,60. Further, the Roches alleged that Lincoln ignored numerous mold-related maintenance requests they “personally” made to Lincoln, id., at 29, 55, inquiries that, if followed up, might have prevented or lessened their injuries.