source: Caselaw Access Project

author:
      Justice Stevens Justice Marshall,
      Chief Justice Burger, Justice Powell,

license: Public Domain

text:
    BENDER et al. v. WILLIAMSPORT AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT et al.
    No. 84-773.
    Argued October 15, 1985
    Decided March 25, 1986

      Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Brennan, MARSHALL, Blackmun, and O’Connor, JJ., joined. Marshall, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 549. Burger, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which White and Rehnquist, JJ., joined, post, p. 551. Powell, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 555.

      James M. Smart, Jr., argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Samuel Eric Hans Ericsson, Lynn Robert Buzzard, Kimberlee Wood Colby, Curran Tiffany, Gerald W. Seevers, and Michael Joseph Woodruff Deputy Solicitor General Fried argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Lee, Acting Assistant Attorney General Willard, Michael W. McConnell, Anthony J. Steinmeyer, and Robert V. Zener.

      John C. Youngman, Jr., pro se, argued the cause for respondents and filed a brief for himself.

      Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the Ad Hoe Group of State Education Officials, School Administrators, and School Board Members by William H. Ellis; for the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights by Steven Frederick McDowell; for the Concerned Women for American Education and Legal Defense Foundation by Michael P. Farris and Jordan W. Lorence; for the Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship of the U. S. A. by George R. Grange II; and for the United States Catholic Conference by Wilfred R. Caron and Mark E. Chopko.

      Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the American Association of School Administrators by David S. Tatel and Elliot M. Mincberg; for the American Civil Liberties Union et al. by Jack D. Novik, Charles S. Sims, Burt Neubome, Stefan Presser, and Joy L. Koletsky; for the American Jewish Committee et al. by Samuel Rabinove, Richard T. Foltin, William B. Duffy, Jr., and William S. Ellis; for the American Jewish Congress et al. by Robert Reinstein, Jeffrey I. Pasek, Theodore R. Mann, and Nathan Z. Dershowitz; and for the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith et al. by Ruti G. Teitel, Justin J. Finger, Meyer Eisenberg, Jeffrey P. Sinensky, and Steven M. Freeman.

      Briefs of amici curiae were filed for the Baptist Joint Committtee on Public Affairs et al. by Donald R. Brewer; for Kiwanis International et al. by Stanley C. Fickle; and for the Rutherford Institute et al. by Larry L. Crain, Guy 0. Farley, Jr., John W. Whitehead, James J. Knicely, Thomas S. Neuberger, Thomas O. Kotouc, and William B. Hollberg.

   Justice Stevens

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case raises an important question of federal appellate jurisdiction that was not considered by the Court of Appeals: Whether one member of a School Board has standing to appeal from a declaratory judgment against the Board. We conclude that although the School Board itself had a sufficient stake in the outcome of the litigation to appeal, an individual Board member cannot invoke the Board’s interest in the case to confer standing upon himself.

I — I

In September 1981 a group of high school students in Wil-liamsport, Pennsylvania, formed a club called “Petros” for the purpose of promoting “spiritual growth and positive attitudes in the lives of its members.” App. 46. The group asked the Principal of the high school for permission to meet on school premises during student activity periods scheduled diming the regular schoolday on Tuesdays and Thursdays. The Principal allowed Petros to hold an organizational meeting that was attended by approximately 45 students. At that meeting passages of scripture were read and some students prayed. There is no evidence that any students, or parents, expressed any opposition or concern about future meetings of Petros. The Principal nevertheless advised the group that they could not hold any further meetings until he had discussed the matter with the School Superintendent. The Superintendent, in turn, advised the students that he would respond to their written request for recognition after he received “competent legal advice [from the School District’s Solicitor] as to the propriety of approving establishment of the proposed prayer club” on school premises. Id., at 42.

On November 16, 1981, the Principal and the Superintendent met with representatives of Petros and advised them that “based on the Solicitor’s legal opinion, their request must be denied.” 563 F. Supp. 697, 701 (MD Pa. 1983). The legal opinion is not a part of the record; nor does the record contain any evidence that the Principal, the Superintendent, or any other person except the Solicitor had voiced any opposition to the proposed meetings by Petros. Indeed, Petros was informed that it could meet off school premises and “would be given released time during the activity period” if it could secure “a location and an adult supervisor, preferably a clergyman” for their meetings. Ibid.

The students thereafter wrote a letter to the Chairman of the Williamsport Area School Board appealing the Superintendent’s decision. At a meeting held January 19, 1982, the Board upheld the Superintendent’s decision and “denied the appeal on the basis of the Solicitor’s opinion.” Ibid. (citations omitted).

II

On June 2, 1982, 10 of the students filed suit in the United States District Court against the Williamsport Area School District, the 9 members of the School Board, the Superintendent of the District, and the Principal of the high school. Although there is a general allegation in the first paragraph of the complaint that the action was brought against the defendants “in their individual and official capacities,” App. 13, the specific allegation concerning each of the named members of the Board was in this form: “John C. Youngman, Jr., is a member of the Williamsport Area School Board and is sued in that capacity,” id., at 16. The complaint alleged that the defendants’ refusal to recognize Petros and to allow it to meet on the same basis as other student groups because óf its religious activities violated the First Amendment. The complaint prayed for declaratory and injunctive relief.

One answer was filed on behalf of all the defendants. Although they admitted most of the material allegations of the complaint, they alleged that they had “requested and received in writing an opinion from the school district solicitor and legal counsel that it would be unlawful, improper and unconstitutional to recognize said group as a student organization.” Id., at 33.

After plaintiffs completed their discovery (defendants took no depositions), the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment supported by affidavits, the deposition testimony, and statements of material fact not in dispute. On November 9, 1982, the District Court entered an order finding that the record was incomplete. It thereupon directed the parties to submit affidavits or other documentation concerning “the exact nature of the activity period, the type of activities or clubs that have been, and would be, approved, and what proposed groups, if any, have been denied approval.” Id., at 101. After that additional information was supplied, and after the case had been fully briefed, the District Court on May Í2, 1983, filed a detailed and carefully written opinion in which it stated:

“Presently before the court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. . . . Although the case presents only a question of law, this is not to say that the facts are unimportant. On the contrary, the undisputed facts are of paramount importance to the resolution of the legal question presented in this case. A slight change in the facts could very well have dictated a contrary decision.
“After carefully reviewing those facts, and after giving full consideration to all pertinent legal authority, the court concludes that because the defendant school district is not constitutionally required to deny the plaintiffs the opportunity to meet, by doing so solely on constitutional grounds it has impermissibly burdened their free-speech rights. Accordingly, summary judgment will be granted in favor of the plaintiffs.” 563 F. Supp., at 699-700.

The final order entered by the District Court was a ruling “in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants on plaintiffs’ freedom of speech claim.” No injunction was entered, and no relief was granted against any defendant in his individual capacity. The District Court, in effect, merely held that the Board’s attorney was incorrect in his legal advice.

The School District did not challenge the judgment of the District Court in any way. It made no motion for a stay and took no appeal. Instead, it decided to comply with the judgment and to allow Petros to conduct the meetings it had requested.

However, John C. Youngman, Jr., who was then still a member of the Board, did file a timely notice of appeal.

H h-i I — i

In the Court of Appeals no one raised any question about Mr. Youngman’s standing to appeal. The court did note that all of the original plaintiffs had graduated from high school, but it granted a motion to add additional plaintiffs who were currently enrolled students in order to prevent the case from becoming moot. 741 F. 2d 538, 542, n. 4 (CA3 1984). Neither the majority nor the dissenting opinion even mentioned Mr. Youngman.

After repeatedly stressing “the crucial role which the particular facts play in every first amendment analysis,” id., at 541-542, the majority of the Court of Appeals held “that the particular circumstances disclosed by this record and present at the Williamsport Area High School lead to the inexorable conclusion that the constitutional balance of interests tilts against permitting the Petros activity to be conducted within the school as a general activity program,” id., at 561.

In dissent, Judge Adams suggested that the majority had implicitly adopted a per se rule because of its concern about “the possibility of unconstitutional extensions of the Wil-liamsport arrangement elsewhere,” instead of performing the “more difficult adjudicative task [of carefully sifting the facts] on a case-by-case basis.” Id., at 569.

The importance of the question presented by the students’ petition for certiorari persuaded us that the case merited plenary review. 469 U. S. 1206 (1985). After granting cer-tiorari, however, we noticed that neither the Board nor any of the defendants except Mr. Youngman opposed the students’ position and that only Mr. Youngman had challenged the District Court’s judgment by invoking the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals. We therefore find it necessary to answer the question whether Mr. Youngman had a sufficient stake in the outcome of the litigation to support appellate jurisdiction. The parties and the amici have identified three different capacities in which Mr. Youngman may have had standing to appeal — as an individual, as a member of the Board, and as a parent.

IV

Before considering each of the standing theories, it is appropriate to restate certain basic principles that limit the power of every federal court. Federal courts are not courts of general jurisdiction; they have only the power that is authorized by Article III of the Constitution and the statutes enacted by Congress pursuant thereto. See, e. g., Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 173-180 (1803). For that reason, every federal appellate court has a special obligation to “satisfy itself not only of its own jurisdiction, but also that of the lower courts in a cause under review,” even though the parties are prepared to concede it. Mitchell v. Maurer, 293 U. S. 237, 244 (1934). See Juidice v. Vail, 430 U. S. 327, 331-332 (1977) (standing). “And if the record discloses that the lower court was without jurisdiction this court will notice the defect, although the parties make no contention concerning it. [When the lower federal court] lack[s] jurisdiction, we have jurisdiction on appeal, not of the merits but merely for the purpose of correcting the error of the lower court in entertaining the suit.” United States v. Corrick, 298 U. S. 435, 440 (1936) (footnotes omitted).

This obligation to notice defects in a court of appeals’ subject-matter jurisdiction assumes a special importance when a constitutional question is presented. In such cases we have strictly adhered to the standing requirements to ensure that our deliberations will have the benefit of adversary presentation and a full development of the relevant facts. Thus, as we emphasized in Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U. S. 464, 472 (1982):

“[A]t an irreducible minimum, Art. Ill requires the party who invokes the court’s authority to ‘show that he personally has suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the putatively illegal conduct of the defendant,’ Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U. S. 91, 99 (1979), and that the injury ‘fairly can be traced to the challenged action’ and ‘is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision,’ Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., 426 U. S. 26, 38, 41 (1976). . . .
“The requirement of ‘actual injury redressable by the court,’ Simon, supra, at 39, serves several of the ‘implicit policies embodied in Article III,’ Flast [v. Cohen, 392 U. S. 83,] 96 [(1968)]. It tends to assure that the legal questions presented to the court will be resolved, not in the rarified atmosphere of a debating society, but in a concrete factual context conducive to a realistic appreciation of the consequences of judicial action. The ‘standing’ requirement serves other purposes. Because it assures an actual factual setting in which the litigant asserts a claim of injury in fact, a court may decide the case with some confidence that its decision will not pave the way for lawsuits which have some, but not all, of the facts of the case actually decided by the court.”

V

The first paragraph of the complaint alleged that the action was brought against the defendants “in their individual and official capacities.” App. 13. There is, however, nothing else in the complaint, or in the record on which the District Court’s judgment was based, to support the suggestion that relief was sought against any School Board member in his or her individual capacity. Certainly the District Court’s judgment granted no such relief. See n. 1, supra. Accordingly, to paraphrase our holding in Brandon v. Holt, 469 U. S. 464, 469 (1985), “[t]he course of proceedings . . . make it abundantly clear that the action against [Mr. Youngman] was in his official capacity and only in that capacity.” See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U. S. 159, 167, n. 14 (1985). Since the judgment against Mr. Youngman was not in his individual capacity, he had no standing to appeal in that capacity.

VI

As a member of the School Board sued in his official capacity Mr. Youngman has no personal stake in the outcome of the litigation and therefore did not have standing to file the notice of appeal. As we held in Brandon v. Holt, supra, “a judgment against a public servant ‘in his official capacity’ imposes liability on the entity that he represents provided, of course, the public entity received notice and an opportunity to respond.” Id., at 471-472. We repeated this point in Kentucky v. Graham:

“Official-capacity suits . . . ‘generally represent only another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent.’ Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U. S. 658, 690, n. 55 (1978). As long as the government entity receives notice and an opportunity to respond, an official-capacity suit is, in all respects other than name, to be treated as a suit against the entity. Brandon, supra, at 471-472. It is not a suit against the official personally, for the real party in interest is the entity. Thus, while an award of damages against an official in his personal capacity can be executed only against the official’s personal assets, a plaintiff seeking to recover on a damages judgment in an official-capacity suit must look to the government entity itself.” 473 U. S., at 165-166 (emphasis in original, footnote omitted).

Mr. Youngman’s status as a School Board member does not permit him to “step into the shoes of the Board” and invoke its right to appeal. In this case, Mr. Youngman was apparently the lone dissenter in a decision by the other eight members of the School Board to forgo an appeal. Tr. of Oral Arg. 7. Generally speaking, members of collegial bodies do not have standing to perfect an appeal the body itself has declined to take. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit so held in Smuck v. Hobson, 132 U. S. App. D. C. 372, 374-375, 408 F. 2d 175, 177-178 (1969) (en banc) (footnote omitted):

“We also find that Mr. Smuck has no appealable interest as a member of the Board of Education. While he was in that capacity a named defendant, the Board of Education was undeniably the principal figure and could have been sued alone as a collective entity. Appellant Smuck had a fair opportunity to participate in its defense, and in the decision not to appeal. Having done so, he has no separate interest as an individual in the litigation. The order directs the Board to take certain actions. But since its decisions are made by vote as a collective whole, there is no apparent way in which Smuck as an individual could violate the decree and thereby become subject to enforcement proceedings.”

See id., at 387, 408 F. 2d, at 190 (McGowan, J., concurring in part and concurring in result).

VII

At oral argument Mr. Youngman advised the Court that he is the parent of at least one student attending the Williams-port Area High School and that as a matter of conscience he is opposed to prayer activities on school premises during regular school hours. The Solicitor General submits that Mr. Youngman’s status as a parent provides an adequate predicate for federal appellate jurisdiction.

Mr. Youngman’s status as an aggrieved parent, however, like any other kindred fact showing the existence of a justi-ciable “case” or “controversy” under Article III, must affirmatively appear in the record. As the first Justice Harlan observed, “the presumption ... is that the court below was without jurisdiction” unless “the contrary appears affirmatively from the record.” King Bridge Co. v. Otoe County, 120 U. S. 225, 226 (1887). Accord, Thomas v. Board of Trustees, 195 U. S. 207, 210 (1904); Minnesota v. Northern Securities Co., 194 U. S. 48, 62-63 (1904). That lack of standing was not noticed by either party matters not, for as we said in Mansfield C. & L. M. R. Co. v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379, 382 (1884):

“[T]he rule, springing from the nature and limits of the judicial power of the United States, is inflexible and without exception, which requires this court, of its own motion, to deny its own jurisdiction, and, in the exercise of its appellate power, that of all other courts of the United States, in all cases where such jurisdiction does not affirmatively appear in the record on which, in the exercise of that power, it is called to act. On every writ of error or appeal, the first and fundamental question is that of jurisdiction, first, of this court, and then of the court from which the record comes. This question the court is bound to ask and answer for itself, even when not otherwise suggested, and without respect to the relation of the parties to it.”

Accord, Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Willard, 220 U. S. 413, 419 (1911); Kentucky v. Powers, 201 U. S. 1, 35-36 (1906); Great Southern Fire Proof Hotel Co. v. Jones, 177 U. S. 449, 453 (1900). See Thomson v. Gaskill, 315 U. S. 442, 446 (1942). Moreover, because it is not “sufficient that jurisdiction may be inferred argumentatively from averments in the pleadings,” Grace v. American Central Ins. Co., 109 U. S. 278, 284 (1883); Thomas v. Board of Trustees, 195 U. S., at 210, it follows that the necessary factual predicate may not be gleaned from the briefs and arguments themselves. This “first principle of federal jurisdiction” applies “whether the case is at the trial stage or the appellate stage.” P. Bator, P. Mishkin, D. Shapiro, & H. Wechsler, Hart and Wechsler’s The Federal Courts and the Federal System 835-836 (2d ed. 1973).

There is nothing in the record indicating anything about Mr. Youngman’s status as a parent. Nor is there anything in the record to indicate that he or his children have suffered any injury as a result of the District Court’s judgment, or as a result of the activities of Petros subsequent to the entry of that judgment. For all that appears in the record, Mr. Youngman and his children might even be active supporters of Petros.

The reasons why Mr. Youngman may not take an appeal in his individual capacity also foreclose an appeal in his capacity as a parent. His interest as a parent in the outcome of the litigation differs from his interest as a member of the School Board which, as we have already noted, is legally that of a “different legal personage.” See n. 6, supra. Since Mr. Youngman was not sued as a parent in the District Court, he had no right to participate in the proceedings in that court in that capacity without first filing an appropriate motion or pleading setting forth the claim or defense that he desired to assert. Thus, even if one were amenable to the dissent’s unprecedented (and unexplained) suggestion that the principle governing determination of subject-matter jurisdiction should be relaxed on appeal, the proposed exception for litigants who were “proper part[ies]” in the District Court, post, at 552, would not help Mr. Youngman because he could not perfect an appeal in either capacity in which he was a “party” in the District Court, i. e., as a School Board member sued in his individual capacity or as a Board member sued in his official capacity. Tacitly conceding Mr. Youngman’s lack of standing on these two bases, the dissent instead would confer standing on Mr. Youngman as a parent — a capacity in which he plainly was not a party in the District Court and to which, therefore, the dissent’s reasoning does not apply. Having failed to assert his parental interest in the District Court — or to adduce any factual support for that interest in this Court— Mr. Youngman has no right to prosecute an appeal in his capacity as a parent.

We therefore hold that because the Court of Appeals was without jurisdiction to hear the appeal, it was without authority to decide the merits. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

It is so ordered.

Justice Marshall,

concurring.

I join Justice Stevens’ opinion for the Court. I write separately to emphasize that the parties cannot, contrary to the contention of the Solicitor General and The Chief Justice, invoke the Article III jurisdiction of this Court through a belated nontestimonial statement by Mr. Youngman that he is a parent of a child in the Williamsport Area High School.

This lawsuit on appeal was not “the same dispute between the same parties,” post, at 551, as the one conducted in the District Court. The dispute litigated in the District Court was one between certain students wishing to conduct prayer group activities as part of an official school activity period, on the one hand, and a School Board that refused them permission to do so, on the other. Mr. Youngman participated in that lawsuit only as a member of the School Board, sued in his official capacity. The real party in interest in that lawsuit was the Board. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U. S. 159, 165-166 (1985). That controversy ended with the entry of the District Court judgment; the School Board, voting 8-1 with Mr. Youngman in the minority, abandoned its earlier position and agreed to allow plaintiffs to conduct the prayer group activities they sought. There was therefore nothing left to litigate between those parties.

The lawsuit sought to be litigated on appeal is a different one. This dispute, under The Chief Justice’s theory, is one between Mr. Youngman, asserting that he is a parent of a child in the Williamsport Area High School whose First Amendment rights would be infringed by his attendance at a school whose activities impermissibly advance religion, on the one hand, and students seeking to conduct prayer group activities, on the other. The School Board itself is nowhere to be found. I do not contest that Mr. Youngman could pursue this dispute on appeal had he intervened in the lawsuit in his capacity as a parent. Absent such intervention, it is conceivable that Mr. Youngman might bottom his standing to raise such an argument on facts in the record setting out his status as a parent. There are, however, no such facts anywhere in the extensive record in this case. There is not one word in the record indicating that Mr. Youngman is a father at all. Nor did Mr. Youngman claim such status in his notice of appeal. App. 166.

In fact, the brief for respondent filed in this Court suggests that Mr. Youngman did not have a child in the Williamsport Area High School when he filed his notice of appeal from the District Court’s decision on June 10,1983. Benjamin Young-man, rather, apparently is claimed to have begun studying at that school several months later, in the fall of 1983. Brief for Respondent Youngman 6, and n. 3. Assertions in the parties’ briefs are not part of the record for purposes of determining our jurisdiction. This discrepancy, however, illustrates the wisdom of our long-established rule requiring that the facts supporting our Article III jurisdiction “appea[r] affirmatively from the record.” King Bridge Co. v. Otoe County, 120 U. S. 225, 226 (1887).

Because no facts appear in the record supporting Mr. Youngman’s status as the parent of a child enrolled in the Williamsport Area High School opposed to petitioners’ activities, I join the opinion and judgment of the Court vacating the judgment below and remanding with instructions to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Chief Justice Burger,

with whom Justice White and Justice Rehnquist join, dissenting.

I agree with the Court that the judgment of the District Court allowing Petros to meet during the student extracurricular activity period must be reinstated. Because respondent Youngman had standing to appeal, however, I would reach the merits of this dispute and reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

1 — I

Mr. Youngman is a parent of a student at Williamsport High School; as a matter of conscience he is opposed to prayer activities on school premises during school hours. As this Court has repeatedly held, parents have standing to challenge conditions in public schools that their children attend. See Engel v. Vitale, 370 U. S. 421 (1962); Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U. S. 306 (1952). The Court’s principal objection to Youngman’s standing as a parent stems from his failure “ ‘to allege facts demonstrating that he is a proper party to invoke judicial resolution of the dispute and the exercise of the court’s remedial powers.’” Ante, at 545-547, and n. 8 (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 518 (1975)). It is, of course, perfectly sensible to impose such pleading burdens upon the plaintiff who initiates the litigation. These burdens, however, need not be placed upon a properly named defendant, like Mr. Youngman, who seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals. Once the jurisdiction of the district court over a particular dispute is established, it seems clear that the same dispute between the same parties will remain within the Article III powers of the courts on appeal. To be sure, we require that the case or controversy requirement be met throughout the course of the litigation. But the method for determining whether the case or controversy exists and the burdens placed on the parties should not, indeed cannot, be the same on appeal as in the district court. At the district court stage, the facts required by Warth, supra, should normally appear on the face of the complaint. At the appellate stage, however, the “complaining party” does not allege any facts but merely identifies himself as a party to the case in the district court and challenges the validity of that decision. Only if the appellant’s standing is challenged must he allege facts sufficient to convince the court of appeals that he is a proper party to pursue the appeal. Here, petitioners not only failed to challenge Young-man’s standing before the Court of Appeals, they also conceded that, had they challenged Youngman’s standing, he would have satisfied the Warth standing test. Tr. of Oral Arg. 5.

II

I would reach the issue the Court granted certiorari to address: whether the Establishment Clause requires a public high school to prevent a student-initiated, student-led group from meeting during an extracurricular activity period.

The Establishment Clause prohibits Congress and, through the Fourteenth Amendment, the States from passing any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” As we have observed on other occasions, the precise contours of this prohibition remain unclear. But it is common ground that nothing in the Establishment Clause requires the State to suppress a person’s speech merely because the content of the speech is religious in character. In McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U. S. 618, 641 (1978), Justice Brennan emphasized in his opinion concurring in the judgment that “[t]he Establishment Clause does not license government to treat religion and those who teach or practice it, simply by virtue of their status as such, as subversive of American ideals and therefore subject to unique disabilities.” And more recently, in Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U. S. 263 (1981), we held that the Establishment Clause did not justify a university’s content-based exclusion of religious speech from a forum generally open to student groups.

Widmar clearly controls the resolution of this case. Petros is á student-initiated and student-led group seeking the same forum available to other student extracurricular activity groups. The students would have been allowed to meet to discuss moral philosophy or Marxism, to practice French, or to play chess; but, since they chose to worship, the school decided that it could not allow the group to meet without violating the Establishment Clause.

The Court of Appeals agreed that the Establishment Clause prohibited Petros from meeting on school premises because to allow it to meet could have been misinterpreted by other students as active state support of religion. Under that analysis, because an individual’s discussion of religious beliefs may be confused by others as being that of the State, both must be viewed as the same. Yet the several commands of the First Amendment require vision capable of distinguishing between state establishment of religion, which is prohibited by the Establishment Clause, and individual participation and advocacy of religion which, far from being prohibited by the Establishment Clause, is affirmatively protected by the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment. If the latter two commands are to retain any vitality, utterly unproven, subjective impressions of some hypothetical students should not be allowed to transform individual expression of religious belief into state advancement of religion.

No one would contend that the State would be authorized to dismantle a church erected by private persons on private property because overwhelming evidence showed that other members of the community thought the church was owned and operated by the State. That the “primary effect” of state inaction might turn out to advance the cause of organized religion has no bearing upon the threshold question of whether the challenged activity is conducted by the State or by individuals.

The Establishment Clause mandates state neutrality, not hostility, toward religion. As Justice Black stated for the Court in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U. S. 1, 18 (1947), the First Amendment “requires the state to be neutral in its relations with groups of religious believers and nonbelievers; it does not require the state to be their adversary. State power is no more to be used so as to handicap religions than it is to favor them.” In Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U. S. 306 (1952), the Court upheld a state law allowing schools to release students, during school hours, so that they could receive religious instruction elsewhere. Although the State did not compel students to go to religious classes, the program undoubtedly advanced the cause of religion. Justice Douglas, writing for the Court, eloquently rejected the suggestion that the program thereby violated the Establishment Clause:

“We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. We guarantee the freedom to worship as one chooses. We make room for as wide a variety of beliefs and creeds as the spiritual needs of man deem necessary. We sponsor an attitude on the part of government that shows no partiality to any one group and that lets each flourish according to the zeal of its adherents and the appeal of its dogma. When the state encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups.” Id., at 313-314.

By granting the student prayer group equal access to the student activity forum, the order of the District Court “follows the best of our traditions,” id., at 314, and is wholly consistent with the Constitution. Although I would have reached this issue on the merits, it is appropriate that the Court, by vacating the judgment of the Court of Appeals, restores the sound analysis and judgment of the District Court.

Justice Powell,

dissenting.

I agree with The Chief Justice that respondent Young-man has standing to appeal, and also agree with much of his dissenting opinion. I write briefly to say that on its merits, this case is controlled by Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U. S. 263 (1981).

As in that case, respondent School District simply had “created a forum generally open for use by student groups.” Id., at 267. The School District provided 30-minute periods on Tuesdays and Thursdays for high school students to meet in groups in separate school rooms for extracurricular activities, including discussion or debate on any subject of their choosing. A religious group was formed for reading passages of scripture and for prayer. Although there were no complaints by students, faculty, or parents, on the basis of a legal opinion the Principal advised the group that it could not meet during these periods. As The Chief Justice observes in his dissent, this is “a student-initiated and student-led group seeking the same forum available to other student extracurricular activity groups.” Ante, at 553. At the time of this suit, there was a total of 25 identified groups, each organized by students. All of these groups were free to discuss any subject other than a religious one.

In Widmar, under essentially the same circumstances, we held that the University of Missouri at Kansas City had “discriminated against student groups and speakers based on their desire to use a generally open forum to engage in religious worship and discussion. These are forms of speech and association protected by the First Amendment.” 454 U. S., at 269. The only arguable distinction between Wid-mar and this case is that Widmar involved university students while the groups here are composed of high school students. We did note in Widmar that university students are “less impressionable than younger students and should be able to appreciate that the University’s policy is one of neutrality toward religion.” Id., at 274, n. 14. Other decisions, however, have recognized that the First Amendment rights of speech and association extend also to high school students. See, e. g., Board of Education v. Pico, 457 U. S. 853, 864 (1982) (opinion of Brennan, J.); Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 393 U. S. 503, 506-507 (1969) (citing cases). I do not believe — particularly in this age of massive media information — that the few years difference in age between high school and college students justifies departing from Widmar. I accordingly dissent.

       The full text of the court’s order read as follows:
      “NOW, this 12th day of May, 1983, in accordance with the reasoning set forth in the accompanying Opinion, it is hereby ordered that:
      “(1) Summary judgment is granted in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiffs on plaintiffs’ free exercise claim;
      “(2) Summary judgment is granted in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants on plaintiffs’ freedom of speech claim; and,
      “(3) The Clerk of the Court shall close this case.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 105a.

       We are advised that his term of office expired while the case was pending before the Court of Appeals.

       In this regard, consider also the Court of Appeals’ emphasis on “the specific facts of the ease,” 741 F. 2d, at 559 (emphasis deleted); its statement that the “facts of this case concededly present a close question,” ibid.; its reference to “the unique situation presented here,” id., at 559, n. 28; and the following statement:
      “Because each additional fact and factor impacts so heavily upon a school prayer analysis in a determination as to whether the particular circumstances pass constitutional muster, we feel it necessary to be precise in considering the relevant facts leading to a particular conclusion.” Id., at 560, n. 30.

       See also, e. g., Sumner v. Mata, 449 U. S. 539, 547-548, n. 2 (1981); City of Kenosha v. Bruno, 412 U. S. 507, 511 (1973); Clark v. Paul Gray, Inc., 306 U. S. 583, 588 (1939); St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U. S. 283, 287-288, n. 10 (1938); Stratton v. St. Louis Southwestern R. Co., 282 U. S. 10, 13 (1930); Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U. S. 149, 152 (1908) (citing cases); Cameron v. Hodges, 127 U. S. 322, 325 (1888). Cf. Capron v. Van Noorden, 2 Cranch 126, 127 (1804).

       We have frequently recognized the importance of the facts and the factfinding process in constitutional adjudication. See, e. g., Minnick v. California Dept. of Corrections, 452 U. S. 105, 120-127 (1981); England v. Louisiana Board of Medical Examiners, 375 U. S. 411, 416 (1964) (“How the facts are found will often dictate the decision of federal claims”); Townsend v. Sain, 372 U. S. 293, 312 (1963) (“It is the typical, not the rare, case in which constitutional claims turn upon the resolution of contested factual issues”). Cf. supra, at 538-540, and n. 3.

       The fact that Mr. Youngman was sued in his official capacity does not give him standing to appeal in his individual capacity. Acts performed by the same person in two different capacities “are generally treated as the transactions of two different legal personages.” F. James & G. Hazard, Civil Procedure § 11.6, p. 594 (3d ed. 1985).
      The fact that Mr. Youngman is named in a petition for attorney’s fees that was filed in the District Court after the appeal was taken clearly cannot affect his standing to appeal. Moreover, as we held in Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U. S., at 165 (footnote and citation omitted), “liability on the merits and responsibility for fees go hand in hand; where a defendant has not been prevailed against, either because of legal immunity or on the merits, [42 U. S. C.] § 1988 does not authorize a fee award against that defendant.” Accord, id., at 164, 168-170.

       It might be an entirely different ease if, for example, state law authorized School Board action solely by unanimous consent, in which event Mr. Youngman might claim that he was legally entitled to protect “the effectiveness of [his] vot[e].” Coleman v. Miller, 307 U. S. 433, 438 (1939). See id., at 438-446; id., at 456 (Black, J., concurring). But in that event Mr. Youngman would have to allege that his vote was diluted or rendered nugatory under state law and even then he would have a mandamus or like remedy against the Secretary of the School Board, ef. id., at 436-437 (mandamus action “to compel a proper record of legislative action”); he would not be entitled to take legal action in the Board’s authority in his own name. For the same reason, Mr. Youngman does not have standing on the rationale employed in Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U. S. 236, 241, n. 5 (1968), that he was forced to violate his constitutional oath. Unlike the members of the School Board majority in Allen who were put “in the position of having to choose between violating their oath and taking a step . . . that would be likely to bring their expulsion from office and also a reduction in state funds for their school districts,” ibid., Mr. Youngman has voted his conscience and, as a member of the Board, must abide by its decision not to appeal absent some state-law provision to the contrary.

       “The rules of standing, whether as aspects of the Art. Ill ease-or-controversy requirement or as reflections of prudential considerations defining and limiting the role of the courts, are threshold determinants of the propriety of judicial intervention. It is the responsibility of the complainant clearly to allege facts demonstrating that he is a proper party to invoke judicial resolution of the dispute and the exercise of the court’s remedial powers.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 517-518 (1975). See McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U. S. 178, 190 (1936) (“Here, the allegation in the bill of complaint as to jurisdictional amount was traversed by the answer. The court made no adequate finding upon that issue of fact, and the record contains no evidence to support the allegation of the bill. There was thus no showing that the District Court had jurisdiction and the bill should have been dismissed upon that ground”); Jackson v. Ashton, 8 Pet. 148, 149 (1834); Bingham v. Cabot, 3 Dall. 382, 383-384 (1798).

       Because his status as a parent was obviously different from his official status as a member of the Board, in order to participate as a parent in the District Court litigation it was incumbent upon Mr. Youngman under Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to make “timely application” by an appropriate motion “stat[ing] the grounds” for intervention and “setting forth the claim or defense for which intervention is sought.” Fed. Rules Civ. Proe. 24(a), (c). No such pleading was filed in either of the courts below. It is particularly important to observe these requirements in eases in which the interest of the litigant seeking to appeal diverges from the interest of the party to the suit. In this case, Mr. Youngman’s interest as a parent was not necessarily parallel to the interest of the School Board. For although the record plainly demonstrates that the School Board was interested in obeying the law — it dutifully followed its lawyer’s advice when he concluded that group worship conducted on school premises would violate the Establishment Clause — it also decided not to appeal the District Court’s contrary ruling, and the record does not indicate that the Board disfavored (or favored) groups such as Petros.


author: Per Curiam.

text:
    PAULUSSEN v. HERION
    No. 85-88.
    Argued March 5, 1986
    Decided March 25, 1986

      Esther L. Hornik argued the cause for appellant. With her on the brief were Angela L. Martinez and Donald J. Martin.

      Joseph N. Onek argued the cause for appellee. On the brief was Neil H. Stein

      Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the Children’s Defense Fund et al. by Constance Jean Chatwood, Jane Howard-Martin, Marian Wright Edelman, James D. Weill, and Judith L. Lichtman; and for the Neighborhood Legal Services Association by Daniel L. Haller and Eileen D. Yacknin.

   Per Curiam.

On February 17, 1980, appellant Barbara Paulussen filed a paternity and child support petition in a Bucks County, Pennsylvania, court on behalf of her daughter, who was then seven years old. The petition alleged that the daughter had been born out of wedlock, that appellee George Herion was her natural father, and that he had ceased making contributions to her support in April 1975. Appellee offered as a defense the time bar of the Pennsylvania statute of limitations, which at the time required that paternity actions be commenced within six years of the child’s birth or within two years of the putative father’s last voluntary support contribution or written acknowledgment of paternity. 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann., § 6704(e) (Purdon 1982) (repealed). The defense was sustained against appellant’s contention that the statute violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. The Superior Court affirmed, 334 Pa. Super. 585, 483 A. 2d 892 (1985), and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied discretionary review. Appellant sought appeal in this Court, and, on October 15, 1985, we noted probable jurisdiction. 474 U. S. 899 (1985).

On October 30, 1985, Pennsylvania enacted 1985 Pa. Laws, Act No. 66, to be codified as 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 4343(b), which provides that a child born out of wedlock may commence a paternity action, at any time within 18 years of birth. Appellee now concedes that he is subject to § 4343(b) and that, upon a showing of paternity, he would be liable for child support payments from the date paternity was established. Brief for Appellee 5. He contends, however, that, even on such a showing, he would not be liable for payments dating back to the date the initial petition was filed in 1980.

Our examination of Pennsylvania law leaves us uncertain as to the legal consequences of the enactment of the new 18-year statute of limitations. If, however, Pennsylvania were to interpret § 4343(b) to require support payments dating back to the filing of the original petition, the constitutionality of the 6-year statute of limitations would be irrelevant. Because Pennsylvania should have an opportunity in the first instance to resolve this issue of state law, and because we are reluctant to address a federal constitutional question until it is clearly necessary to do so, we vacate the judgment below and remand for further consideration in light of the intervening change in state law.

It is so ordered.


author: Justice Marshall Chief Justice Burger,

text:
    HOLBROOK, SUPERINTENDENT, MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, et al. v. FLYNN
    No. 84-1606.
    Argued January 14, 1986
    Decided March 26, 1986

      MARSHALL, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Burger, C. J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 572.

      Thomas More Dickinson, Special Assistant Attorney General of Rhode Island, argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the brief were Arlene Violet, Attorney General, and John Austin Murphy.

      George Kannar argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Charles S. Sims and Burt Neuborne.

        John K. Van de Kamp, Attorney General, Karl S. Mayer, Assistant Attorney General, and Robert E. Niver, Deputy Attorney General, filed a brief for the State of California as amicus curiae urging reversal.

   Justice Marshall

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question presented in this case is-whether a criminal defendant was denied his constitutional right to a fair trial when, at his trial with five codefendants, the customary courtroom security force was suppleménted by four uniformed state troopers sitting in the first row of the spectators’ section.

I

On August 14, 1975, nine masked men entered the Bonded Vault Co. in Providence, Rhode Island, robbed several employees at gunpoint, broke into most of the safe-deposit boxes in the vault, and escaped with approximately $4 million in cash and valuables. In January 1976, respondent and eight others were indicted in Providence County Superior Court for that crime. After a hearing in Superior Court, respondent and five of his alleged accomplices were ordered held without bail in the custody of the Warden of the State’s Adult Correctional Institution.

In April 1976, respondent and his five codefendants were brought to trial in Superior Court before Associate Justice Anthony A. Giannini. Upon entering the courtroom, respondent’s counsel noted the presence of four uniformed state troopers, sitting in the first row of the spectators’ section; the officers were not far behind, but were separated by the “bar” from, the seats assigned to the defendants for the duration of the trial. Counsel immediately complained to the judge that “the defendants would object to uniformed police, uniformed state police, sitting in the court as a display of ‘strength’ in the presence of the jury.” Tr. 48-49. While counsel observed that he would have no objection to the use of any number of plainclothed security personnel, he argued that the presence of uniformed officers would suggest to the jury that defendants were of “bad character.” Id., at 48. Justice Giannini replied that the troopers were present because the Committing Squad, which usually supplied courtroom security personnel in such cases, was overextended at that time. Noting that he had not personally requested the assistance of the troopers, the judge agreed to see whether they might be made to wear civilian clothes for their future appearances in the courtroom.

The following week, Justice Giannini announced that he had “received a report that it is not practical, both from an organization point of view and also from a contractual point of view with the union representing the state troopers,” for the four troopers to dress in civilian clothes. Id., at 71. In the face of these constraints and in view of the need for adequate security, the justice ruled that the troopers could remain in the courtroom, in full uniform. He noted that because the troopers would be seated behind the bar, defendants would in no way be prejudiced. The next day, denying defendants’ motion for reconsideration, Justice Giannini asserted that though he himself had not made the decision to deploy the troopers, he thought defendants “overly sensitive” to the danger of prejudice. Id., at 84. At any rate, the justice went on, an examination of prospective jurors would reveal whether they were likely to draw adverse inference from the troopers’ presence, and would thereby guarantee the rights of the defendants. Jury selection began.

In the meantime, respondent sought interlocutory review in the Rhode Island Supreme Court of Justice Giannini’s ruling. After initially declining review, the Supreme Court read a transcript of the ruling and granted respondent’s petition. Noting that “[t]he presence of armed, uniformed police officers acting as a security force in criminal courtrooms in this jurisdiction is a departure from the practice usually found in the trial courts, of this state,” the court concluded: “The trial justice may not delegate responsibility that is his to the so-called security committee or its advisors. The presence of the State Police is a decision that must be resolved solely by the trial justice after consideration of all relevant factors.” State v. Byrnes, 116 R. I. 925, 927, 357 A. 2d 448, 449 (1976).

Upon the State’s request, Justice Giannini conducted a hearing at which the first witness was Captain Robert Me-lucci, the principal officer of the Committing Squad, the group charged with maintaining courtroom security during the trials of defendants in pretrial detention. He testified that, because of other commitments in the courthouse, the force of 12 officers available for deployment in the building was insufficient to maintain the preferred ratio of 2 officers to every defendant in this six-defendant trial. Since any ratio approaching one-to-one posed a “security risk,” Tr. 120, and he could spare only six officers for respondent’s trial, Captain Melucci had contacted the Superior Court’s presiding justice and informed him of the need for additional security personnel. As a result, Captain Melucci testified, additional help had been sought from the State Police.

The next witness, Major Lionel Benjamin, Executive Officer of the Rhode Island State Police, explained that any time his force was charged with transporting prisoners from the Adult Correctional Institution to the courthouse and maintaining custody during trial, he was contractually obligated to use officers from the uniformed division. That same contract with the Fraternal Order of Police, according to Major Benjamin, precluded him from asking members of the uniformed division to perform their duties in civilian clothing. The Major went on to note that even were there no contractual bar, the force’s plainclothes detective division lacked the personnel to provide security for the duration of respondent’s trial. He concluded by saying that if the court required his troopers to wear civilian clothes, he would withdraw them. Id., at 161.

After completing jury selection, Justice Giannini gave his final ruling on respondent’s motion. He noted that “if these defendants were admitted to bail, there would be no state policemen and there would be no committing squad officers in this courtroom.” Id., at 229. But bail having been denied, it became the responsibility of the Warden and the Committing Squad to maintain custody of the detainees. The justice found that because the Committing Squad lacked the resources, the necessary level of security could be ensured only with the help of the uniformed troopers. Having held the presence of the troopers “justified by the evidence,” Justice Giannini considered whether the presence of the troopers had prejudiced the defendants. He observed that of the 54 prospective jurors who had not been struck before they were asked about the troopers, 51 had responded that the troopers’ presence “created no inference of guilt with regard to the defendants in their mind”; the remaining 3 had not precisely addressed the question. Id., at 230-231. When asked to speculate why the troopers were present, many had given a vague response as to the need for security. In view of the voir dire responses, the justice concluded that the presence of the troopers would not affect defendants’ ability to receive a fair trial.

The trial lasted more than two months and ended with verdicts acquitting three defendants and convicting respondent and two others. On appeal, the Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the convictions. State v. Byrnes, 433 A. 2d 658 (1981). With respect to respondent’s objection to the troopers, the court concluded:

“[T]he trial justice gave a reasoned and careful consideration of the issues raised by the presence of the uniformed troopers and, after consideration of all relevant factors, found that the presence of the troopers in no way prejudiced defendants. We have read the record, and we find no reason whatsoever to fault his conclusion.” Id., at 663.

Respondent then brought this habeas proceeding in Federal District Court. After certain procedural complications not relevant here, the District Court for the District of Rhode Island entertained the petition and rejected all the claims therein. With respect to respondent’s objection to the presence of the troopers throughout the trial, the court held: “Less totalitarian alternatives appear to have been explored and rejected on rational grounds. The security measures approved here, extreme though they might have been, did not, under the totality of the circumstances, deny due process or equal protection to the petitioner.” 581 F. Supp. 990, 998 (1984).

The Court of Appeals, however, reversed this dismissal. 749 F. 2d 961 (CA1 1984). Seizing upon the Rhode Island Supreme Court’s observation that the presence of uniformed and armed troopers had been an “extraordinary” event, the Court of Appeals concluded that Justice Giannini had failed to consider whether the particular circumstances of respondent’s trial had called for such measures.

“Rather, with no threats shown to safety, he balanced nothing, but simply indicated a fear that since the defendants had not been bailed, they might flee from the courtroom. There was no evidence even suggesting any unusual likelihood of this; nor had anything whatever made ‘manifest’ the ‘necessity for heightened security.’ As for the exploration of less ‘totalitarian alternatives,’ the exploration was limited, notwithstanding defendants’ suggestions, to inquiring whether regular commitment officers were available without inconveniencing the Presiding Justice, and whether the union contract permitted the state police to appear out of uniform and unarmed.” Id., at 964.

Dismissing the trial judge’s reliance on jurors’ voir dire responses to rebut any suggestion of prejudice to respondent, the Court of Appeals asserted: “Even if all jurors had indicated an unreserved opinion that the troopers’ presence would not affect them, such expression, on a case as extreme as this, where there was no need to rely on it, is totally unacceptable.” Id., at 965. The court ordered that the writ of habeas corpus be granted.

We granted certiorari, 472 U. S. 1026 (1985), and now reverse.

II

A

Central to the right to a fair trial, guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, is the principle that “one accused of a crime is entitled to have his guilt or innocence determined solely on the basis of the evidence introduced at trial, and not on grounds of official suspicion, indictment, continued custody, or other circumstances not adduced as proof at trial.” Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U. S. 478, 485 (1978). This does not mean, however, that every practice tending to single out the accused from everyone else in the courtroom must be struck down. Recognizing that jurors are quite aware that the defendant appearing before them did not arrive there by choice or happenstance, we have never tried, and could never hope, to eliminate from trial procedures every reminder that the State has chosen to marshal its resources against a defendant to punish him for allegedly criminal conduct. To guarantee a defendant’s due process rights under ordinary circumstances, our legal system has instead placed primary reliance on the adversary system and the presumption of innocence. When defense counsel vigorously represents his client’s interests and the trial judge assiduously works to impress jurors with the need to presume the defendant’s innocence, we have trusted that á fair result can be obtained.

Our faith in the adversary system and in jurors’ capacity to adhere to the trial judge’s instructions has never been absolute, however. We have recognized that certain practices pose such a threat to the “fairness of the factfinding process” that they must be subjected to “close judicial scrutiny.” Estelle v. Williams, 425 U. S. 501, 503-504 (1976). Thus, in Estelle v. Williams, we noted that where a defendant is forced to wear prison clothes when appearing before the jury, “the constant reminder of the accused’s condition implicit in such distinctive, identifiable attire may affect a juror’s judgment.” Id., at 504-505. Since no “essential state policy” is served by compelling a defendant to dress in this manner, id., at 505, this Court went no further and concluded that the practice is unconstitutional. This close scrutiny of inherently prejudicial practices has not always been fatal, however. In Illinois v. Allen, 397 U. S. 337 (1970), the Court emphasized that a defendant may be prejudiced if he appears before the jury bound and gagged. “Not only is it possible that the sight of shackles and gags might have a significant effect on the jury’s feelings about the defendant, but the use of this technique is itself something of an affront to the very dignity and decorum of judicial proceedings that the judge is seeking to uphold.” Id., at 344. Yet the Court nonetheless observed that in certain extreme situations, “binding and gagging might possibly be the fairest and most reasonable way to handle” a particularly obstreperous and disruptive defendant. Ibid.

B

The first issue to be considered here is thus whether the conspicuous, or at least noticeable, deployment of security personnel in a courtroom during trial is the sort of inherently prejudicial practice that, like shackling, should be permitted only where justified by an essential state interest specific to each trial. We do not believe that it is.

The chief feature that distinguishes the use- of identifiable security officers from courtroom practices we might find inherently prejudicial is the wider range of inferences that a juror might reasonably draw from the officers’ presence. While shackling and prison clothes are unmistakable indications of the need to separate a defendant from the community at large, the presence of guards at a defendant’s trial need not be interpreted as a sign that he is particularly dangerous or culpable. Jurors may just as easily believe that the officers are there to guard against disruptions emanating from outside the courtroom or to ensure that tense courtroom exchanges do not erupt into violence. Indeed, it is entirely possible that jurors will not infer anything at all from the presence of the guards. If they are placed at some distance from the accused, security officers may well be perceived more as elements of an impressive drama than as reminders of the defendant’s special status. Our society has become inured to the presence of armed guards in most public places; they are doubtless taken for granted so long as their numbers or weaponry do not suggest particular official concern or alarm. See Hardee v. Kuhlman, 581 F. 2d 330, 332 (CA2 1978).

To be sure, it is possible that the sight of a security force within the courtroom might under certain conditions “create the impression in the minds of the jury that the defendant is dangerous or untrustworthy.” Kennedy v. Cardwell, 487 F. 2d 101, 108 (CA6 1973), cert. denied, 416 U. S. 959 (1974). However, “reason, principle, and common human experience,” Williams, supra, at 504, counsel against a presumption that any use of identifiable security guards in the courtroom is inherently prejudicial. In view of the variety of ways in which such guards can be deployed, we believe that a case-by-case approach is more appropriate.

I — I I — I 1 — I

A

The courtroom security force in this case consisted of four uniformed state troopers, two Deputy Sheriffs, and six Committing Squad officers. Though respondent does not concede that the deployment of the uniformed Committing Squad officers was proper, his focus at every stage of his habeas proceedings has been exclusively on the prejudice he attributes to the four state troopers. The only question we need answer is thus whether the presence of these four uniformed and armed officers was so inherently prejudicial that respondent was thereby denied his constitutional right to a fair trial.

The Court of Appeals was correct to find that Justice Giannini’s assessment of jurors’ states of mind cannot be dispos-itive here. If “a procedure employed by the State involves such a probability that prejudice will result that it is deemed inherently lacking in due process,” Estes v. Texas, 381 U. S. 532, 542-543 (1965), little stock need be placed in jurors’ claims to the contrary. See Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U. S. 333, 351-352 (1966); Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U. S. 717, 728 (1961). Even though a practice may be inherently prejudicial, jurors will not necessarily be fully conscious of the effect it will have on their attitude toward the accused. This will be especially true when jurors are questioned at the very beginning of proceedings; at that point, they can only speculate on how they will feel after being exposed to a practice daily over the course of a long trial. Whenever a courtroom arrangement is challenged as inherently prejudicial, therefore, the question must be not whether jurors actually articulated a consciousness of some prejudicial effect, but rather whether “an unacceptable risk is presented of impermissible factors coming into play,” Williams, 425 U. S., at 505.

We do not minimize the threat that a roomful of uniformed and armed policemen might pose to a defendant’s chances of receiving a fair trial. See ABA Standards for Criminal Justice 15-3.1(c) (2d ed. 1980). But we simply cannot find an unacceptable risk of prejudice in the spectacle of four such officers quietly sitting in the first row of a courtroom’s spectator section. Even had the jurors been aware that the deployment of troopers was not common practice in Rhode Island, we cannot believe that the use of the the four troopers tended to brand respondent in their eyes “with an unmistakable mark of guilt.” Williams, supra, at 518 (Brennan, J., dissenting). Cf. Dorman v. United States, 140 U. S. App. D. C. 313, 327, 435 F. 2d 385, 397 (1970) (greater danger of prejudice if jury aware that arrangements are extraordinary). Four troopers are unlikely to have been taken as a sign of anything other than a normal official concern for the safety and order of the proceedings. Indeed, any juror who for some other reason believed defendants particularly dangerous might well have wondered why there were only four armed troopers for the six defendants.

We note, moreover, that even were we able to discern a slight degree of prejudice attributable to the troopers’ presence at respondent’s trial, sufficient cause for this level of security could be found in the State’s need to maintain custody over defendants who had been denied bail after an individualized determination that their presence at trial could not otherwise be ensured. Unlike a policy requiring detained defendants to wear prison garb, the deployment of troopers was intimately related to the State’s legitimate interest in maintaining custody during the proceedings and thus did not offend the Equal Protection Clause by arbitrarily discriminating against those unable to post bail or to whom bail had been denied. See Williams, supra, at 505-506.

B

The Court of Appeals rejected as wholly inadequate the reasons advanced by state authorities and accepted by Justice Giannini to explain why the four uniformed troopers had to be present at respondent’s trial. However, our task here is not to determine whether it might have been feasible for the State to have employed less conspicuous security measures in the courtroom. While, in our supervisory capacity, we might express a preference that officers providing courtroom security in federal courts not be easily identifiable by jurors as guards, we are much more constrained when reviewing a constitutional challenge to a state-court proceeding. All a federal court may do in such a situation is look at the scene presented to jurors and determine whether what they saw was so inherently prejudicial as to pose an unacceptable threat to defendant’s right to a fair trial; if the challenged practice is not found inherently prejudicial and if the defendant fails to show actual prejudice, the inquiry is over. Respondent has failed to carry his burden here.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is

Reversed.

Chief Justice Burger,

concurring.

I write only to explain my reading of the Court’s statement that “in our supervisory capacity, we might express a preference that officers providing courtroom security in federal courts not be easily identifiable by jurors as guards . . . Ante, at 572 (emphasis added). In joining the opinion, I interpret the Court’s carefully qualified statement in this case — a state case — as containing no suggestion that federal officers providing security must doff their uniforms before entering federal courtrooms, and certainly none of the three cases the Court cites, ante, at 572, n. 5, would require any such arbitrary action. Moreover, the issue of what kind of security arrangements some might “prefer” is, of course, quite distinct from issues such as whether a federal defendant would become entitled to a new trial because of an alleged prejudicial effect of the security measures used at his trial. On this understanding, I join the Court’s opinion.

       Of the remaining three defendants, two were fugitives at the time of respondent’s trial, and the third appeared at that proceeding as a witness for the State.

       Although the record could have been clearer on this point, all the colloquies in the record corroborate the statement, made by respondent’s counsel later in pretrial proceedings, that “sitting behind the defendants, taking the first row, vacating the first row where the spectators sit, are four uniformed state police guards, armed. ...” Tr. 80; see id., at 71-72. The troopers appear to have maintained this position throughout the course of the trial, although at times there might have been only three of them in the courtroom. See, e. g., id., at 109, 146.

       The name of the Committing Squad has been changed to “Rhode Island state marshals.” 1976 R. I. Pub. Laws, ch. 259, § 1 (codified at R. I. Gen. Laws § 42-56-3) (1984 reenactment).

       The only social science study to which respondent has pointed us addresses the effects of prison clothes and courtroom guards upon jury verdicts. Its tentative conclusion is that defendants clad in prison garb or accompanied by guards are more likely to be found guilty than unsupervised defendants wearing their own clothes. However, the study also found that favored treatment was accorded defendants who had both supervision and prison clothing. Fontaine & Kiger, The Effects of Defendant Dress and Supervision on Judgments of Simulated Jurors: An Exploratory Study, 2 Law and Human Behavior 63, 69-70 (1978). In view of these curious and concededly tentative results, we will, at least for now, rely on our own experience and common sense.

       See, e. g., United States v. Jackson, 549 F. 2d 517, 526-527 (CA8), cert. denied sub nom. Muhammed v. United States, 430 U. S. 985 (1977); United States v. Clardy, 540 F. 2d 439, 442-443 (CA9), cert. denied, 429 U. S. 963 (1976); Kennedy v. Cardwell, 487 F. 2d 101, 109 (CA6 1973), cert. denied, 416 U. S. 959 (1974). See also N. Dorsen & L. Friedman, Disorder in the Court 249 (1973).