source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Justice Powell Justice Brennan, Justice Marshall,

license: Public Domain

text:
    HECKLER, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES v. CAMPBELL
    No. 81-1983.
    Argued February 28, 1983
    Decided May 16, 1983

      Powell, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Burger, C. J., and Brennan, White, Blackmun, Rehnquist, Stevens, and O’Con-nor, JJ., joined. Brennan, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 470. Marshall, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, post, p. 473.

      John H. Garvey argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Lee, Assistant Attorney General McGrath, Deputy Solicitor General Getter, and Anne Buxton Sobol.

      Ruben Nazario argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Toby Golick and Jane Greengold Stevens

      Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed by Eileen P. Sweeney for the Gray Panthers; and by Dan Stormer for Tulare/Kings Counties Legal Services et al.

   Justice Powell

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The issue is whether the Secretary of Health and Human Services may rely on published medical-vocational guidelines to determine a claimant’s right to Social Security disability benefits.

I

The Social Security Act defines “disability” in terms of the effect a physical or mental impairment has on a person’s ability to function in the workplace. It provides disability benefits only to persons who are unable “to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment.” 81 Stat. 868, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 423(d)(1)(A). And it specifies that a person must “not only [be] unable to do his previous work but [must be unable], considering his age, education, and work experience, [to] engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy, regardless of whether such work exists in the immediate area in which he lives, or whether a specific job vacancy exists for him, or whether he would be hired if he applied for work.” 42 U. S. C. § 423(d)(2)(A).

In 1978, the Secretary of Health and Human Services promulgated regulations implementing this definition. See 43 Fed. Reg. 55349 (1978) (codified, as amended, at 20 CFR pt. 404, subpt. P (1982)). The regulations recognize that certain impairments are so severe that they prevent a person from pursuing any gainful work. See 20 CFR § 404.1520(d) (1982) (referring to impairments listed at 20 CFR pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1). A claimant who establishes that he suffers from one of these impairments will be considered disabled without further inquiry. Ibid. If a claimant suffers from a less severe impairment, the Secretary must determine whether the claimant retains the ability to perform either his former work or some less demanding employment. If a claimant can pursue his former occupation, he is not entitled to disability benefits. See §404.1520(e). If he cannot, the Secretary must determine whether the claimant retains the capacity to pursue less demanding work. See §404.1520(f)(1).

■ The regulations divide this last inquiry into two stages. First, the Secretary must assess each claimant’s present job qualifications. The regulations direct the Secretary to consider the factors Congress has identified as relevant: physical ability, age, education, and work experience. See 42 U. S. C. § 423(d)(2)(A); 20 CFR § 404.1520(f) (1982). Second, she must consider whether jobs exist in the national economy that a person having the claimant’s qualifications could perform. 20 CFR §§ 404.1520(f), 404.1566-404.1569 (1982).

Prior to 1978, the Secretary relied on vocational experts to establish the existence of suitable jobs in the national economy. After a claimant’s limitations and abilities had been determined at a hearing, a vocational expert ordinarily would testify whether work existed that the claimant could perform. Although this testimony often was based on standardized guides, see 43 Fed. Reg. 9286 (1978), vocational experts frequently were criticized for their inconsistent treatment of similarly situated claimants. See Santise v. Schweiker, 676 F. 2d 925, 930 (CA3 1982); J. Mashaw, C. Goetz, F. Goodman, W. Schwartz, P. Verkuil, & M. Carrow, Social Security Hearings and Appeals 78-79 (1978). To improve both the uniformity and efficiency of this determination, the Secretary promulgated medical-vocational guidelines as part of the 1978 regulations. See 20 CFR pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 2 (1982).

These guidelines relieve the Secretary of the need to rely on vocational experts by establishing through rulemaking the types and numbers of jobs that exist in the national economy. They consist of a matrix of the four factors identified by Congress — physical ability, age, education, and work experience — and set forth rules that identify whether jobs requiring specific combinations of these factors exist in significant numbers in the national economy. Where a claimant’s qualifications correspond to the job requirements identified by a rule, the guidelines direct a conclusion as to whether work exists that the claimant could perform. If such work exists, the claimant is not considered disabled.

t — I HH

In 1979, Carmen Campbell applied for disability benefits because a back condition and hypertension prevented her from continuing her work as a hotel maid. After her application was denied, she requested a hearing de novo before an Administrative Law Judge. He determined that her back problem was not severe enough to find her disabled without further inquiry, and accordingly considered whether she retained the ability to perform either her past work or some less strenuous job. App. to Pet. for Cert. 28a. He concluded that even though Campbell’s back condition prevented her from returning to her work as a maid, she retained the physical capacity to do light work. Ibid. In accordance with the regulations, he found that Campbell was 52 years old, that her previous employment consisted of unskilled jobs, and that she had a limited education. Id., at 28a-29a. He noted that Campbell, who had been born in Panama, experienced difficulty in speaking and writing English. She was able, however, to understand and read English fairly well. App. 42. Relying on the medical-vocational guidelines, the Administrative Law Judge found that a significant number of jobs existed that a person of Campbell’s qualifications could perform. Accordingly, he concluded that she was not disabled. App. to Pet. for Cert. 29a.

This determination was upheld by both the Social Security Appeals Council, id., at 16a, and the District Court for the Eastern District of New York, id., at 15a. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed. Campbell v. Secretary of Dept. of Health and Human Services, 665 F. 2d 48 (1981). It accepted the Administrative Law Judge’s determination that Campbell retained the ability to do light work. And it did not suggest that he had classified Campbell’s age, education, or work experience incorrectly. The court noted, however, that it

“has consistently required that ‘the Secretary identify specific alternative occupations available in the national economy that would be suitable for the claimant’ and that ‘these jobs be supported by “a job description clarifying the nature of the job, [and] demonstrating that the job does not require” exertion or skills not possessed by the claimant.’” Id., at 53 (quoting Decker v. Harris, 647 F. 2d 291, 298 (CA2 1981)).

The court found that the medical-vocational guidelines did not provide the specific evidence that it previously had required. It explained that in the absence of such a showing, “the claimant is deprived of any real chance to present evidence showing that she cannot in fact perform the types of jobs that are administratively noticed by the guidelines.” 665 F. 2d, at 53. The court concluded that because the Secretary had failed to introduce evidence that specific alternative jobs existed, the determination that Campbell was not disabled was not supported by substantial evidence. Id., at 54.

We granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeals. Schweiker v. Campbell, 457 U. S. 1131 (1982). We now reverse.

III

The Secretary argues that the Court of Appeals’ holding effectively prevents the use of the medical-vocational guidelines. By requiring her to identify specific alternative jobs in every disability hearing, the court has rendered the guidelines useless. An examination of both the language of the Social Security Act and its legislative history clearly demonstrates that the Secretary may proceed by regulation to determine whether substantial gainful work exists in the national economy. Campbell argues in response that the Secretary has misperceived the Court of Appeals’ holding. Campbell reads the decision as requiring only that the Secretary give disability claimants concrete examples of the kinds of factual determinations that the administrative law judge will be making. This requirement does not defeat the guidelines’ purpose; it ensures that they will be applied only where appropriate. Accordingly, respondent argues that we need not address the guidelines’ validity.

A

The Court of Appeals held that “[i]n failing to show suitable available alternative jobs for Ms. Campbell, the Secretary’s finding of ‘not disabled’ is not supported by substantial evidence.” 665 F. 2d, at 54. It thus rejected the proposition that “the guidelines provide adequate evidence of a claimant’s ability to perform a specific alternative occupation,” id., at 53, and remanded for the Secretary to put into evidence “particular types of jobs suitable to the capabilities of Ms. Campbell,” id., at 54. The court’s requirement that additional evidence be introduced on this issue prevents the Secretary from putting the guidelines to their intended use and implicitly calls their validity into question. Accordingly, we think the decision below requires us to consider whether the Secretary may rely on medical-vocational guidelines in appropriate cases.

The Social Security Act directs the Secretary to “adopt reasonable and proper rules and regulations to regulate and provide for the nature and extent of the proofs and evidence and the method of taking and furnishing the same” in disability cases. 42 U. S. C. § 405(a). As we previously have recognized, Congress has “conferred on the Secretary exceptionally broad authority to prescribe standards for applying certain sections of the [Social Security] Act.” Schweiker v. Gray Panthers, 453 U. S. 34, 43 (1981); see Batterton v. Francis, 432 U. S. 416, 425 (1977). Where, as here, the statute expressly entrusts the Secretary with the responsibility for implementing a provision by regulation, our review is limited to determining whether the regulations promulgated exeeded the Secretary's statutory authority and whether they are arbitrary and capricious. Herweg v. Ray, 455 U. S. 265, 275 (1982); Schweiker v. Gray Panthers, supra, at 44.

We do not think that the Secretary’s reliance on medical-vocational guidelines is inconsistent with the Social Security Act. It is true that the statutory scheme contemplates that disability hearings will be individualized determinations based on evidence adduced at a hearing. See 42 U. S. C. § 423(d)(2)(A) (specifying consideration of each individual’s condition); 42 U. S. C. § 405(b) (1976 ed., Supp. V) (disability determination to be based on evidence adduced at hearing). But this does not bar the Secretary from relying on rulemaking to resolve certain classes of issues. The Court has recognized that even where an agency’s enabling statute expressly requires it to hold a hearing, the agency may rely on its rulemaking authority to determine issues that do not require case-by-case consideration. See FPC v. Texaco Inc., 377 U. S. 33, 41-44 (1964); United States v. Storer Broadcasting Co., 351 U. S. 192, 205 (1956). A contrary holding would require the agency continually to relitigate issues that may be established fairly and efficiently in a single rulemaking proceeding. See FPC v. Texaco Inc., supra, at 44.

The Secretary’s decision to rely on medical-vocational guidelines is consistent with Texaco and Storer. As noted above, in determining whether a claimant can perform less strenuous work, the Secretary must make two determinations. She must assess each claimant’s individual abilities and then determine whether jobs exist that a person having the claimant’s qualifications could perform. The first inquiry involves a determination of historic facts, and the regulations properly require the Secretary to make these findings on the basis of evidence adduced at a hearing. We note that the regulations afford claimants ample opportunity both to present evidence relating to their own abilities and to offer evidence that the guidelines do not apply to them. The second inquiry requires the Secretary to determine an issue that is not unique to each claimant — the types and numbers of jobs that exist in the national economy. This type of general factual issue may be resolved as fairly through rulemaking as by introducing the testimony of vocational experts at each disability hearing. See American Airlines, Inc. v. CAB, 123 U. S. App. D. C. 310, 319, 359 F. 2d 624, 633 (1966) (en banc).

As the Secretary has argued, the use of published guidelines brings with it a uniformity that previously had been perceived as lacking. To require the Secretary to relitigate the existence of jobs in the national economy at each hearing would hinder needlessly an already overburdened agency. We conclude that the Secretary’s use of medical-vocational guidelines does not conflict with the statute, nor can we say on the record before us that they are arbitrary and capricious.

B

We now consider Campbell’s argument that the Court of Appeals properly required the Secretary to specify alternative available jobs. Campbell contends that such a showing informs claimants of the type of issues to be established at the hearing and is required by both the Secretary’s regulation, 20 CFR §404.944 (1982), and the Due Process Clause.

By referring to notice and an opportunity to respond, see 665 F. 2d, at 53-54, the decision below invites the interpretation given it by respondent. But we do not think that the decision fairly can be said to present the issues she raises. The Court of Appeals did not find that the Secretary failed to give sufficient notice in violation of the Due Process Clause or any statutory provision designed to implement it. See 42 U. S. C. §405(b) (1976 ed., Supp. V) (requiring that disability claimants be given “reasonable notice and [an] opportunity for a hearing”). Nor did it find that the Secretary violated any duty imposed by regulation. See 20 CFR § 404.944 (1982) (requiring the administrative law judge to “loo[k] fully into the issues”). Rather the court’s reference to notice and an opportunity to respond appears to be based on a principle of administrative law — that when an agency takes official or administrative notice of facts, a litigant must be given an adequate opportunity to respond. See 5 U. S. C. § 556(e); McDaniel v. Celebrezze, 331 F. 2d 426 (CA4 1964).

This principle is inapplicable, however, when the agency has promulgated valid regulations. Its purpose is to provide a procedural safeguard: to ensure the accuracy of the facts of which an agency takes notice. But when the accuracy of those facts already has been tested fairly during rulemaking, the rulemaking proceeding itself provides sufficient procedural protection. See, e. g., Rivers v. Schweiker, 684 F. 2d 1144, 1156 (CA5 1982); Broz v. Schweiker, 677 F. 2d 1351, 1362 (CA11 1982); Torres v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 677 F. 2d 167, 169 (CA1 1982).

> HH

The Court of Appeals’ decision would require the Secretary to introduce evidence of specific available jobs that respondent could perform. It would limit severely her ability to rely on the medical-vocational guidelines. We think the Secretary reasonably could choose to rely on these guidelines in appropriate cases rather than on the testimony of a vocational expert in each case. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is

Reversed.

Justice Brennan,

concurring.

I join the Court’s opinion. It merits comment, however, that the hearing respondent received, see ante, at 462-463, if it is in any way indicative of standard practice, reflects poorly on the Administrative Law Judge’s adherence to what Chief Judge Godbold has called his “duty of inquiry”:

“[T]here is a ‘basic obligation’ on the ALJ in these nonadversarial proceedings to develop a full and fair record, which obligation rises to a ‘ “special duty ... to scrupulously and conscientiously explore for all the relevant facts’” where an unrepresented claimant has not waived counsel. This duty of inquiry on the ALJ would include, in a case decided under the grids, a duty to inquire into possible nonexertional impairments and into exertional limitations that prevent a full range of work.” Broz v. Schweiker, 677 F. 2d 1351, 1364 (CA11 1982).

In her brief to this Court, the Secretary acknowledges that the Social Security regulations embody this duty and relies upon it in answering respondent’s due process contentions. Brief for Petitioner 42 (citing Broz v. Schweiker, supra)] see 20 CFR § 404.944 (1982); ante, at 468, and n. 12. The Administrative Law Judge’s “duty to inquire” takes on special urgency where, as here, the claimant has little education and limited fluency in English, and, given that the claimant already has a right to a hearing, the additional cost of pursuing relevant issues at the hearing is minimal.

In order to find that respondent was not disabled, the Secretary had to determine that she had the physical capacity to do “light work,” compare 20 CFR pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 2, §201.10 (1982), with id., §202.10, a determination that required a finding that she was capable of frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to 10 pounds and sometimes lifting up to 20 pounds, 20 CFR §404.1567(b) (1982). The hearing record included one disinterested doctor’s report of a medical examination of respondent that concluded with the unexplained statement “Patient may return to light-duty work,” App. 11, and a subsequent report by a second disinterested doctor stating that respondent could lift and carry only “up to 10 pounds,” id., at 32. In finding that respondent could perform “light work,” the Administrative Law Judge rejected the second doctor’s report as “without basis.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 23a-25a. Yet he failed entirely to adduce evidence relevant to this issue at respondent’s hearing. At several points during the hearing, respondent stated that she could not lift things, but the Administrative Law Judge did not question her on the subject at all, nor did he make any inquiry whether by “light-duty work” the first doctor meant the same thing as the Secretary’s term “light work.”

The Administrative Law Judge further failed to inquire whether factors besides strength, age, or education, combined with her other impairments, rendered respondent disabled. See 20 CFR pt. 404, supra, § 200.00(e)(2); ante, at 462, n. 5. Apparently such factors could have been dispositive of the case before us: The Secretary has since determined that respondent is in fact disabled, see ante, at 463, n. 7, based on consideration of severe emotional complications not explored at all by the Administrative Law Judge in the hearing that led to her petition for review in this case.

This issue was not presented to the Court of Appeals, nor passed upon by it. See ante, at 468-469, n. 12. In terms of ensuring fair and accurate determinations of disability claims, the obligation that the Court of Appeals would have placed on administrative law judges was a poor substitute for good-faith performance of the “duty of inquiry” they already have. The federal courts have been successful in enforcing this duty in the past, see n. 1, supra, and I respectfully suggest that the Secretary insist upon its faithful performance in future cases.

Justice Marshall,

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

While I agree that the Secretary’s medical-vocational guidelines are valid, I believe that this case presents the additional question whether the Administrative Law Judge fulfilled his obligation to “loo[k] fully into the issues.” 20 CFR §404.944 (1982). See Richardson v. Perales, 402 U. S. 389, 410 (1971) (at the hearing the administrative law judge is required to “ac[t] as an examiner charged with developing the facts”). I would therefore remand this case for further proceedings.

I do not agree with the Court, ante, at 468-469, that the decision below does not question the adequacy of the Administrative Law Judge’s inquiry at the hearing. Although the Court of Appeals’ opinion is not entirely clear, the court appears to have concluded that Campbell was not given an adequate opportunity to demonstrate that she was unable to perform “light work.” The court explained as follows:

“ ‘The key consideration in the administrative proceeding must be that the claimant be given adequate opportunity to challenge the suitability ... of the jobs noticed. . . .’ [0]ur major concern is that the claimant be given adequate notice of the nature and demands of the types of jobs allegedly available. Absent sufficient notice, the claimant is deprived of any real chance to present evidence showing that she cannot in fact perform the types of jobs that are administratively noticed by the guidelines. This is particularly true in Ms. Campbell’s case where the ALJ gave no indication of any specific ‘light work’ jobs that she was capable of performing . . . .” Campbell v. Secretary of Dept. of Health and Human Services, 665 F. 2d 48, 53-54 (CA2 1981), quoting Decker v. Harris, 647 F. 2d 291, 298 (CA2 1981).

The Court of Appeals remanded the case for further administrative proceedings at which Campbell would be given “a listing of particular types of jobs suitable to the capabilities of Ms. Campbell.” 665 F. 2d, at 54.

The Court of Appeals’ concern was amply justified in light of the hearing that was conducted in this case. The central issue at respondent’s hearing was whether she was capable of performing “light work.” If Campbell had shown that she was unable to perform “light work,” she would have been entitled to disability benefits under the Secretary’s guidelines. Although Campbell was afforded a hearing to determine whether she was disabled, she was never apprised of this central issue either in advance of or during the hearing. She was not represented by counsel, and the Administrative Law Judge who conducted the hearing never explained to her what “light work” entailed. Moreover, although the judge inquired at length into respondent’s medical problems, he conducted little inquiry into the effect of her medical problems on her capacity to perform work. Yet reasonably complete questioning concerning the claimant’s ability to function in her daily activity was essential to resolving this question in a fair manner.

The above-quoted portions of the Court of Appeals’ decision demonstrate to my satisfaction that the question whether respondent received an adequate hearing is fairly raised by the decision below. It would have been well within the Court of Appeals’ authority under 42 U. S. C. § 405(g) (1976 ed., Supp. V) to order a new hearing if the court concluded that the Administrative Law Judge failed to conduct an adequate inquiry. That appears to be just what the court did when it remanded the case. The court required the judge to fulfill his obligation to elicit testimony concerning respondent’s capacity to perform “light work” by giving her a few examples of specific types of “light work” and allowing her to explain why she is unable to perform such work.

       The regulations state that the Secretary will inquire into each of these factors and make an individual assessment of each claimant’s abilities and limitations. See 20 CFR §§404.1545-404.1565 (1982); cf. 20 CFR § 404.944 (1982). In determining a person’s physical ability, she will consider, for example, the extent to which his capacity for performing tasks such as lifting objects or his ability to stand for long periods of time has been impaired. See §404.1545.

       The Social Security hearing system is “probably the largest adjudicative agency in the western world.” J. Mashaw, C. Goetz, F. Goodman, W. Schwartz, P. Verkuil, & M. Carrow, Social Security Hearings and Appeals xi (1978). Approximately 2.3 million claims for disability benefits were filed in fiscal year 1981. Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Annual Report to the Congress for Fiscal Year 1981, pp. 32, 35 (1982). More than a quarter of a million of these claims required a hearing before an administrative law judge. Id., at 38. The need for efficiency is self-evident.

       Each of these four factors is divided into defined categories. A person’s ability to perform physical tasks, for example, is categorized according to the physical exertion requirements necessary to perform varying classes of jobs — i. e., whether a claimant can perform sedentary, light, medium, heavy, or very heavy work. 20 CFR §404.1567 (1982). Each of these work categories is defined in terms of the physical demands it places on a worker, such as the weight of objects he must lift and whether extensive movement or use of arm and leg controls is required. Ibid.

       For example, Rule 202.10 provides that a significant number of jobs exist for a person who can perform light work, is closely approaching advanced age, has a limited education but who is literate and can communicate in English, and whose previous work has been unskilled.

       The regulations recognize that the rules only describe “major functional and vocational patterns.” 20 CFR pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 2, § 200.00(a) (1982). If an individual’s capabilities are not described accurately by a rule, the regulations make clear that the individual’s particular limitations must be considered. See app. 2, §§ 200.00(a), (d). Additionally, the regulations declare that the administrative law judge will not apply the age categories “mechanically in a borderline situation,” 20 CFR § 404.1563(a) (1982), and recognize that some claimants may possess limitations that are not factored into the guidelines, see app. 2, § 200.00(e). Thus, the regulations provide that the rules will be applied only when they describe a claimant’s abilities and limitations accurately.

       The Social Security Act provides each claimant with a right to a de novo hearing. 42 U. S. C. § 405(b) (1976 ed., Supp. V); §421(d). The regulations specify when a claimant may exercise this right. See 20 CFR §§404.929-404.930 (1982).

       The Administrative Law Judge did not accept Campbell’s claim that her hypertension constituted an impairment. He found that this claim was not documented by the record and noted that her current medication appeared sufficient to keep her blood pressure under control. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 27a.
      Campbell later reapplied for disability benefits and was found disabled as of January 1,1981. See Brief for Petitioner 8, n. 7. The Secretary’s subsequent decision does not moot this case since Campbell is claiming entitlement to benefits prior to January 1, 1981.

       Every other Court of Appeals addressing the question has upheld the Secretary’s use of the guidelines. See Rivers v. Schweiker, 684 F. 2d 1144, 1157-1158 (CA5 1982); McCoy v. Schweiker, 683 F. 2d 1138, 1144-1146 (CA8 1982); Torres v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 677 F. 2d 167, 169 (CA1 1982); Santise v. Schweiker, 676 F. 2d 925, 934-936 (CA3 1982); Cummins v. Schweiker, 670 F. 2d 81, 82-83 (CA7 1982); Kirk v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 667 F. 2d 524, 529-535 (CA6 1981); Frady v. Harris, 646 F. 2d 143, 145 (CA4 1981). One Court of Appeals has agreed that the Secretary may use medical-vocational guidelines but has found that with respect to age the guidelines are arbitrary. See Broz v. Schweiker, 677 F. 2d 1351, 1359-1361 (CA11 1982), cert. pending, No. 82-816. The instant case does not present the issue addressed in Broz.

       The Courts of Appeals have read the decision below as implicitly invalidating the guidelines. See McCoy v. Schweiker, supra, at 1145; Torres v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, supra, at 169; Santise v. Schweiker, supra, at 937, and n. 25.

       Since Congress amended the Social Security Act in 1954 to provide for disability benefits, Pub. L. 761, § 106, 68 Stat. 1079, it repeatedly has suggested that the Secretary promulgate regulations defining the criteria for evaluating disability. See, e. g., Subcommittee on the Administration of the Social Security Laws of the House Committee on Ways and Means, Administration of Social Security Disability Insurance Program: Preliminary Report, 86th Cong., 2d Sess., 17-18 (Comm. Print 1960) (requesting Secretary to develop “specific criteria for the weight to be given nonmedical factors in the evaluation of disability”); House Committee on Ways and Means, Committee Staff Report on the Disability Insurance Program, 93d Cong., 2d Sess., 6 (Comm. Print 1974) (recommending that the Secretary promulgate regulations defining disability to ease accelerating caseload); Subcommittee on Social Security of the House Committee on Ways and Means, H. R. 8076 — Disability Insurance Amendment of 1977, 95th Cong., 1st Sess., 7 (Comm. Print 1977) (comments of Rep. Burke) (noting with approval that the Secretary had promised to promulgate medical-vocational guidelines to define disability). While these sources do not establish the original congressional intent, they indicate that later Congresses perceived that regulations such as the guidelines would be consistent with the statute.

       Both FPC v. Texaco Inc., 377 U. S. 33, 40 (1964), and United States v. Storer Broadcasting Co., 351 U. S. 192, 205 (1956), were careful to note that the statutory scheme at issue allowed an individual applicant to show that the rule promulgated should not be applied to him. The regulations here provide a claimant with equal or greater protection since they state that an administrative law judge will not apply the rules contained in the guidelines when they fail to describe a claimant’s particular limitations. See n. 5, supra.

       Respondent did not raise either her due process or her regulatory argument below. See Brief for Appellant in Campbell v. Schweiker, No. 81-6108 (CA2); Tr. of Oral Arg. 30. Nor has respondent filed a cross-petition. As she prevailed below, we could consider grounds supporting her judgment different from those on which the Court of Appeals rested its decision. See Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 471, 475-476, n. 6 (1970). But where the ground presented here has not been raised below we exercise this authority “only in exceptional cases.” McGoldrick v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 309 U. S. 430, 434 (1940). We do not think this is such a case.
      Alternatively, respondent suggests that if the Administrative Law Judge had inquired conscientiously and fully into the relevant facts, as required by 20 CFR § 404.944 (1982), he would have concluded that she was not capable of performing light work. The Secretary concedes that § 404.944 requires such an inquiry, see Brief for Petitioner 42, but argues that the inquiry undertaken by the Administrative Law Judge satisfied any regulatory duty. Again respondent appears not to have presented her § 404.944 argument to the Court of Appeals, and we decline to reach it here.

       The Court of Appeals did not identify any basis for imposing this requirement other than its earlier decision in Decker v. Harris, 647 F. 2d 291 (CA2 1981). Decker, however, identified the source of this requirement more clearly. It stated: “This requirement of specificity . . . assures the claimant of adequate notice of the grounds on which his claim may be denied, providing him with an opportunity to present rebuttal evidence. See generally 3 K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 15.18, at 198-206 (2d ed. 1980).” Id., at 298.
      In § 15.18 of his treatise, Professor Davis addresses the question of administrative or official notice of material facts in disability cases and the need for an adequate opportunity to respond. He states that an administrative law judge may take administrative notice of jobs in the national economy. He emphasizes, however, that “[a] quick remark by an ALJ that he takes official notice of availability of jobs in the national economy that would be suitable for the claimant could be unfair for lack of sufficient specificity. The jobs should be identified, their characteristics should be stated. . . .” § 15.18, at 204 (emphasis added). Decker’s reference to this treatise makes clear that the requirement of specificity derives from a principle of administrative law.

       Respondent does not challenge the rulemaking itself, and, as noted above, respondent was accorded a de novo hearing to introduce evidence on issues, such as physical and mental limitations, that require individualized consideration. See supra, at 462-468.

       Accord, Thompson v. Schweiker, 665 F. 2d 936, 941 (CA9 1982); Ware v. Schweiker, 651 F. 2d 408, 414 (CA5 1981); Diabo v. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, 200 U. S. App. D. C. 225, 229, 627 F. 2d 278, 282 (1980); Cox v. Califano, 587 F. 2d 988, 991 (CA9 1978); Smith v. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, 587 F. 2d 857, 860 (CA7 1978); Gold v. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, 463 F. 2d 38, 43 (CA2 1972). The “duty of inquiry” derives from claimants’ basic statutory and constitutional right to due process in the adjudication of their claims, including a de novo hearing, see Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319, 332-335, 339 (1976); Richardson v. Perales, 402 U. S. 389, 402-404 (1971). See also Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254, 262-263 (1970). Inherent in the concept of a due process hearing is the decisionmaker’s obligation to inform himself about facts relevant to his decision and to learn the claimant’s own version of those facts. Goss v. Lopez, 419 U. S. 565, 580 (1975).

       The following colloquy appears on the record:
      “Q. Can you bend?
      “A. I cannot bend. The doctor warned me not to lift weights.
      “Q. Uh-huh.
      “A. And—
      “Q. I notice you have stood up several times since you’ve been in here.” App. 49-50.
      At no point did the Administrative Law Judge so much as ask respondent how she did her shopping, or any other question that might have elicited information on the crucial question of how much she could regularly lift.

       See App. to Brief for Respondent 2a-3a. The decision appears to have rested on evidence similar to the evidence in the record at the hearing in this case, except that the Administrative Law Judge took note that respondent was “an obese, sad individual, who had marked difficulties in sitting, standing, and walking,” and he found that her severe back disorder was “complicated by an emotional overlay.” Id., at 3a.

       It was certainly not anticipated that this procedure “would limit severely [the Secretary’s] ability to rely on the medical-vocational guidelines,” ante, at 470, or “rende[r] the guidelines useless.” Ante, at 465. The court noted simply that
      “if there are [approximately 1,600 types of ‘light work’] jobs available, it would not be too great a burden for the Secretary or the ALJ to specify a few suitable alternative available types of jobs so that a claimant is given an opportunity to show that she is incapable of performing those jobs. Moreover, we stress that the jobs should be specified at the hearing so that the claimant has a chance to put evidence into the record on that issue.” 665 F. 2d, at 54.

       “Light work” is defined in the regulations as follows:
      “(b) Light work. Light work involves lifting no more than 20 pounds at a time with frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to 10 pounds. Even though the weight lifted may be very little, a job is in this category when it requires a good deal of walking or standing, or when it involves sitting most of the time with some pushing and pulling of arm or leg controls. To be considered capable of performing a full or wide range of light work, you must have the ability to do substantially all of these activities.” 20 CFR §404.1567 (1982).

       The availability of medical evidence, much of which supported respondent’s claim of disability, was no substitute for an examination of the claimant herself.
      “[I]f the hearing is meant to be an individualized inquiry into how this claimant’s functioning is impaired by his medical conditions, then that evidence must almost certainly come from the claimant himself, or from people who come in contact with him in his daily life. Since in most hearings no one other than the claimant is there to testify to his daily activities, who does not also have an interest in the success of the claim, it is imperative that ALJs draw out of the claimants, in great detail, information about how they function with their limitations. This is the crucial arena for credibility judgments by ALJs. Moreover, it seems clear that such judgments will necessarily be made, whether or not the claimant’s situation is fully explored by the ALJ.” Subcommittee on Social Security of the House Committee on Ways and Means, Social Security Administrative Law Judges: Survey and Issue Paper, 96th Cong., 1st Sess., 47 (Comm. Print 1979).

       See, e. g., Currier v. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, 612 F. 2d 594, 598 (CA1 1980); Veal v. Califano, 610 F. 2d 495, 497-498 (CA8 1979); Cox v. Califano, 587 F. 2d 988, 990-991 (CA9 1978); Copley v. Richardson, 475 F. 2d 772, 773-774 (CA6 1973).


author: Per Curiam.

text:
    BOSTON FIREFIGHTERS UNION, LOCAL 718 v. BOSTON CHAPTER, NAACP, et al.
    No. 82-185.
    Argued April 18, 1983
    Decided May 16, 1983

      John F. McMahon argued the cause for petitioners in Nos. 82-185 and 82-246 and filed briefs for petitioner in No. 82-185. Thomas A. Bamico, Assistant Attorney General of Massachusetts, argued the cause pro hac vice for petitioners in No. 82-259. With him on the briefs were Francis X. Bellotti, Attorney General, Thomas R. Kiley, First Assistant Attorney General, E. Michael Sloman, Assistant Attorney General, and Marc S. Seigle, Special Assistant Attorney General. Kevin P. Phillips filed a brief for petitioner in No. 82-246.

      James S. Dittmar argued the cause for respondents in all cases. With him on the brief were Judith Bernstein Tracy, Peggy A. Wiesenberg, and Gerald Gillerman.

       Together with No. 82-246, Boston Police Patrolmen’s Assn., Inc. v. Castro et al.; and No. 82-259, Beecher et al. v. Boston Chapter, NAACP, et al., also on certiorari to the same court.

       Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed by Solicitor General Lee, Assistant Attorney General Reynolds, Deputy Solicitor General Wallace, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Cooper, Carter G. Phillips, Brian K. Landsberg, Walter W. Barnett, and Dennis J. Dimsey for the United States; by Robert E. Williams, Douglas S. McDowell, and Daniel R. Levinson for the Equal Employment Advisory Council; by J. Albert

        Wall, Michael H. Gottesman, Robert M. Weinberg, George H. Cohen, and Laurence Gold for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations et al.; by Edward J. Hickey, Jr., Michael S. Wolly, and Erick J. Genser for the International Association of Firefighters, AFL-CIO; by Robert A. Helman, Michele Odorizzi, Daniel M. Harris, Justin J. Finger, Jeffrey P. Sinensky, and Meyer Eisenberg for the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith; and by Daniel J. Popeo, Paul D. Kamenar, and Nicholas E. Calió for the Washington Legal Foundation.
      Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed by J. Clay Smith, Jr., and Herbert 0. Reid, Sr., for the National Bar Association, Inc., et al.; by 0. Peter Sherwood, Clyde E. Murphy, and Barry L. Goldstein for the City of Detroit; by Joaquin G. Avila, Morris J. Bailer, and Carmen A. Estrada for the League of United Latin American Citizens et al.; by Robert L. Harris and Eva Jefferson Paterson for the Officers For Justice et al.; by Judith I. Avner and Anne E. Simon for the National Organization for Women et al.; by Robert H. Chanin, Richard B. Sobol, and Michael B. Trister for the National Education Association; by E. Richard Larson, Burt Neubome, and Paulette M. Caldwell for the National Black Association et al.; and by Robert Lipshutz, pro se, for Robert Lipshutz et al.
      Briefs of amici curiae were filed by Ronald A. Zumbrun and John H. Findley for the Pacific Legal Foundation; by Jack Greenberg and Eric Schnapper for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.; by Arthur Kinoy and Michael Ratner for the Affirmative Action Coordinating Center et al.; and by Walter S. Nussbaum and Donald J. Mooney, Jr., for the Detroit Police Officers Association.

   Per Curiam.

In these cases, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the District Court’s August 7, 1981, orders enjoining the Boston Police and Fire Departments from laying off policemen and firefighters in a manner that would reduce the percentage of minority officers below the level obtaining at the commencement of layoffs in July 1981. 679 F. 2d 965 (1982). These orders had the effect of partially superseding the operation of the State’s statutory last-hired, first-fired scheme for civil service layoffs, Mass. Gen. Laws Ann., ch. 31, § 39 (West 1979). Following the Court of Appeals’ decision, Massachusetts enacted legislation providing the city of Boston with new revenues, requiring reinstatement of all police and firefighters laid off during the reductions in force, securing these personnel against future layoffs for fiscal reasons, and requiring the maintenance of minimum staffing levels in the Police and Fire Departments through June 30, 1983. See 1982 Mass. Acts, ch. 190, § 25. In light of these changed circumstances, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand for consideration of mootness in light of 1982 Mass. Acts, ch. 190, § 25.

It is so ordered.

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


author: Chief Justice Burger

text:
    VERLINDEN B. V. v. CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA
    No. 81-920.
    Argued January 11, 1983
    Decided May 23, 1983

      Burger, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

      Abram Chayes argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Berthold H. Hoeniger and Mitchell M. Bailey.

      Deputy Solicitor General Bator argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. On the brief were Solicitor General Lee, Assistant Attorney General McGrath, Kenneth S. Getter and Stephen M. Shapiro, Deputy Solicitors General, William Kanter, and Eloise Davies.

      Stephen N. Shulmán, by invitation of the Court, 459 U. S. 964, argued the cause as amicus curiae in support of the judgment below.

      Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed by Lori Fisler Dam-rosch and Joseph McLaughlin for the Committee on International Law of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York; and by Monroe Leigh, Timothy B. Atkeson, Cecil J. Olmstead, and Stewart A. Baker for the Rule of Law Committee et al.
      A brief of amicus curiae urging affirmance was filed by Stephen N. Shulman and Mark C. Ellenberg for the Republic of Guinea.

   Chief Justice Burger

delivered the opinion of the Court.

We granted certiorari to consider whether the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, by authorizing a foreign plaintiff to sue a foreign state in a United States district court on a nonfederal cause of action, violates Article III of the Constitution.

I

On April 21, 1975, the Federal Republic of Nigeria and petitioner Verlinden B. V., a Dutch corporation with its principal offices in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, entered into a contract providing for the purchase of 240,000 metric tons of cement by Nigeria. The parties agreed that the contract would be governed by the laws of the Netherlands and that disputes would be resolved by arbitration before the International Chamber of Commerce, Paris, France.

The contract provided that the Nigerian Government was to establish an irrevocable, confirmed letter of credit for the total purchase price through Slavénburg’s Bank in Amsterdam. According to petitioner’s amended complaint, however, respondent Central Bank of Nigeria, an instrumentality of Nigeria, improperly established an unconfirmed letter of credit payable through Morgan Guaranty Trust Co. in New York.

In. August 1975, Verlinden subcontracted with a Liechtenstein corporation, Interbuco, to purchase the cement needed to fulfill the contract. Meanwhile, the ports of Nigeria had become clogged with hundreds of ships carrying cement, sent by numerous other cement suppliers with whom Nigeria also had entered into contracts. In mid-September, Central Bank unilaterally directed its correspondent banks, including Morgan Guaranty, to adopt a series of amendments to all letters of credit issued in connection with the cement contracts. Central Bank also directly notified the suppliers that payment would be made only for those shipments approved by Central Bank two months before their arrival in Nigerian waters.

Verlinden then sued Central Bank in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that Central Bank’s actions constituted an anticipatory breach of the letter of credit. Verlinden alleged jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1330. Respondent moved to dismiss for, among other reasons, lack of subject-matter and personal jurisdiction.

The District Court first held that a federal court may exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over a suit brought by a foreign corporation against a foreign sovereign. Although the legislative history of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act does not clearly reveal whether Congress intended the Act to extend to actions brought by foreign plaintiffs, Judge Weinfeld reasoned that the language of the Act is “broad and embracing. It confers jurisdiction over ‘any nonjury civil action’ against a foreign state.” 488 F. Supp. 1284, 1292 (SDNY 1980). Moreover, in the District Court’s view, allowing all actions against foreign sovereigns, including those initiated by foreign plaintiffs, to be brought in federal court was necessary to effectuate “the Congressional purpose of concentrating litigation against sovereign states in the federal courts in order to aid the development of a uniform body of federal law governing assertions of sovereign immunity.” Ibid. The District Court also held that Art. Ill subject-matter jurisdiction extends to suits by foreign corporations against foreign sovereigns, stating:

“[The Act] imposes a single, federal standard to be applied uniformly by both state and federal courts hearing claims brought against foreign states. In consequence, even though the plaintiff’s claim is one grounded upon common law, the case is one that ‘arises under’ a federal law because the complaint compels the application of the uniform federal standard governing assertions of sovereign immunity. In short, the Immunities Act injects an essential federal element into all suits brought against foreign states.” Ibid.

The District Court nevertheless dismissed the complaint, holding that a foreign instrumentality is entitled to sovereign immunity unless one of the exceptions specified in the Act applies. After carefully considering each of the exceptions upon which petitioner relied, the District Court concluded that none applied, and accordingly dismissed the action.

The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed, but on different grounds. 647 F. 2d 320 (1981). The court agreed with the District Court that the Act was properly construed to permit actions brought by foreign plaintiffs. The court held, however, that the Act exceeded the scope of Art. Ill of the Constitution. In the view of the Court of Appeals, neither the Diversity Clause nor the “Arising Under” Clause of Art. Ill is broad enough to support jurisdiction over actions by foreign plaintiffs against foreign sovereigns; accordingly it concluded that Congress was without power to grant federal courts jurisdiction in this case, and affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of the action.

We granted certiorari, 454 U. S. 1140 (1982), and we reverse and remand.

II

For more than a century and a half, the United States generally granted foreign sovereigns complete immunity from suit in the courts of this country. In The Schooner Exchange v. M’Faddon, 7 Cranch 116 (1812), Chief Justice Marshall concluded that, while the jurisdiction of a nation within its own territory “is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself,” id., at 136, the United States had impliedly waived jurisdiction over certain activities of foreign sovereigns. Although the narrow holding of The Schooner Exchange was only that the courts of the United States lack jurisdiction over an armed ship of a foreign state found in our port, that opinion came to be regarded as extending virtually absolute immunity to foreign sovereigns. See, e. g., Berizzi Brothers Co. v. S.S. Pesaro, 271 U. S. 562 (1926); Von Mehren, The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, 17 Colum. J. Transnat’l L. 33, 39-40 (1978).

As The Schooner Exchange made clear, however, foreign sovereign immunity is a matter of grace and comity on the part of the United States, and not a restriction imposed by the Constitution. Accordingly, this Court consistently has deferred to the decisions of the political branches — in particular, those of the Executive Branch — on whether to take jurisdiction over actions against foreign sovereigns and their instru-mentalities. See, e. g., Ex parte Peru, 318 U. S. 578, 586-590 (1943); Mexico v. Hoffman, 324 U. S. 30, 33-36 (1945).

Until 1952, the State Department ordinarily requested immunity in all actions against friendly foreign sovereigns. But in the so-called Tate Letter, the State Department announced its adoption of the “restrictive” theory of foreign sovereign immunity. Under this theory, immunity is confined to suits involving the foreign sovereign’s public acts, and does not extend to cases arising out of a foreign state’s strictly commercial acts.

The restrictive theory was not initially enacted into law, however; and its application proved troublesome. As in the past, initial responsibility for deciding questions of sovereign immunity fell primarily upon the Executive acting through the State Department, and the courts abided by “suggestions of immunity” from the State Department. As a consequence, foreign nations often placed diplomatic pressure on the State Department in seeking immunity. On occasion, political considerations led to suggestions of immunity in cases where immunity would not have been available under the restrictive theory.

An additional complication was posed by the fact that foreign nations did not always make requests to the State Department. In such cases, the responsibility fell to the courts to determine whether sovereign immunity existed, generally by reference to prior State Department decisions. See generally Lowenfeld, Claims Against Foreign States — A Proposal for Reform of United States Law, 44 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 901, 909-912 (1969). Thus, sovereign immunity determinations were made in two different branches, subject to a variety of factors, sometimes including diplomatic considerations. Not surprisingly, the governing standards were neither clear nor uniformly applied. See, e. g., id., at 906-909; Weber, The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976: Its Origin, Meaning and Effect, 3 Yale Studies in World Public Order 1, 11-13, 15-17 (1976).

In 1976, Congress passed the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act in order to free the Government from the case-by-case diplomatic pressures, to clarify the governing standards, and to “assurfe] litigants that . . . decisions are made on purely legal grounds and under procedures that insure due process,” H. R. Rep. No. 94-1487, p. 7 (1976). To accomplish these objectives, the Act contains a comprehensive set of legal standards governing claims of immunity in every civil action against a foreign state or its political subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities.

For the most part, the Act codifies, as a matter of federal law, the restrictive theory of sovereign immunity. A foreign state is normally immune from the jurisdiction of federal and state courts, 28 U. S. C. § 1604, subject to a set of exceptions specified in §§ 1605 and 1607. Those exceptions include actions in which the foreign state has explicitly or impliedly waived its immunity, § 1605(a)(1), and actions based upon commercial activities of the foreign sovereign carried on in the United States or causing a direct effect in the United States, § 1605(a)(2). When one of these or the other specified exceptions applies, “the foreign state shall be liable in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances,” § 1606.

The Act expressly provides that its standards control in “the courts of the United States and of the States,” § 1604, and thus clearly contemplates that such suits may be brought in either federal or state courts. However, “[i]n view of the potential sensitivity of actions against foreign states and the importance of developing a uniform body of law in this area,” H. R. Rep. No. 94-1487, supra, at 32, the Act guarantees foreign states the right to remove any civil action from a state court to a federal court, § 1441(d). The Act also provides that any claim permitted under the Act may be brought from the outset in federal court, § 1330(a). If one of the specified exceptions to sovereign immunity applies, a federal district court may exercise subject-matter jurisdiction under § 1330(a); but if the claim does not fall within one of the exceptions, federal courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction. In such a case, the foreign state is also ensured immunity from the jurisdiction of state courts by § 1604.

III

The District Court and the Court of Appeals both held that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act purports to allow a foreign plaintiff to sue a foreign sovereign in the courts of the United States, provided the substantive requirements of the Act are satisfied. We agree.

On its face, the language of the statute is unambiguous. The statute grants jurisdiction over “any nonjury civil action against a foreign state . . . with respect to which the foreign state is not entitled to immunity,” 28 U. S. C. § 1330(a). The Act contains no indication of any limitation based on the citizenship of the plaintiff.

The legislative history is less clear in this regard. The House Report recites that the Act would provide jurisdiction for “any claim with respect to which the foreign state is not entitled to immunity under sections 1605-1607,” H. R. Rep. No. 94-1487, supra, at 13 (emphasis added), and also states that its purpose was “to provide when and how parties can maintain a lawsuit against a foreign state or its entities,” id., at 6 (emphasis added). At another point, however, the Report refers to the growing number of disputes between “American citizens” and foreign states, id., at 6-7, and expresses the desire to ensure “our citizens . . . access to the courts,” id., at 6 (emphasis added).

Notwithstanding this reference to “our citizens,” we conclude that, when considered as a whole, the legislative history reveals an intent not to limit jurisdiction under the Act to actions brought by American citizens. Congress was aware of concern that “our courts [might be] turned into small ‘international courts of claims[,]’ . . . open ... to all comers to litigate any dispute which any private party may have with a foreign state anywhere in the world.” Testimony of Bruno A. Ristau, Hearings on H. R. 11315, at 31. As the language of the statute reveals, Congress protected against this danger not by restricting the class of potential plaintiffs, but rather by enacting substantive provisions requiring some form of substantial contact with the United States. See 28 U. S. C. § 1605. If an action satisfies the substantive standards of the Act, it may be brought in federal court regardless of the citizenship of the plaintiff.

> 1 — H

We now turn to the core question presented by this case: whether Congress exceeded the scope of Art. Ill of the Constitution by granting federal courts subject-matter jurisdiction over certain civil actions by foreign plaintiffs against foreign sovereigns where the rule of decision may be provided by state law.

This Court’s cases firmly establish that Congress may not expand the jurisdiction of the federal courts beyond the bounds established by the Constitution. See, e. g., Hodgson v. Bowerbank, 5 Cranch 303 (1809); Kline v. Burke Construction Co., 260 U. S. 226, 234 (1922). Within Art. III of the Constitution, we find two sources authorizing the grant of jurisdiction in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act: the Diversity Clause and the “Arising Under” Clause. The Diversity Clause, which provides that the judicial power extends to controversies between “a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States,” covers actions by citizens of States. Yet diversity jurisdiction is not sufficiently broad to support a grant of jurisdiction over actions by foreign plaintiffs, since a foreign plaintiff is not “a State, or [a] Citize[n] thereof.” See Mossman v. Higginson, 4 Dall. 12 (1800). We conclude, however, that the “Arising Under” Clause of Art. III provides an appropriate basis for the statutory grant of subject-matter jurisdiction to actions by foreign plaintiffs under the Act.

The controlling decision on the scope of Art. Ill “arising under” jurisdiction is Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion for the Court in Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738 (1824). In Osborn, the Court upheld the constitutionality of a statute that granted the Bank of the United States the right to sue in federal court on causes of action based upon state law. There, the Court concluded that the “judicial department may receive . . . the power of construing every . . . law” that “the Legislature may constitutionally make,” id., at 818. The rule was laid down that

“it [is] a sufficient foundation for jurisdiction, that the title or right set up by the party, may be defeated by one construction of the constitution or law[s] of the United States, and sustained by the opposite construction.” Id., at 822.

Osborn thus reflects a broad conception of “arising under” jurisdiction, according to which Congress may confer on the federal courts jurisdiction over any case or controversy that might call for the application of federal law. The breadth of that conclusion has been questioned. It has been observed that, taken at its broadest, Osborn might be read as permitting “assertion of original federal jurisdiction on the remote possibility of presentation of a federal question.” Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U. S. 448, 482 (1957) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting). See, e. g., P. Bator, P. Mishkin, D. Shapiro, & H. Wechsler, Hart & Wechsler’s The Federal Courts and the Federal System 866-867 (2d ed. 1973). We need not now resolve that issue or decide the precise boundaries of Art. Ill jurisdiction, however, since the present case does not involve a mere speculative possibility that a federal question may arise at some point in the proceeding. Rather, a suit against a foreign state under this Act necessarily raises questions of substantive federal law at the very outset, and hence clearly “arises under” federal law, as that term is used in Art. III.

By reason of its authority over foreign commerce and foreign relations, Congress has the undisputed power to decide, as a matter of federal law, whether and under what circumstances foreign nations should be amenable to suit in the United States. Actions against foreign sovereigns in our courts raise sensitive issues concerning the foreign relations of the United States, and the primacy of federal concerns is evident. See, e. g., Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U. S. 398, 423-425 (1964); Zschernig v. Miller, 389 U. S. 429, 440-441 (1968).

To promote these federal interests, Congress exercised its Art. I powers by enacting a statute comprehensively regulating the amenability of foreign nations to suit in the United States. The statute must be applied by the district courts in every action against a foreign sovereign, since subject-matter jurisdiction in any such action depends on the existence of one of the specified exceptions to foreign sovereign immunity, 28 U. S. C. § 1330(a). At the threshold of every action in a district court against a foreign state, therefore, the court must satisfy itself that one of the exceptions applies— and in doing so it must apply the detailed federal law standards set forth in the Act. Accordingly, an action against a foreign sovereign arises under federal law, for purposes of Art. Ill jurisdiction.

In reaching a contrary conclusion, the Court of Appeals relied heavily upon decisions construing 28 U. S. C. § 1331, the statute which grants district courts general federal-question jurisdiction over any case that “arises under” the laws of the United States. The court placed particular emphasis on the so-called “well-pleaded complaint” rule, which provides, for purposes of statutory “arising under” jurisdiction, that the federal question must appear on the face of a well-pleaded complaint and may not enter in anticipation of a defense. See, e. g., Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U. S. 149 (1908); Gully v. First National Bank, 299 U. S. 109 (1936); 13 C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3662 (1975) (hereinafter Wright, Miller, & Cooper). In the view of the Court of Appeals, the question of foreign sovereign immunity in this case arose solely as a defense, and not on the face of Verlinden’s well-pleaded complaint.

Although the language of § 1331 parallels that of the “Arising Under” Clause of Art. Ill, this Court never has held that statutory “arising under” jurisdiction is identical to Art. Ill “arising under” jurisdiction. Quite the contrary is true. Section 1331, the general federal-question statute, although broadly phrased,

“has been continuously construed and limited in the light of the history that produced it, the demands of reason and coherence, and the dictates of sound judicial policy which have emerged from the [statute’s] function as a provision in the mosaic of federal judiciary legislation. It is a statute, not a Constitution, we are expounding.” Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co., 358 U. S. 354, 379 (1959) (emphasis added).

In an accompanying footnote, the Court further observed: “Of course the many limitations which have been placed on jurisdiction under § 1331 are not limitations on the constitutional power of Congress to confer jurisdiction on the federal courts.” Id., at 379, n. 51. We reiterated that conclusion in Powell v. McCormack, 395 U. S. 486, 515 (1969). See also Shoshone Mining Co. v. Rutter, 177 U. S. 505, 506 (1900). As these decisions make clear, Art. III “arising under” jurisdiction is broader than federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331, and the Court of Appeals’ heavy reliance on decisions construing that statute was misplaced.

In rejecting “arising under” jurisdiction, the Court of Appeals also noted that 28 U. S. C. §1330 is a jurisdictional provision. Because of this, the court felt its conclusion compelled by prior cases in which this Court has rejected congressional attempts to confer jurisdiction on federal courts simply by enacting jurisdictional statutes. In Mossman v. Higginson, 4 Dall. 12 (1800), for example, this Court found that a statute purporting to confer jurisdiction over actions “where an alien is a party” would exceed the scope of Art. Ill if construed to allow an action solely between two aliens. And in The Propeller Genesee Chief v. Fitzhugh, 12 How. 443, 451-453 (1852), the Court, while upholding a statute granting jurisdiction over vessels on the Great Lakes as an exercise of maritime jurisdiction, rejected the view that the jurisdictional statute itself constituted a federal regulation of commerce upon which “arising under” jurisdiction could be based.

From these cases, the Court of Appeals apparently concluded that a jurisdictional statute can never constitute the federal law under which the action arises, for Art. Ill purposes. Yet the statutes at issue in these prior cases sought to do nothing more than grant jurisdiction over a particular class of cases. As the Court stated in The Propeller Genesee Chief: “The law . . . contains no regulations of commerce .... It merely confers a new jurisdiction on the district courts; and this is its only object and purpose. ... It is evident . . . that Congress, in passing [the law], did not intend to exercise their power to regulate commerce . . . .” 12 How., at 451-452 (emphasis added).

In contrast, in enacting the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, Congress expressly exercised its power to regulate foreign commerce, along with other specified Art. I powers. See n. 19, supra. As the House Report clearly indicates, the primary purpose of the Act was to “se[t] forth comprehensive rules governing sovereign immunity,” H. R. Rep. No. 94-1487, p. 12 (1976); the jurisdictional provisions of the Act are simply one part of this comprehensive scheme. The Act thus does not merely concern access to the federal courts. Rather, it governs the types of actions for which foreign sovereigns may be held liable in a court in the United States, federal or state. The Act codifies the standards governing foreign sovereign immunity as an aspect of substantive federal law, see Ex parte Peru, 318 U. S., at 588; Mexico v. Hoffman, 324 U. S., at 36; and applying those standards will generally require interpretation of numerous points of federal law. Finally, if a court determines that none of the exceptions to sovereign immunity applies, the plaintiff will be barred from raising his claim in any court in the United States — manifestly, “the title or right set up by the party, may be defeated by one construction of the . . . laws of the United States, and sustained by the opposite construction.” Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat., at 822. That the inquiry into foreign sovereign immunity is labeled under the Act as a matter of jurisdiction does not affect the constitutionality of Congress’ action in granting federal courts jurisdiction over cases calling for application of this comprehensive regulatory statute.

Congress, pursuant to its unquestioned Art. I powers, has enacted a broad statutory framework governing assertions of foreign sovereign immunity. In so doing, Congress deliberately sought to channel cases against foreign sovereigns away from the state courts and into federal courts, thereby reducing the potential for a multiplicity of conflicting results among the courts of the 50 States. The resulting jurisdictional grant is within the bounds of Art. Ill, since every action against a foreign sovereign necessarily involves application of a body of substantive federal law, and accordingly “arises under” federal law, within the meaning of Art. III.

V

A conclusion that the grant of jurisdiction in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act is consistent with the Constitution does not end the case. An action must not only satisfy Art. Ill but must also be supported by a statutory grant of subject-matter jurisdiction. As we have made clear, deciding whether statutory subject-matter jurisdiction exists under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act entails an application of the substantive terms of the Act to determine whether one of the specified exceptions to immunity applies.

In the present case, the District Court, after satisfying itself as to the constitutionality of the Act, held that the present action does not fall within any specified exception. The Court of Appeals, reaching a contrary conclusion as to jurisdiction under the Constitution, did not find it necessary to address this statutory question. Accordingly, on remand the Court of Appeals must consider whether jurisdiction exists under the Act itself. If the Court of Appeals agrees with the District Court on that issue, the case will be at an end. If, on the other hand, the Court of Appeals concludes that jurisdiction does exist under the statute, the action may then be remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.

It is so ordered.

       Morgan Guaranty acted solely as an advising bank; it undertook no independent responsibility for guaranteeing the letter of credit.

       In 1975, Nigeria entered into 109 cement contracts with 68 suppliers. For a description of the general background of these events, see Texas Trading & Milling Corp. v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, 647 F. 2d 300, 303-306 (CA2 1981), cert. denied, 454 U. S. 1148 (1982). See also Trendtex Trading Corp. v. Central Bank of Nigeria, [1977] Q. B. 529.

       The parties do not seriously dispute the fact that these unilateral amendments constituted violations of Article 3 of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (Int’l Chamber of Commerce Brochure No. 222) (1962 Revision), which, by stipulation of the parties, is applicable. See 488 F. Supp. 1284, 1288, and n. 5 (SDNY 1980).

       Title 28 U. S. C. § 1330 provides:
      “(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction without regard to amount in controversy of any nonjury civil action against a foreign state as defined in section 1603(a) of this title as to any claim for relief in personam with respect to which the foreign state is not entitled to immunity either under sections 1605-1607 of this title or under any applicable international agreement.

        “(b) Personal jurisdiction over a foreign state shall exist as to every claim for relief over which the district courts have jurisdiction under subsection (a) where service has been made under section 1608 of this title.”

       The District Court dismissed “for lack of personal jurisdiction.” Under the Act, however, both statutory subject-matter jurisdiction (otherwise known as “competence”) and personal jurisdiction turn on application of the substantive provisions of the Act. Under § 1330(a), federal district courts are provided subject-matter jurisdiction if a foreign state is “not entitled to immunity either under sections 1605-1607 ... or under any applicable international agreement”; § 1330(b) provides personal jurisdiction wherever subject-matter jurisdiction exists under subsection (a) and service of process has been made under 28 U. S. C. § 1608. Thus, if none of the exceptions to sovereign immunity set forth in the Act applies, the District Court lacks both statutory subject-matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction. The District Court’s conclusion that none of the exceptions to the Act applied therefore signified an absence of both competence and personal jurisdiction.

       The Foreign Diversity Clause provides that the judicial power extends “to Controversies . . ; between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.” U. S. Const., Art. III, §2, cl. 1.

       The so-called “Arising Under” Clause provides: “The judicial Power [of the United States] shall extend to all Cases . . . arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority.” Ibid.

       After the decision was announced, the United States moved for leave to intervene and for rehearing on the ground that the Court of Appeals had not complied with 28 U. S. C. § 2403, which requires that, in “any action” in which “the constitutionality of any Act of Congress affecting the public interest is drawn in question, the court shall certify such fact to the Attorney General.” The Court of Appeals denied the motion without explanation, see App. to Pet. for Cert. 55a.

       Letter from Jack B. Tate, Acting Legal Adviser, Department of State, to Acting Attorney General Philip B. Perlman (May 19, 1952), reprinted in 26 Dept. of State Bull. 984-985 (1952), and in Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v. Cuba, 425 U. S. 682, 711 (1976) (Appendix 2 to opinion of White, J.).

       See Testimony of Monroe Leigh, Legal Adviser, Department of State, Hearings on H. R. 11315 before the Subcommittee on Administrative Law and Governmental Relations of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 94th Cong., 2d Sess., 34-35 (1976) (hereafter Hearings on H. R. 11315); Leigh, Sovereign Immunity — The Case of the “Imias,” 68 Am. J. Int’l L. 280 (1974); Note, The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976: Giving the Plaintiff His Day in Court, 46 Ford. L. Rev. 543, 548-549 (1977).

       The Act also contains exceptions for certain actions “in which rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue,” § 1605(a)(3); actions involving rights in real estate and in inherited and gift property located in the United States, § 1605(a)(4); actions for certain noncommercial torts within the United States, § 1605(a)(5); certain actions involving maritime liens, § 1605(b); and certain counterclaims, § 1607.

       Section 1606 somewhat modifies this standard of liability with respect to punitive damages and wrongful-death actions.

       “[T]o encourage the bringing of actions against foreign states in Federal courts,” H. R. Rep. No. 94-1487, p. 13 (1976), the Act specifies that federal district courts shall have original jurisdiction “without regard to amount in controversy.” § 1330(a).

       In such a situation, the federal court will also lack personal jurisdiction. See n. 5, supra.

       Section 1605(a)(1), which provides that sovereign immunity shall not apply if waived, may be seen as an exception to the normal pattern of the Act, which generally requires some form of contact with the United States. We need not decide whether, by waiving its immunity, a foreign state could consent to suit based on activities wholly unrelated to the United States. The Act does not appear to affect the traditional doctrine of forum non conveniens. See generally Kane, Suing Foreign Sovereigns: A Procedural Compass, 34 Stanford L. Rev. 385, 411-412 (1982); Note, Suits by Foreigners Against Foreign States in United States Courts: A Selective Expansion of Jurisdiction, 90 Yale L. J. 1861, 1871-1873 (1981).

       Prior to passage of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which Congress clearly intended to govern all actions against foreign sovereigns, state courts on occasion had exercised jurisdiction over suits between foreign plaintiffs and foreign sovereigns, see, e. g., J. Zeevi & Sons v. Grindlays Bank, 37 N. Y. 2d 220, 333 N. E. 2d 168, cert. denied, 423 U. S. 866 (1975). Congress did not prohibit such actions when it enacted the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, but sought to ensure that any action that might be brought against a foreign sovereign in state court could also be brought in or removed to federal court. See supra, at 489.

       In view of our conclusion that proper actions by foreign plaintiffs under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act are within Art. Ill “arising under” jurisdiction, we need not consider petitioner’s alternative argument that the Act is constitutional as an aspect of so-called “protective jurisdiction.” See generally Note, The Theory of Protective Jurisdiction, 57 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 933.(1982).

       Since Art. III requires only “minimal diversity,” see State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Tashire, 386 U. S. 528, 530 (1967), diversity jurisdiction would be a sufficient basis for jurisdiction where at least one of the plaintiffs is a citizen of a State.

       In enacting the legislation, Congress relied specifically on its powers to prescribe the jurisdiction of federal courts, Art. I, § 8, cl. 9; to define offenses against the “Law of Nations,” Art. I, § 8, cl. 10; to regulate commerce with foreign nations, Art. I, § 8, cl. 3; and to make all laws necessary and proper to execute the Government’s powers, Art. I, § 8, cl. 18.

       The House Report on the Act states that “sovereign immunity is an affirmative defense which must be specially pleaded,” H. R. Rep. No. 94-1487, p. 17 (1976). Under the Act, however, subject-matter jurisdiction turns on the existence of an exception to foreign sovereign immunity, 28 U. S. C. § 1330(a). Accordingly, even if the foreign state does not enter an appearance to assert an immunity defense, a district court still must determine that immunity is unavailable under the Act.

       Citing only Shoshone Mining Co. v. Rutter, 177 U. S. 505 (1900), the Court of Appeals recognized that this Court “has implied” that Art. Ill jurisdiction is broader than that under § 1331. The court nevertheless placed substantial reliance on decisions construing § 1331.

       Although a major function of the Foreign Service Immunities Act as a whole is to regulate jurisdiction of federal courts over eases involving foreign states, the Act’s purpose is to set forth “comprehensive rules governing sovereign immunity.” H. R. Rep. No. 94-1487, swpra, at 12. The Act also prescribes procedures for commencing lawsuits against foreign states in federal and state courts and specifies the circumstances under which attachment and execution may be obtained against the property of foreign states. Ibid. In addition, the Act defines “Extent of Liability,” setting out a general rule that the foreign sovereign is “liable in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual,” subject to certain specified exceptions, 28 U. S. C. § 1606. In view of our resolution of this case, we need not consider petitioner’s claim that § 1606 itself renders every claim against a foreign sovereign a federal cause of action. See generally 13 Wright, Miller, & Cooper § 3563, at 418-419.

       In several related cases involving contracts between Nigeria and other cement suppliers, the Court of Appeals held that statutory subject-matter jurisdiction existed under the Act. In those cases, the court held that Nigeria’s acts were commercial in nature and “cause[d] a direct effect in the United States,” within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. § 1605(a). Texas Trading & Milling Corp. v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, 647 F. 2d, at 310-813. Each of those actions involved a contract with an American supplier operating within the United States, however. In the present case, the District Court found that exception inapplicable, concluding that the repudiation of the letter of credit “caused no direct, substantial, injurious effect in the United States.” 488 F. Supp., at 1299-1300.