author: Mr. Justice Rehnquist

text:
    MT. HEALTHY CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION v. DOYLE
    No. 75-1278.
    Argued November 3, 1976
    Decided January 11, 1977

      Philip S. Olinger argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioner.

      Michael H. Gottesman argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Robert M. Weinberg, David Rubin, Eugene Green, Dennis Haines, Anthony P. Sgambatti II, and Barry R. Laine.

   Mr. Justice Rehnquist

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Respondent Doyle sued petitioner Mt. Healthy Board of Education in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Doyle claimed that the Board’s refusal to renew his contract in 1971 violated his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. After a bench trial the District Court held that Doyle was entitled to reinstatement with backpay. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the judgment, 529 F. 2d 524, and we granted the Board’s petition for certiorari, 425 U. S. 933, to consider an admixture of jurisdictional and constitutional claims.

I

Although the respondent’s complaint asserted jurisdiction under both 28 U. S. C. § 1343 and 28 U. S. C. § 1331, the District Court .rested its jurisdiction only on § 1331. Petitioner’s first jurisdictional contention, which we have little difficulty disposing of, asserts that the $10,000 amount in controversy required by that section is not satisfied in this case.

The leading case on this point is St. Paul Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U. S. 283 (1938), which stated this test:

“[T]he sum claimed by the plaintiff controls if the claim is apparently made in good faith. It must appear to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount to justify dismissal. The inability of plaintiff to recover an amount adequate to give the court jurisdiction does not show his bad faith or oust the jurisdiction.” Id., at 288-289. (Footnotes omitted.)

We have cited this rule with approval as receiitly as Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U. S. 636, 642 n. 10 (1975), and think it requires disposition of the jurisdictional question tendered by the petition in favor of the respondent. At the time Doyle brought this action for reinstatement and $50,000 damages, he had already accepted a job in a different school system paying approximately $2,000 per year less than he would have earned with the Mt. Healthy Board had he been rehired. The District Court in fact awarded Doyle compensatory damages in the amount of $5,158 by reason of income already lost at the time it ordered his reinstatement. Even if the District Court had chosen to award only compensatory damages and not reinstatement, it was far from a "legal certainty” at the time of suit that Doyle would not have been entitled to more than $10,000.

II

The Board has filed a document entitled “Supplemental Authorities” in which it raises quite a different “jurisdictional” issue from that presented in its petition for certiorari and disposed of in the preceding section of this opinion. Relying on the District Court opinion in Weathers v. West Yuma County School Dist., 387 F. Supp. 552, 556 (Colo. 1974), the Board contends that even though Doyle may have met the jurisdictional amount requirement of § 1331, it may not be subjected to liability in this case because Doyle’s only substantive constitutional claim arises under 42 U. S. C. § 1983. Because it is not a “person” for purposes of § 1983, the Board reasons, liability may no more be imposed on it where federal jurisdiction is grounded on 28 U. S. C. § 1331 than where such jurisdiction is grounded on 28 U. S. C. § 1343.

The District Court avoided this issue by reciting that it had not “stated any conclusion on the possible MonroeKenosha problem in this case since it seems that the case is properly here as a § 1331 case, as well as a § 1983 one.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 14a-15a. This reference to our decisions in Monroe v. Paye, 365 U. S. 167 (1961), and City of Kenosha v. Bruno, 412 U. S. 507 (1973), where it was held that a municipal corporation is not a suable “person” under § 1983, raises the question whether petitioner Board in this case is sufficiently like the municipal corporations in those cases so that it, too, is excluded from § 1983 liability.

The quoted statement of the District Court makes clear its view that if the jurisdictional basis for the action is § 1331, the limitations contained in 42 U. S. C.. § 1983 do not apply. The Board argues, on the contrary, that since Congress in § 1983 has expressly created a remedy relating to violations of constitutional rights under color of state law, one who seeks to recover for such violations is bound by the limitations contained in § 1983 whatever jurisdictional section he invokes.

The question of whether the Board’s arguments should prevail, or whether as respondent urged in oral argument, we should, by analogy to our decision in Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388 (1971), imply a cause of action directly from the Fourteenth Amendment which would not be subject to the limitations contained in § 1983, is one which has never been decided by this Court. Counsel for respondent at oral argument suggested that it is an extremely important question and one which should not be decided on this record. We agree with respondent.

The Board has raised this question for the first time in a document filed after its reply brief in this Court. Were it in truth a contention that the District Court lacked jurisdiction, we would be obliged to consider it, even as we are obliged to inquire sua sponte whenever a doubt arises as to the existence of federal jurisdiction. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Wetzel, 424 U. S. 737, 740 (1976); Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U. S. 149, 152 (1908). And if this were a § 1983 action, brought under the special jurisdictional provision of 28 U. S. C. § 1343 which requires no amount in controversy, it would be appropriate for this Court to inquire, for jurisdictional purposes, whether a statutory action had in fact been alleged. City of Kenosha v. Bruno, supra. However, where an action is brought under § 1331, the catchall federal-question provision requiring in excess of $10,000 in controversy, jurisdiction is sufficiently established by allegation of a claim under the Constitution or federal statutes, unless it “clearly appears to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction . . ." Bell v. Hood, 327 U. S. 678, 682 (1946); Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. v. Northwestern Pub. Serv. Co., 341 U. S. 246, 249 (1951).

Here respondent alleged that the Board had violated his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and claimed the jurisdictionally necessary amount of damages. The claim that the Board is a “person” under § 1983, even assuming the correctness of the Board’s argument that the § 1331 action is limited by the restrictions of § 1983, is not so patently without merit as to fail the test of Bell v. Hood, supra. Therefore, the question as to whether the respondent stated a claim for relief under § 1331 is not of the jurisdictional sort which the Court raises on its own motion. The related question of whether a school district is a person for purposes of § 1983 is likewise not before us. We leave those questions for another day, and assume, without deciding, that the respondent could sue under § 1331 without regard to the limitations imposed by 42 U. S. C.

The District Court found it unnecessary to decide whether the Board was entitled to immunity from suit in the federal courts under the Eleventh Amendment, because it decided that any such immunity had been waived by Ohio, statute and decisional law. In view of the treatment of waiver by a State of its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in Ford Motor Co. v. Dept. of Treasury, 323 U. S. 459, 464-466 (1945), we are less sure than was the District Court that Ohio had consented to suit against entities such as the Board in the federal courts. We prefer to address instead the question of whether such an entity had any Eleventh Amendment immunity in the first place, since if we conclude that it had none it will be unnecessary to reach the question of waiver.

The bar of the Eleventh Amendment to suit in federal courts extends to States and state officials in appropriate circumstances, Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651 (1974); Ford Motor Co. v. Dept. of Treasury, supra, but does not extend to counties and similar municipal corporations. See Lincoln County v. Luning, 133 U. S. 529, 530 (1890); Moor v. County of Alameda, 411 U. S. 693, 717-721 (1973). The issue here thus turns on whether the Mt. Healthy Board of Education is to be treated as an arm of the State partaking of the State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity, or is instead to be treated as a municipal corporation or other political subdivision to which the Eleventh Amendment does not extend. The answer depends, at least in part, upon the nature of the entity created by state law. Under Ohio law the “State” does not include “political subdivisions,” and “political subdivisions” do include local' school districts. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2743.01 (Page Supp. 1975). Petitioner is but one of many local school boards within the State of Ohio. It is subject to some guidance from the State Board of Education, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3301.07 (Page 1972 and Supp. 1975), and receives a significant amount of money from the State. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3317 (Page 1972 and Supp. 1975). But local school boards have extensive powers to issue bonds, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 133.27 (Page 1969), and to levy taxes within certain restrictions of state law. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§ 5705.02, 5705.03, 5705.192, 5705.194 (Page 1973 and Supp. 1975). On balance, the record before us indicates that a local school board such as petitioner is more like a county or city than it is like an arm of the State. We therefore hold that it was not entitled to assert any Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in the federal courts.

IV

Having concluded that respondent’s complaint sufficiently pleaded jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1331, that the Board has failed to preserve the issue whether that complaint stated a claim upon which relief could be granted against the Board, and that the Board is not immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment, we now proceed to consider the merits of respondent’s claim under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Doyle was first employed by the Board in 1966. He worked under one-year contracts for the first three years, and under a two-year contract from 1969 to 1971. In 1969 he was elected president of the Teachers’ Association, in which position he worked to expand the subjects of direct negotiation between the Association and the Board of Education. During Doyle’s one-year term as president of the Association, and during the succeeding year when he served on its executive committee, there was apparently some tension in relations between the Board and the Association.

Beginning early in 1970, Doyle was involved in several incidents not directly connected with his role in the Teachers’ Association. In one instance, he engaged in an argument with another teacher which culminated in the other teacher’s slapping him. Doyle subsequently refused to accept an apology and insisted upon some punishment for the other teacher. His persistence in the matter resulted in the suspension of both teachers for one day, which was followed by a walkout by a number of other teachers, which in turn resulted in the lifting of the suspensions.

On other occasions, Doyle got into an argument with employees of the school cafeteria over the amount of spaghetti which had been served him; referred to students, in connection with a disciplinary complaint, as “sons of bitches”; and made an obscene gesture to two girls in connection with their failure to obey commands made in his capacity as cafeteria supervisor. Chronologically the last in the series of incidents which respondent was involved in during his employment by the Board was a telephone call by him to a local radio station. It was the Board’s consideration of this incident which the court below found to be a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

In February 1971, the principal circulated to various teachers a memorandum relating to teacher dress and appearance, which was apparently prompted by the view of some in the administration that there was a relationship between teacher appearance and public support for bond issues. Doyle’s response to the receipt of the memorandum — on a subject which he apparently understood was to be settled by joint teacher-administration action- — -was to convey the substance of the memorandum to a disc jockey at WSAI, a Cincinnati radio station, who promptly announced the adoption of the dress code as a news item. Doyle subsequently apologized to the principal, conceding that he should have made some prior communication of his criticism to the school administration.

Approximately one month later the superintendent made his customary annual recommendations to the Board as to the rehiring of nontenured teachers. He recommended that Doyle not be rehired. The same recommendation was made with respect to nine other teachers in the district, and in all instances, including Doyle’s, the recommendation was adopted by the Board. Shortly after being notified of this decision, respondent requested a statement of reasons for the Board’s actions. He received a statement citing “a notable lack of tact in handling professional matters which leaves much doubt as to your sincerity in establishing good school relationships.” That general statement was followed by references to the radio station incident and to the obscene-gesture incident.

The District Court found that all of these incidents had in fact occurred. It concluded that respondent Doyle’s telephone call to the radio station was “clearly protected by the First Amendment,” and that because it had played a “substantial part” in the decision of the, Board not to renew Doyle’s employment, he was entitled to reinstatement with backpay. App. to Pet. for Cert. 12a-13a. The District Court did not expressly state what test it was applying in determining that the incident in question involved conduct protected by the First Amendment, but simply held that the communication to the radio station was such conduct. The Court of Appeals affirmed in a brief per curiam opinion. 529 F. 2d 524.

Doyle’s claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments are not defeated by the fact that he did not have tenure. Even though he could have been discharged for no reason whatever, and had no constitutional right to a hearing prior to the decision not to rehire him, Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U. S. 564 (1972), he may nonetheless establish a claim to reinstatement if the decision not to rehire him was made by reason of his exercise of constitutionally protected First Amendment freedoms. Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U. S. 593 (1972).

That question of whether speech of a government employee is constitutionally protected expression necessarily entails striking “a balance between the interests of the teacher, as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.” Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U. S. 563, 568 (1968). There is no suggestion by the Board that Doyle violated any established policy, or that its reaction to his communication to the radio station was anything more than an ad hoc response to Doyle’s action in making the memorandum public. We therefore accept the District Court’s finding that the communication was protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. We are not, however, entirely in agreement with that court’s manner of reasoning from this finding to the conclusion that Doyle is entitled to reinstatement with backpay.

The District Court made the following “conclusions” on this aspect of the case:

“1) If a non-permissible reason, e. g., exercise of First Amendment rights, played a substantial part in the decision not to renew — even in the face of other permissible grounds — the decision may not stand (citations omitted).
“2) A non-permissible reason did play a substantial part. That is clear from the letter of the Superintendent immediately following the Board’s decision, which stated two reasons — -the one, the conversation with the radio station clearly protected by the First Amendment. A court may not engage in any limitation of First Amendment rights based on 'tact’ — that is not to say that the 'tactfulness’ is irrelevant to other issues in this case.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 12a-13a.

At the same time, though, it stated that

“[i]n fact, as this Court sees it and finds, both the Board and the Superintendent were faced with a situation in which there did exist in fact reason . . . independent of any First Amendment rights or exercise thereof, to not extend tenure.” Id., at 12a.

Since respondent Doyle had no tenure, and there was therefore not even a state-law requirement of “cause” or “reason” before a decision could be made not to renew his employment, it is not clear what the District Court meant by this latter statement. Clearly the Board legally could have dismissed respondent had the radio station incident never come to its attention. One plausible meaning of the court’s statement is that the Board and the Superintendent not only could, but in fact would have reached that decision had not the constitutionally protected incident of the telephone call to the radio station occurred. We are thus brought to the issue whether, even if that were the case, the fact that the protected conduct played a “substantial part” in the actual decision not to renew would necessarily amount to a constitutional violation justifying remedial action." We think that it would not.

A rule of causation which focuses solely on whether protected conduct played a part, “substantial” or otherwise, in a decision not to rehire, could place an employee in a better position as a result of the exercise of constitutionally protected conduct than he would have occupied had he done nothing. The difficulty with the rule enunciated by the District Court is that it would require reinstatement in cases where a dramatic and perhaps abrasive incident is inevitably on the minds of those responsible for the decision to rehire, and does indeed play a part in that decision— even if the same decision would have been reached had the incident not occurred. The constitutional principle at stake is sufficiently vindicated if such an employee is placed in no worse a position than if he had not engaged in the conduct. A borderline or marginal candidate should not have the employment question resolved against him because of constitutionally protected conduct. But that same candidate ought not to be able, by engaging in such conduct, to prevent his employer from assessing his performance record and reaching a decision not to rehire on the basis of that record, simply because the protected conduct makes the employer more certain of the correctness of its decision.

This is especially true where, as the District Court observed was the case here, the current decision to rehire will accord “tenure.” The long-term consequences of an award of tenure are of great moment both to the employee and to the employer. They are too significant for us to hold that the Board in this case would be precluded, because it considered constitutionally protected conduct in deciding not to rehire Doyle, from attempting to prove to a trier of fact that quite apart from such conduct Doyle’s record was such that he would not have been rehired in any event.

In other areas of constitutional law, ’this Court has found it necessary to formulate a test of causation which distinguishes between a result caused by a constitutional violation and one not so caused. We think those are instructive in formulating the test to be applied here.

In Lyons v. Oklahoma, 322 U. S. 596 (1944), the Court held that even though the first confession given by a defendant had been involuntary, the Fourteenth Amendment did not prevent the State from using a second confession obtained 12 hours later if the coercion surrounding the first confession had been sufficiently dissipated as to make the second confession voluntary. In Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471, 491 (1963), the Court was willing to assume that a defendant’s arrest had been unlawful, but held that “the connection between the arrest and the statement [given several days later] had ‘become so attenuated as to dissipate the taint.’ Nardone v. United States, 308 U. S. 338, 341.” Parker v. North Carolina, 397 U. S. 790, 796 (1970), held that even though a confession be assumed to have been involuntary in the constitutional sense of the word, a guilty plea entered over a month later met the test for the voluntariness of such a plea. The Court in Parker relied on the same quoted language from Nardone, supra, as did the Court in Wong Sun) supra. While the type of causation on which the taint cases turn may differ somewhat from that which we apply here, those cases do suggest that the proper test to apply in the present context is one which likewise protects against the invasion of constitutional rights without commanding undesirable consequences not necessary to the assurance of those rights.

Initially, in this case, the burden was properly placed upon respondent to show that his conduct was constitutionally protected, and that this conduct was a “substantial factor” — or, to put it in other words, that it was a “motivating factor” in the Board’s decision not to rehire him. Respondent having carried that burden, however, the District Court should have gone on to determine whether the Board had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have reached the same decision as to respondent’s reemployment even in the absence of the protected conduct.

We cannot tell from the District Court opinion and conclusions, nor from the opinion of the Court of Appeals affirming the judgment of the District Court, what conclusion those courts would have reached had they applied this test. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore vacated, and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

So ordered.

       “I. You have shown a-notable lack of tact in handling professional matters which leaves much doubt as to your sincerity in establishing good school relationships.

        “A. You assumed the responsibility to notify W. S. A. I. Radio Station in regards to the suggestion of the Board of Education that teachers establish an appropriate dress code for professional people. This raised much concern not only within this community, but also in neighboring communities.
      “B. You used obscene gestures to correct students in a situation in the cafeteria causing considerable eoncern among those students present.
      “Sincerely yours,
      “Rex Ralph
      “Superintendent”

       See Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., ante, at 270-271, n. 21.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Mr. Justice Stevens

license: Public Domain

text:
    KNEBEL, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE v. HEIN
    No. 75-1261.
    Argued November 29, 1976
    Decided January 11, 1977

      Stephen L. Urbanczyk argued the cause pro hac vice for appellant in No. 75-1261. With him on the briefs were
      Solicitor General Bork, Assistant Attorney General Lee, Deputy Solicitor General Jones, and William Kanter. Lornd Lawhead Williams, Special Assistant Attorney General of Iowa, argued the cause for appellants in No. 75-1355. With her on the briefs was Richard C. Turner, Attorney General.

      Robert Bartels, by appointment of the Court, 426 U. S. 945, argued the cause and filed a brief for appellees in both cases.

      Together with No. 75-1355, Burns, Comm’r, Dept. of Social Services of Iowa, et al. v. Hein, also on appeal from the same court.

        Ralph Santiago Abascal, Lorelei Joy Borland, and Ronald F. Pollack filed a brief for Sandra Chek et al. as amici curiae in both cases.

   Mr. Justice Stevens

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Under the program administered by the Secretary of Agriculture and cooperating state agencies pursuant to the Food Stamp Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 703, 7 U. S. C. § 2011 et seg. (1970 ed. and Supp. V), certain low-income households are entitled to purchase food coupons at a discount. The price an eligible household must pay for food stamps is determined, in part, by its “income” as defined in the applicable federal and state regulations. Under those regulations a transportation allowance, which appellee receives from the State of Iowa .and uses to defray the cost of commuting to a nurses’ training program, is treated as “income.” The questions presented on this appeal are whether those regulations are authorized by the statute and, if so, whether they are constitutional.

Appellee Hein, a divorced woman with custody of two children, is the head of a household receiving assistance. Prior to September 1972, she paid only $46 for food stamps with a retail value of $92. Thereafter she received a grant from the State which paid her tuition at a nurses’ training school, plus a transportation allowance of $44 per month. The actual monthly expense of commuting between her residence in Muscatine, Iowa, and the school in Davenport amounted to at least $44. The allowance nevertheless increased the “income” which determined the price of her food stamps, resulting in a $12 price increase.

After exhausting state administrative remedies, appellee filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa seeking to enjoin the enforcement of the Iowa regulations requiring that transportation allowances be included in income. Because the constitutionality of the regulations was challenged, a three-judge court was convened pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2281. The District Court originally held the Iowa regulation invalid as inconsistent with the regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture. 371 F. Supp. 1091 (1974). While the State’s appeal was pending in this Court, the Secretary promulgated a clarifying amendment eliminating the basis for the District Court’s holding. We therefore vacated the original judgment, 419 U. S. 989.

On remand, the Secretary of Agriculture was joined as an additional defendant. The District Court then held both the state and the federal regulations invalid. 402 F. Supp. 398 (1975). The court could identify no rational basis for treating as income a training allowance which is fully expended for its intended purpose. Consequently, the court reasoned, the regulation did not implement the statutory objective of providing adequate nutrition for low-income families. Since the allowance did not increase appellee’s “food purchasing power,” the District Court felt that it was totally irrational for the allowance to increase the cost of appellee’s food stamps. This analysis led to the conclusion that the regulation conflicted with the Food Stamp Act and discriminated against recipients of transportation allowances in violation of the equal protection guarantee explicit in the Fourteenth Amendment and implicit in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

We are persuaded that the statute authorized the Secretary and the State of Iowa to issue the challenged regulations and that the regulations are constitutional.

The salutary purpose and the broad outlines of the federal food stamp program are well known. The Food Stamp Act authorizes the Secretary to “formulate and administer a food stamp program” which will provide an eligible household “an opportunity to obtain a nutritionally adequate diet,” 7 U. S. C. § 2013 (a). He is to “prescribe the amounts of household income and other financial resources, including both liquid and nonliquid assets, to be used as criteria of eligibility,” 7 U. S. C. § 2014 (b)'(1970 ed., Supp. V). The charge for the coupons is to “represent a reasonable investment on the part of the household, but in no event more than 30 per centum of the household’s income . . . .” § 2016 (b). Finally, the Secretary “shall issue such regulations, not inconsistent with this chapter, as he deems necessary or appropriate for the effective and efficient administration of the food stamp program.” § 2013(c).

Under the statute’s broad delegation of authority, the Secretary might have defined income in a variety of ways. He might, for example, have treated wages differently from training allowances. He decided, however, to adopt a definition of income which includes wages, welfare payments, training allowances, and most other monetary receipts. Only a few specific deductions are allowed. These deductions do not include any itemized deduction for commuting expenses of either students or workers. Instead, there is a standardized deduction of 10% of the wages or training allowance (including tuition grants and travel allowances), which is intended to cover incidental expenses.

The District Court was correct that the regulations operate somewhat unfairly in appellee’s case. Nevertheless, we are satisfied that they are the product of a valid exercise of the Secretary’s statutory authority. Perhaps it might have been more equitable to allow a deduction for all commuting expenses, or for the expenses of commuting to a training program, or — as the order of the District Court provides — just for such expenses covered by state transportation allowances. But the availability of alternatives does not render the Secretary’s choice invalid. Moreover, a plainly acceptable reason exists for rejecting each of these possible alternatives.

Allowing a deduction for all transportation expenses would create significant administrative costs as well as risks of disparate treatment. Disparate treatment of trainees and wage earners could be criticized as unfairly discriminating against the worker. Similar criticism can be leveled against the order entered by the District Court in this case, under which members of the class would fare better than workers with equally low receipts and equally high expenses.

The District Court’s primary reason for invalidating the regulations was its view that transportation grants do not increase food purchasing power. But the grant does give a household more food purchasing power than another household which receives no grant but incurs similar nondeductible expenses related to training or employment. Moreover, nothing in the statute requires that deductions include all necessary nonfood expenditures. On the contrary, the requirement in § 2016 (b) that the price of the food stamps shall not exceed 30% of the household’s income, assumes that 70% of that income may be expended on nonfood necessities. Thus, there is a built-in allowance for necessary expenses beyond the specific deductions.

We conclude that the federal regulations defining income were reasonably adopted by the Secretary in the performance of his statutory duty to “formulate and administer a food stamp program’’ and are therefore within the Secretary’s statutory authority. Since there is no question about the constitutionality of the statute itself, the implementation of the statutory purpose provides a sufficient justification for both the federal regulations and the parallel state regulations to avoid any violation of equal protection guarantees. See, e. g., Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U. S. 749, 768-770; Mathews v. De Castro, ante, at 185. Nor do the regulations embody any conclusive presumption. They merely represent two reasonable judgments: first, that recipients of state travel allowances should be treated like other trainees and like wage earners; and second, that the standard 10% deduction, coupled with the 30% ceiling on coupon purchase prices, provides an acceptable mechanism for dealing with ordinary expenses such as commuting. The Constitution requires no more. See Salfi, supra, at 771-777.

Reversed.

       It was stipulated that prior to November 28, 1973, Ms. Hein had no savings and only the following elements of income:
      “a. $28.75 a month rent from a house in which she owns a part interest;
      “b. $220 ADC;
      “c. $44 Work and Training Allowance; and
      “d. $36 food stamp bonus.” App. 24r-25.

       This assistance was granted under the Iowa Work and Training Program, authorized by Iowa Code Ann. §§249C.l, et seq. (Supp. 1976). The program is partially funded by the State and partially by the Federal Government. Such funding is now provided under Title XX of the Social Security Act, 42 U. S. C. § 1397a et seq. (1970 ed., Supp. V).

       The record is actually somewhat unclear on this point. However, the District Court construed a stipulation regarding appellee’s “allowance for necessary commuting” as indicating that she actually was required to spend that amount. For purposes of decision, we accept the District Court’s construction. It should be noted, however, that if appellee was a full-time student, she would receive the full $44 even if her actual expenses were less. If she was a part-time student, she would be reimbursed on the basis of mileage, up to a maximum of $44 per month. The record does not disclose whether she was a full-time or part-time student.

       Under the regulations the tuition payment and the transportation allowance were both added to income. Then, an amount equal to the full tuition cost, plus 10% of the tuition payment and 10% of the transportation allowance, was deducted from income. The record does not disclose the tuition cost, or whether the proper deduction of 10% of that amount was made.

       The District Court defined the class represented by appellee to include all persons receiving transportation allowances pursuant to individual education and training plans whose allowances were included in, and not deducted from, income for purposes of determining the price they had to pay for food stamps. 371 F. Supp. 1091, 1093 n. 1 (1974).

       Under 7 U. S. C. § 2014, state “plans of operation” submitted to the Secretary are not to be approved “unless the standards of eligibility meet those established by the Secretary.” The Secretary’s regulations set out the standards of eligibility which must be applied by the state agency. 7 CFR § 271.3 (c) (1976). The validity of the state regulations is at issue because they formed the direct basis for the change in appellee’s food stamp price; the federal regulations are challenged because they now authorize the state regulations. See n. 7, infra.

       The clarifying amendment specifically precluded “deductions ... for any other educational expenses such as . . . transportation.” 7 CFR §271.3 (c) (1) (iii) (f) (1976).

       The District Court ordered the defendants to cease including in income “any amount received ... as reimbursement for necessary commuting expenses, pursuant to an Individual Education and Training Plan, unless such amount is deducted from such person’s monthly net income in determining such person’s adjusted net income.” 402 F. Supp. 398, 408 (1975). The court also ordered defendants to recompute the amounts which members of the class should have paid for food stamps and to allow them a credit against future purchases in the amount of the past overcharge.

       “The federal food stamp program was established in 1964 in an effort to alleviate hunger and malnutrition among the more needy segments of our society. 7 U. S. C. § 2011. Eligibility for participation in the program is determined on a household rather than an individual basis. 7 CFR § 271.3 (a). An eligible household purchases sufficient food stamps to provide that household with a nutritionally adequate diet. The household pays for the stamps at a reduced rate based upon its size and cumulative income. The food stamps are then used to purchase food at retail stores, and the Government redeems the stamps at face value, thereby paying the difference between the actual cost of the food and the amount paid by the household for the stamps. See 7 U. S. C. §§ 2013 (a), 2016, 2025 (a).” United States Dept. of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U. S. 528, 529-530.

       The regulation provides, in part, that income includes:

        “(a) All compensation for services performed as an employee

        “(f) Payments received from federally aided public assistance programs, general assistance programs, or other assistance programs based on need;

        “(g) Payments received from Government-sponsored programs such as . . . the Work Incentive Program, or Manpower Training Program

        “(i) Cash gifts or awards ... for support, maintenance, or the expenses of education . . .

        “(1) Rents, dividends, interest, royalties, and all other payments from any source whatever which may be construed to be a gain or benefit 7 CFR §271.3 (c)(1) (i) (1976).

       The deductions which are relevant for present purposes are these:
      “(a) Ten per centum of income from compensation for services performed as an employee or training allowance not to exceed $30 per household per month. This deduction shall be made before the following deductions . . .

        “(d) The payments necessary for the care of a child or other persons when necessary for a household member to accept or continue employment, or training or education which is preparatory for employment . . . .”

        “(f) Tuition and mandatory fees assessed by educational institutions (no deductions shall be made for any other education expenses such as, but not limited to, the expense of books, school supplies, meals at school, and transportation).” 7 CFR § 271.3 (c) (1) (iii) (1976).
      These regulations have undergone change during the course of this litigation. The express exclusion of transportation expenses as a possible educational deduction was added in response to the District Court’s holding at a prior stage of the litigation that such a deduction was required by the regulations. See supra, at 290-291. More recently, the system of itemized deductions set forth in the text was replaced by a standardized deduction for all households. 41 Fed. Reg. 18788 (1976). We are told that enforcement of the new regulations has been enjoined. Brief for Appellant in No. 75-1261, p. 5 n. 3. This case would not become moot if the new regulations go into effect, because of the compensatory relief ordered by the District Court. See n. 8, supra.

       7 CFR § 271.3 (c) (1) (iii) (a) (1976). A separate deduction is allowed for job- or training-related child-care expenses. 7 CFR § 271.3 (c) (1) (iii) (d) (1976).

       Deductions for such incidental expenses are allowed in calculating income from self-employment. See 7 CFR § 271.3 (c) (1) (i) (6) (1976). Appellee does not contend that the Secretary is required to take this approach with respect to wage earners. The statute before us, unlike that considered in Shea v. Vialpando, 416 U. S. 251, contains no indication that Congress meant to require individualized consideration of employment-related expenses. Given that the treatment of wage earners is valid, it follows that similar treatment of trainees is valid.

       The Court’s recent comment on a regulatory choice made by the Federal Reserve Board in its administration of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U. S. C. § 1601 et seq., is relevant. In Mourning v. Family Publications Serv., Inc., 411 U. S. 356, 371-372, the Court stated:
      “That some other remedial provision might be preferable is irrelevant. We have consistently held that where reasonable minds may differ as to which of several remedial measures should be chosen, courts should defer to the informed experience and judgment of the agency to whom Congress delegated appropriate authority. Northwestern Co. v. FPC, 321
        U. S. 119, 124 (1944); National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 319 U. S. 190, 224 (1943); American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. United States, 299 U. S. 232, 236 (1936).”

       The record includes a letter dated March 11, 1974, from the Deputy-General Counsel of the Department of Agriculture explaining the reasoning underlying a portion of the regulations. He stated:
      “When these regulations were originally under consideration, it was administratively determined that tuition and mandatory fees are readily determinable, are uniform for all students, and are the primary costs of education (particularly college education) over and above a student’s ordinary costs of living. It was also determined that the administrative burden of determining and verifying the expenses for the infinite variety of other outlays which may be incurred for education would be undue. Further, these other expenses, because of personal preference or otherwise, vary greatly from person to person and thus from household to household.”
      The fact that the Internal Revenue Code does not allow a deduction from income for commuting expenses lends support to the view that there is some reasonable basis for the Secretary’s judgment in formulating these regulations. See Commissioner v. Flowers, 326 U. S. 465.

       For some full-time students’ who are members of the class this reasoning rests on a faulty premise; for them, the grant may exceed actual transportation expenses.

         We are informed that the “average purchase requirement for a food stamp household is now 24 percent of net income,” Jurisdictional Statement in No. 75-1261, pp. 10-11, n. 3. See also 7 CFR § 271.10, App. A (1976).

       The District Court also believed that an exclusion from income was required by what it perceived to be the Act’s policy favoring education. This policy was thought to be embodied in 7 U. S. C. § 2014 (c), which exempts bona fide students from the requirement that able-bodied adults register for work as a prerequisite to receiving food stamps. 402 F. Supp., at 405. This section expresses, if anything, only a policy that students and trainees not be treated less favorably than workers. Allowing trainees an exclusion for travel allowances would give them more favorable treatment than wage earners, who do not get a deduction for commuting expenses.
      It is also contended that the regulations at issue work at cross-purposes with Title XX of the Social Security Act, which provides funding for the state program under which the travel allowance was paid. This contention is true only in the sense that the net benefit of the travel allowance is reduced by the increase in food stamp prices. But this is equally true of other government benefits, such as AFDC, which appellee concedes are properly included in income. Brief for Appellee 23-24. We find no indication that Congress intended different treatment for training allowances. Cf. 42 U. S. C. § 4636; Hamilton v. Butz, 520 F. 2d 709 (CA9 1975).


author: Mb. Justice Stevens

text:
    BAYSIDE ENTERPRISES, INC., et al. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
    No. 75-1267.
    Argued November 10, 1976
    Decided January 11, 1977

      Alan J. Levenson argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioners.

      Harriet S. Shapiro argued the cause for respondent. On the briefs were Solicitor General Bork, John S. Irving, Carl L. Taylor, Norton J. Come, and Elinor Hadley Stillman.

   Mb. Justice Stevens

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The petitioners, collectively described as “Bayside,” are three affiliated corporations operating a large, vertically integrated poultry business in Maine. The question they present is whether six of their employees, who truck poultry feed from their feedmill to 119 farms on which their chickens are being raised, are “agricultural laborers” and therefore not covered by the National Labor Relations Act.

After a few preliminary talks, Bayside refused to bargain with the union representing these drivers on the ground that they were not “employees” within the meaning of the Act. The union’s resulting unfair labor practice charge was sustained by the National Labor Relations Board and the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. An apparent conflict with decisions of the Fifth and Ninth Circuits led us to grant certiorari, 425 U. S. 970. We now affirm.

The protections of the National Labor Relations Act extend only to “employees.” Section 2 (3) of the Act; 29 U. S. C. § 152 (3), provides that the “term ‘employee’ . . . shall not include any individual employed as an agricultural laborer . . . .” Congress has further provided that the term “agricultural laborer” in the NLRA shall have the meaning specified in § 3 (f) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. It is, therefore, that section and the decisions construing it which are relevant even though this proceeding arose under the NLRA.

Section 3 (f) provides, in relevant part:

“ ‘Agriculture’ includes farming in all its branches [including] the raising of . . . poultry, and any practices . . . performed by a farmer or on a farm as an incident to or in conjunction with such farming operations . . . .” 52 Stat. 1060, 29 U. S. C. § 203 (f).

This statutory definition includes farming in both a primary and a secondary sense. The raising of poultry is primary farming, but hauling products to or from a farm is not primary farming. Such hauling may, however, be secondary farming if it is work performed “by a farmer or on a farm as an incident to or in conjunction with such farming operations Since there is no claim that these drivers work “on a farm,” the question is whether their activity should be regarded as work performed “by a farmer,” The answer depends on the character of their employer’s activities.

An employer’s business may include both agricultural and nonagricultural activities. Thus, even though most of the operations on a sugar plantation are agricultural, persons employed in the plantation’s sugar-processing plant are not “agricultural employees.” Maneja v. Waialua Agricultural Co., 349 U. S. 254, 264-270. In this case, both parties agree that some of Bayside’s operations are agricultural and some are not.

The mill in which Bayside produces poultry feed and the processing plant in which it slaughters and dresses poultry are not agricultural operations. On the other hand, the six farms on which it produces hatching eggs, and its activities in breeding and hatching chicks, are clearly agricultural in character. The parties are in dispute with respect to the character of Bayside’s work related to the raising of the chickens.

The chickens are raised on 119 separate farms owned and operated by independent contractors. Pursuant to a standard contractual arrangement, Bayside provides each such farm with chicks, feed, medicine, fuel, litter, and vaccine. Bay-side retains title to the chicks and pays the farmer a guaranteed sum, plus a bonus based on the weight of the bird when grown, in exchange for the farmer’s services in housing and caring for the chicks. Bayside delivers the chicks to the independent farms when they are one day old and picks them up for processing about nine weeks later. During the nine-week period, the contract farmers feed the chicks with poultry feed delivered to their feedbins by Bayside drivers.

Bayside argues that the activity on the independent farms is part of Bayside’s farming operation. The argument is supported by the pervasive character of its control over the raising of the chicks, its ownership of the chicks, its assumption of the risks of casualty loss and market fluctuations, and its control over both the source and the destination of the poultry. In response, the Labor Board argues that the owners of the farms are independent contractors rather than employees of Bayside and therefore the farming activity at these locations is attributable to them rather than to Bayside.

The Labor Board has squarely and consistently rejected the argument that all of the activity on a contract farm should be regarded as agricultural activity of an integrated farmer such as Bayside. This conclusion by the Board is one we must respect even if the issue might “with nearly equal reason be resolved one way rather than another.”

Even if we should regard a contract farm as a hybrid operation where some of the agricultural activity is performed by Bayside and some by the owner of the farm, we would nevertheless be compelled to sustain the Board’s order. For the activity of storing poultry feed and then using it to feed the chicks is work performed by the contract farmer rather than by Bayside. Since the status of the drivers is determined by the character of the work which they perform for their own employer, the work of the contract farmer cannot make the drivers agricultural laborers. And their employer’s operation of the feedmill is a nonagricultural activity. Thus, the Board properly concluded that the work of the truck drivers on behalf of their employer is not work performed “by a farmer” whether attention is focused on the origin or the destination of the feed delivery.

The Board’s conclusion that these truck drivers are not agricultural laborers is based on a reasonable interpretation of the statute, is consistent with the Board’s prior holdings, and is supported by the Secretary of Labor’s construction of § 3 (f) , Moreover, the conclusion applies to but one specific instance of the “[m]yriad forms of service relationship, with infinite and subtle variations in the terms of employment, [which] blanket the nation’s economy,” and which the Board must confront on a daily basis. Accordingly, regardless of how we might have resolved the question as an initial matter, the appropriate weight which must be given to the judgment of the agency whose special duty is to apply this broad statutory language to varying fact patterns requires enforcement of the Board’s order.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is

Affirmed.

       Bayside Enterprises, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiary Poultry Processing, Inc., are operating corporations; the subsidiary Penobscot Poultry Co. is apparently inactive.

       The drivers are represented by Truck Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Union, Local No. 340, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. That local and the Amalgamated Meatcutters Local 385 jointly represent employees in petitioners’ processing plant.

       216 N. L. R. B. 502, enf’d, 527 F. 2d 436 (1975). The Board’s order requires Bayside to bargain with the union.

        NLRB v. Strain Poultry Farms, Inc., 405 F. 2d 1025 (CA5 1969); NLRB v. Ryckebosch, Inc., 471 F. 2d 20 (CA9 1972).

       49 Stat. 449, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 151 et seq.

       Annually since 1946, Congress, in riders to the Appropriations Acts for the Board, has tied the definition of “agricultural laborer” in § 2 (3) of the NLRA to § 3 (f) of the FLSA. The latest such rider (90 Stat. 23) provides in relevant part as follows:

        “Provided, That no part of this appropriation shall be available to organize or assist in organizing agricultural laborers or used in connection with investigations, hearings, directives, or orders concerning bargaining units composed of agricultural laborers as referred to in section 2 (3) of the Act of July 5, 1935 (29 U. S. C. 152), and as amended by the Labor-Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended, and as defined in section 3 (f) of the Act of June 25, 1938 (29 U. S. C. 203) . . . .”

       “First, there is the primary meaning. Agriculture includes farming in all its branches. Certain specific practices such as cultivation and tillage of the soil, dairying, etc., are listed as being included in this primary meaning. Second, there is the broader meaning. Agriculture is defined to include things other than farming as so illustrated. It includes any practices, whether or not themselves farming practices, which are performed either by a farmer or on a farm, incidentally to or in conjunction with 'such’ farming operations.” Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co. v. McComb, 337 U. S. 755, 762-763.

       These operations are conducted by the subsidiary, Poultry Processing, Inc., which employs about 20 workers at its feedmill and about 380 at its processing plant in Belfast, Me.

       The Board has held that “when an employer contracts with independent growers for the care and feeding of the employer’s chicks, the employer’s status as a farmer engaged in raising poultry ends with respect to those chicks.” Imco Poultry, 202 N. L. R. B. 259, 260 (1973), citing Strain Poultry Farms, Inc., 160 N. L. R. B. 236 (1966); 163 N. L. R. B. 972 (1967), enf. denied, 405 F. 2d 1025 (CA5 1969); Victor Ryckebosch, Inc., 189 N. L. R. B. 40 (1971), enf. denied, 471 F. 2d 20 (CA9 1972). Cf. Norton & McElroy Produce, Inc., 133 N. L. R. B. 104 (1961).

       This is an instance of the kind contemplated by Mr. Justice Frankfurter in his concurrence in Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co., supra, at 770:
      “Both in the employments which the Fair Labor Standards Act covers and in the exemptions it makes, the Congress has cast upon the courts the duty of making distinctions that often are bound to be so nice as to appear arbitrary in relation to each other. A specific situation, like that presented in this case, presents a problem for construction which may with nearly equal reason be resolved one way rather than another.”

         The Board has found in comparable situations that delivery is incidental to the feedmill operation and therefore not an agricultural activity. McElrath Poultry Co., 206 N. L. R. B. 354, 355 (1973), enf. denied, 494 F. 2d 518 (CA5 1974); Samuel B. Gass, 154 N. L. R. B. 728, 732-733 (1965), enf'd, 377 F. 2d 438 (CA1 1967).

        Samuel B. Gass, supra; Strain Poultry Farms, Inc., supra; Victor Ryckebosch, Inc., supra; Abbott Farms, Inc., 199 N. L. R. B. 472 (1972), enf. denied, 487 F. 2d 904 (CA5 1973); Imco Poultry, supra; McElrath Poultry Co., Inc., supra.

       In 1961 the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor issued an interpretative bulletin which remains effective today. It reads, in pertinent part:
      “Contract arrangements for raising poultry.
      “Feed dealers and processors sometimes enter into contractual arrangements with farmers under which the latter agree to raise to marketable size baby chicks supplied by the former who also undertake to furnish all the required feed and possibly additional items. Typically, the feed dealer or processor retains title to the chickens until they are sold. Under such an arrangement, the activities of the farmers and their employees in raising the poultry are clearly within section 3 (f). The activities of the feed dealer or processor, on the other hand, are not ‘raising of poultry’ and employees engaged in them cannot be considered agricultural employees on that ground. Employees of the feed dealer or processor who perform work on a farm as an incident to or in conjunction with the raising of poultry on the farm are employed in ‘secondary’ agriculture (see §§ 780.137 et seq., [explaining that work must be performed in connection with the farmer-employer's own farming to qualify as ‘secondary’ agriculture by a farmer] and Johnston v. Cotton Producers Assn., 244 F. 2d 553).” 29 CFR § 780.126 (1975).

         NLRB v. Hearst Publications, 322 U. S. 111, 126. In that opinion, id., at 131, the Court stated:
      ‘‘But where the question is one of specific application of a broad statutory term in a proceeding in which the agency administering the statute must determine it initially, the reviewing court’s function is limited. Like the commissioner’s determination under the Longshoremen’s & Harbor Workers’ Act, that a man is not a ‘member of a crew’ (South Chicago Coal & Dock Co. v. Bassett, 309 U. S. 251) or that he was injured ‘in the course of employment’ (Parker v. Motor Boat Sales, 314 U. S. 244) and the Federal Communications Commission’s determination that one company is under the ‘control’ of another (Rochester Telephone Corp. v. United States, 307 U. S. 125), the Board’s determination that specified persons are ‘employees’ under this Act is to be accepted if. it has ‘warrant in the record’ and a reasonable basis in law.” (Footnotes omitted.)

       Cf. NLRB v. United Insurance Co., 390 U. S. 254, 260; Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U. S. 474, 488; NLRB v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 350 U. S. 264, 269.


author: Mr. Justice Brennan Mr. Justice Powell,

text:
    LOCAL 3489, UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, et al. v. USERY, SECRETARY OF LABOR
    No. 75-657.
    Argued November 30, 1976
    Decided January 12, 1977

      Carl B. Frankel argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Alfred E. Lawson, George H. Cohen, Michael H. Gottesman, and Bernard Kleiman.

      John P. Rupp argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Solicitor General Bork, Assistant Attorney General Lee, William F. Sheehan III, Leonard Schaitman, Eloise E. Davies, William J. Kilberg, Beate Bloch, and Marshall A. Deutsch.

        J. Albert Woll and Laurence Gold filed a brief for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations as amicus curiae urging reversal.

   Mr. Justice Brennan

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Secretary of Labor brought this action in the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana under § 402 (b) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA), 73 Stat. 534, 29 U. S. C. § 482 (b), to invalidate the 1970 election of officers of Local 3489, United Steelworkers of America. The Secretary alleged that a provision of the Steelworkers’ International constitution, binding on the Local, that limits eligibility for local union office to members who have attended at least one-half of the regular meetings of the Local for three years previous to the election (unless prevented by union activities or working hours), violated § 401 (e) of the LMRDA, 29 U. S. C. §481 (e). The District Court dismissed the complaint, finding no violation of the Act. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed. 520 F. 2d 516 (1975). We granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among Circuits over whether the Steelworkers’ constitutional provision violates § 401 (e). 424 U. S. 907 (1976). We affirm.

I

At the time of the challenged election, there were approximately 660 members in good standing of Local 3489. The Court of Appeals found that 96.5% of these members were ineligible to hold office, because of failure to satisfy the meeting-attendance rule. Of the 23 eligible members, nine were incumbent union officers. The Secretary argues, and the Court of Appeals held, that the failure of 96.5% of the local members to satisfy the meeting-attendance requirement, and the rule’s effect of requiring potential insurgent candidates to plan their candidacies as early as 18 months in advance of the election when the reasons for their opposition might not have yet emerged, established that the requirement has a substantial antidemocratic effect on local union elections. Petitioners argue that the rule is reasonable because it serves valid union purposes, imposes no very burdensome obligation on the members, and has not proved to be a device that entrenches a particular clique of incumbent officers in the local.

II

The opinions in three cases decided in 1968 have identified the considerations pertinent to the determination whether tlie attendance rule violates §401 (e). Wirtz v. Hotel Employees, 391 U. S. 492; Wirtz v. Bottle Blowers Assn., 389 U. S. 463; Wirtz v. Laborers’ Union, 389 U. S. 477.

The LMRDA does not render unions powerless to restrict candidacies for union office. The injunction in § 401 (e) that “every member in good standing shall be eligible to be a candidate and to hold office” is made expressly “subject to . . . reasonable qualifications uniformly imposed.” But “Congress plainly did not intend that the authorization . . . of ‘reasonable qualifications . . .’ should be given a broad reach. The contrary is implicit in the legislative history of the section and in its wording . . . .” Wirtz v. Hotel Employees, supra, at 499. The basic objective of Title IV of the LMRDA is to guarantee “free and democratic” union elections modeled on “political elections in this country” where “the assumption is that voters will exercise common sense and judgment in casting their ballots.” 391 U. S., at 504. Thus, Title IV is not designed merely to protect the right of a union member to run for a particular office in a particular election. “Congress emphatically asserted a vital public interest in assuring free and democratic union elections that transcends the narrower interest of the complaining union member.” Wirtz v. Bottle Blowers Assn., supra, at 475; Wirtz v. Laborers’ Union, supra, at 483. The goal was to “protect the rights of rank-and-file members to participate fully in the operation of their union through processes of democratic self-government, and, through the election process, to keep the union leadership responsive to the membership.” Wirtz v. Hotel Employees, supra, at 497.

Whether a particular qualification is “reasonable” within the meaning of § 401 (e) must therefore “be measured in terms of its consistency with the Act’s command to unions to conduct ‘free and democratic’ union elections.” 391 U. S., at 499. Congress was not concerned only with corrupt union leadership. Congress chose the goal of “free and democratic” union elections as a preventive measure “to curb the possibility of abuse by benevolent as well as malevolent entrenched leadership.” Id., at 503. Hotel Employees expressly held that that check was seriously impaired by candidacy qualifications which substantially deplete the ranks of those who might run in opposition to incumbents, and therefore held invalid the candidacy limitation there involved that restricted candidacies for certain positions to members who had previously held union office. “Plainly, given the objective of Title IY, a candidacy limitation which renders 93% of union members ineligible for office can hardly be a 'reasonable qualification.’ ” Id., at 502.

Ill

Applying these principles to this case, we conclude that here, too, the antidemocratic effects of the. meeting-attendance rule outweigh the interests urged in its support. Like the bylaw in Hotel Employees, an attendance requirement that results in the exclusion of 96.5% of the members from candidacy for union office hardly seems to- be a “reasonable qualification” consistent with the goal of free and democratic elections. A requirement having that result obviously severely restricts the free choice of the membership in selecting its leaders.

Petitioners argue, however, that the bylaw held violative of § 401 (e) in Hotel Employees differs significantly from the attendance rule here. Under the Hotel Employees bylaw no member could assure by his own efforts that he would be eligible for union office, since others controlled the criterion for eligibility. Here, on the other hand, • a member can assure himself of eligibility for candidacy by attending some 18 brief meetings over a three-year period. In other words, the union would have its rule treated not as excluding a category of member from eligibility, but simply as mandating a procedure to be followed by any member who wishes to be a candidate.

Even examined from this perspective, however, the rule has a restrictive effect on union democracy.' In the absence of a permanent “opposition party” within the union, opposition to the incumbent leadership is likely to emerge in response to particular issues at different times, and member interest in changing union leadership is therefore likely to be at its highest only shortly before elections. Thus it is probable that to require that a member decide upon a potential candidacy at least 18 months in advance of an election when no issues exist to prompt that decision may not foster but discourage candidacies and to that extent impair the general membership’s freedom to oust incumbents in favor of new leadership.

Nor are we persuaded by petitioners’ argument that the Secretary has failed to show an antidemocratic effect because he has not shown that the incumbent leaders of the union became “entrenched” in their offices as a consequence of the operation of the attendance rule. The reasons for leaderships becoming entrenched are difficult to isolate. The election of the same officers year after year may be a signal that antidemocratic election rules have prevented an effective challenge to the regime, or might well signal only that the members are satisfied with their stewardship; if elections are uncontested, opposition factions may have been denied access to the ballot, or competing interests may have compromised differences before the election to maintain a front of unity. Conversely, turnover in offices may result from an open political process, or from a competition limited to candidates who offer no real opposition to an entrenched establishment. But Congress did not saddle the courts with the duty to search out and remove improperly entrenched union leaderships Bather, Congress chose to guarantee union democracy by regulating not the results of a union’s electoral procedure but the procedure itself. Congress decided that if the elections are “free and democratic,” the members themselves are able to correct abuse of power by entrenched leadership. Procedures that unduly restrict free choice among candidates are forbidden without regard to their success or failure in maintaining corrupt leadership.

Petitioners next argue that the rule is reasonable within § 401 (e) because it encourages attendance at -union meetings, and assures more qualified officers by limiting election to those who have demonstrated an interest in union affairs, and are familiar with union problems. But the rule has plainly not served these goals. It has obviously done little to encourage attendance at meetings, which continue to attract only a handful of members. Even as to the more limited goal of encouraging the attendance of potential dissident candidates, very few members, as we have said, are likely to see themselves as such sufficiently far in advance of the election to be spurred to attendance by the rule.

As for assuring the election of knowledgeable and dedicated leaders, the election provisions of the LMRDA express a congressional determination that the best means to this end is to leave the choice of leaders to the membership in open democratic elections, unfettered by arbitrary exclusions. Pursuing this goal by excluding the bulk of the membership from eligibility for office, and thus limiting the possibility of dissident candidacies, runs directly counter to the basic premise of the statute. We therefore conclude that Congress, in guaranteeing every union member the opportunity to hold office, subject only to “reasonable qualifications,” disabled unions from establishing eligibility qualifications as sharply restrictive of the openness of the union political process as is petitioners’ attendance rule.

IY

Finally, petitioners argue that the absence of a precise statement of what the Secretary of Labor and the courts will regard as reasonable prevents the drafting of a meeting-attendance rule with any assurance that it will be valid under §401 (e). The Secretary, to whom Congress has assigned a special role in the administration of the Act, see Calhoon v. Harvey, 379 U. S. 134, 140 (1964); Dunlop v. Bachowski, 421 U. S. 560 (1975), has announced the following view:

“Experience has demonstrated that it is not feasible to establish arbitrary guidelines for judging the reasonableness of [a meeting-attendance eligibility requirement]. Its reasonableness must be gauged in the light of all the circumstances of the particular case, including not only the frequency of meetings, the number of meetings which must be attended and the period of time over which the requirement extends, but also such factors as the nature, availability and extent of excuse provisions, whether all or most members have the opportunity to attend meetings, and the impact of the rule, i. e., the number or percentage of members who would be rendered ineligible by its application.” 29 CFR §452.38 (a) (1976).

Obviously, this standard leads to more uncertainty than would a less flexible rule. But in using the word “reasonable,” Congress clearly contemplated exactly such a flexible result. Moreover, on the facts of this case and in light of Hotel Employees, petitioners’ contention that they had no way of knowing that a rule disqualifying over 90% of a local’s members from office would be regarded as unreasonable in the absence of substantial justification is unpersuasive.

Affirmed.

Mr. Justice Powell,

with whom Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice Rehnquist join,

dissenting.

The petitioners’ attendance rule, imposed by the constitution of the International Steelworkers’ Union, provides that no member shall be eligible for election to a local union office unless he has attended one-half of the regular meetings of his local union during the preceding 36 months. The Court holds today, resolving a conflict among the Circuits, that this eligibility requirement is not reasonable within the meaning of § 401 (e) of Title IV of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, 29 U. S. C. § 481 (e). As this holding seems to me to be an unwarranted interference with the right of the union to manage its own internal affairs, I dissent.

Stated broadly, the purpose of Title IV of the Act is to insure “free and democratic” elections. But

“[t]he legislative history [of the Act] shows that Congress weighed how best, to legislate against revealed abuses in union elections without departing needlessly from its long-standing policy against unnecessary governmental intrusion into internal union affairs.” Wirtz v. Bottle Blowers Assn., 389 U. S. 463, 470-471 (1968) ; Wirtz v. Hotel Employees, 391 U. S. 492, 496 (1968).

Section 401 (e) reflects a congressional intent to accommodate both of these purposes. It provides that a labor organization may set “reasonable qualifications uniformly imposed” for members in good standing who wish to be candidates and to hold office. There is no contention that the attendance rule in question was not “uniformly imposed.” Nor does the rule render ineligible for office any member who displays enough interest to attend half of his local’s meetings.

The Court nevertheless, relying heavily on Hotel Employees, holds that this rule imposes an unreasonable qualification, violative of §401 (e). Hotel Employees involved a “prior office” rule that limited candidates for local union office to members who previously had held elective union office. The Court’s opinion in that case emphasized that the effect of the prior-office rule was to disqualify 93.1% of the union’s membership. In this case, the respondent argues that Hotel Employees enunciated a per se “effects” rule, requiring invalidation of union elections whenever an eligibility rule disqualifies all but a small percentage of the union’s membership. Although the Court today does not in terms adopt a per se “effects” analysis, it comes close to doing so. The fact that 96.5% of Local 3489’s members chose not to comply with its rule was given controlling weight.

In my view, the Court has extended the reach of Hotel Employees far beyond the holding and basic rationale of that case. Indeed, the rule there involved was acknowledged to be a sport — “virtually unique in trade union practice.” 391 U. S., at 505. It was a rule deliberately designed, as intimated by the Court’s opinion, to entrench union leadership. Id., at 499. Moreover, the general effect of the rule in Hotel Employees was predictable at the time the rule was adopted. By limiting eligibility to members who held or previously had held elective office, the disqualification of a large proportion of the membership was a purposeful and inevitable effect of the structure of the rule itself. The attendance rule before the Court today has no comparable feature. No member is precluded from establishing eligibility. Nor can the effect of the rule be predicted, as any member who demonstrates the requisite interest in union affairs is eligible to seek office. In short, the only common factor between the prior-office rule in Hotel Employees and that before the Court today is the similarity in the percentage of ineligible members. But in one case the effect was predetermined for the purpose of perpetuating control of a few insiders, whereas here the effect resulted from the free choice — perhaps the indifference — of the rank-and-file membership.

In Brennan v. Steelworkers, 489 F. 2d 884 (1973), the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit sustained the validity of the identical rule at issue here. In distinguishing Hotel Employees, it said:

“The self-evident restrictive character of the 'prior office holding’ rule, when accompanied by the numerical effect of drastically limiting the number of eligible candidates for office, justifies the result in Hotel Employees. It is, however, erroneous to conclude, as the Secretary contends, that Hotel Employees commands blind adherence to a per se theory even where, as here, the rule does not by itself disqualify anyone and . . . does serve legitimate union objectives.” 489 F. 2d, at 889.

The court went on to conclude that the purposes served by this attendance rule are legitimate.

Although the opinion of the Court today discounts the weight to be given these purposes, I agree with the Sixth Circuit that at least facially they serve legitimate and meritorious union purposes: (i) encouraging attendance at meetings; (ii) requiring candidates for office to demonstrate a meaningful interest in the union and its affairs; and (iii) assuring that members who seek office have had an opportunity to become informed as to union affairs. One may argue that requiring attendance at 18 of the 36 meetings prior to the election goes beyond what may be necessary to serve these purposes. But this is a “judgment call” best left to the unions themselves absent a stronger showing of potential for abuse than has been made in this case.,

The record in this case is instructive. Twenty-three members were eligible to run for office in the 1970 election. These were members who were nominated and who also had complied with the attendance requirement. The record does not show, and indeed no one knows, how many members were eligible under the rule but who were not nominated. Three candidates competed for the office of president, four for the three trustee offices, and six ran unopposed for the remaining offices. Of the 10 officers elected, six were incumbents. Nonincumbents were elected to the offices of vice president, treasurer, recording secretary, and the minor office of guide. There was no history of entrenched leadership and no evidence of restrictive union practices precluding free and democratic elections. Indeed, the record is to the contrary. Five different presidents had been elected during the preceding 10 years, and an estimated 40 changes in officers had occurred in the course of four separate elections. Bernard Frye, who initiated this case by complaint to the Secretary, won the presidency in an election subsequent to 1970 and thereafter lost it.

In the final analysis, respondent, who bears the burden of proving that the rule is “unreasonable,” rests his entire case on a facial attack upon the attendance rule itself, an attack supported by a statistical “effects test” that at best is ambiguous and one that could invalidate almost any attendance requirement that served legitimate union purposes. In my view, the respondent has failed to prove that the rule is unreasonable. For these reasons, I would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

       Constitution of International Union, United Steelworkers of America, Art. VII, §9 (c) (1968).

       This section provides, in pertinent part:
      “(e) In any election required by this section which is to be held by secret ballot a reasonable opportunity shall be given for the nomination of candidates and every member in good standing shall be eligible to be a candidate and to hold office (subject to section 504 and to reasonable qualifications uniformly imposed) and shall have the right to vote for or otherwise support the candidate or candidates of his choice, without being subject to penalty, discipline, or improper interference or reprisal of any kind by such organization or any member thereof. . . . The election shall be conducted in accordance with the constitution and bylaws of such organization insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this title.”

       The Steelworkers’ attendance requirement was held not to violate §401 (e) in Brennan v. Steelworkers, 489 F. 2d 884 (CA6 1973). Similar meeting-attendance requirements of other unions were found unreasonable in Usery v. Transit Union, 545 F. 2d 1300 (CA1 1976); Brennan v. Teamsters, 161 U. S. App. D. C. 173, 494 F. 2d 1092, 1099-1100 (1974); Wirtz v. Bottle Blowers Assn., 405 F. 2d 176 (CA3 1968).

       Petitioners challenge this figure in this Court, but we cannot find it clearly erroneous. It is stipulated that of the approximately 660 members of the local, only 22 had attended enough meetings to qualify, and one additional member was found eligible by adding his excused absences to the meetings he attended. Petitioners now contend that other members may also have been eligible because of excused absences. In view of the admitted facts that the average attendance at meetings was
      only 47, and that the meetings were held in split day and evening sessions so that workers on any shift could attend, it seems unlikely that a significant number of workers could qualify by this method. In any event, petitioners introduced no evidence to suggest that members other than the above 23 were eligible, and the District Court, in its unpublished opinion, apparently accepted the Secretary’s assertion that “in excess of 90%” of the local’s membership was disqualified. In these circumstances, we cannot speculate that the findings of the courts below may have been materially inaccurate.

       Regular meetings were held on a monthly basis. Thus, in order to attend half of the meetings in a three-year period, a previously inactive member desiring to run for office would have to begin attending 18 months before the election.

       Petitioners argue that attendance at 18 relatively short meetings over three years is no very onerous burden on a union member. But this argument misconceives the evil at which the statute aims. We must judge the eligibEity rule not by the burden it imposes on the individual candidate but by its effect on free and democratic processes of union government. Wirtz v. Hotel Employees, 391 U. S., at 499.

       The Secretary suggests that in most unions there is no such organized opposition and that the pattern described in the text is indeed typical.

       Attendance at Local 3489’s meetings averages 47 out of approximately 660 members. There is no indication in the record that this total represents a significant increase over attendance before the institution of the challenged rule.

       Also unpersuasive is the argument that a union cannot know in advance how many of its members will be disqualified by a meeting-attendance rule. While the precise number may not be predictable, petitioners must have had some awareness of the general attendance rate at union meetings, and if Local 3489’s attendance rate is at all typical (and there is no contention that it is not), it should have been fairly obvious that a rule disqualifying all who had not maintained 50% attendance for three years, admittedly one of the most stringent such rules among labor unions, would have a significant antidemocratic impact.