author:
Justice Marshall
      Justice Powell, Justice Rehnquist,

text:
    BURNETT et al. v. GRATTAN et al.
    No. 83-264.
    Argued March 26, 1984
    Decided June 27, 1984

      Marshall, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Brennan, White, Blackmun, and Stevens, JJ., joined. Powell, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 56. Rehnquist, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Burger, C. J., and O’Connor, J., joined, post, p. 56.

      Paul F. Strain, Deputy Attorney General of Maryland, argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Stephen H. Sachs, Attorney General, and Diana Gribbon Motz, Christine Steiner, and Robert A. Zamoch, Assistant Attorneys General.

      Sheldon H. Laskin argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Laura Metcoff Klaus and Joseph M. Sellers.

        Neil R. Shortlidge filed a brief for the League of Kansas Municipalities as amicus curiae urging reversal.

        Leon Friedman, Charles S. Sims, and Burt Neubome filed a brief for the American Civil Liberties Union as amicus curiae urging affirmance.

   Justice Marshall

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question presented is whether a state law, establishing a procedure for administrative resolution of employment discrimination complaints, provides an appropriate statute of limitations for actions brought under the Reconstruction-Era Civil Rights Acts, 42 U. S. C. § 1981 et seq. We hold that it does not.

h — I

Respondents James Grattan and Adrienne Hedman were employees of Coppin State College, a predominantly Negro college in Maryland. Their primary responsibility was to recruit students of diverse ethnic backgrounds to attend the school. App. 34-39. Respondents received notice in June 1976 that their contracts would not be renewed because the college “was not satisfied with the recruitment efforts of the Minority Affairs office.” Id., at 34, 38. In response, respondents, who are white, filed complaints of racial discrimination with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. While those claims were pending, they filed suit in state court in February 1977, naming as defendants the petitioners in the present action — the president of the College, the vice president of student affairs, and the chairman and executive director of the board of trustees. In October 1981, on leave of the court, respondents filed an amended complaint, specifically alleging that they were victims of racial discrimination, and, in Hedman’s case, gender discrimination, in violation of 42 U. S. C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985 1986 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that their discharge also violated the First Amendment and various provisions of the Maryland Constitution. App. 11-33. Petitioners removed the action from state to federal court. Thereafter, they filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that respondents’ claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Id., at 39-40.

Because the federal statutes under which respondents sued do not themselves contain a statute of limitations, the District Court borrowed a limitations period from a state statute prohibiting discriminatory practices in employment. Md. Ann. Code, Art. 49B, §9(a) (1979); see App. to Pet. for Cert. 23, 34. The District Court identified a “commonality of purpose” between the federal rights asserted and the rights defined in the state statute, and concluded that it was reasonable to subject the federal claims to the 6-month statute of limitations on filing employment discrimination complaints with an administrative body, the Maryland Human Affairs Commission. Id., at 34-36. Because respondents’ complaint had been filed more than six months after their cause of action accrued, the District Court dismissed the suit as time-barred.

The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, relying on its previous decision in McNutt v. Duke Precision Dental and Orthodontic Laboratories, Inc., 698 F. 2d 676 (1983), found the 6-month period selected by the District Court inappropriate for suits brought under the Civil Rights Acts because the state law “governed the limitation of administrative proceedings which were informal, investigatory and conciliatory in nature.” 710 F. 2d 160, 162 (1983). The Court of Appeals applied Maryland’s 3-year statute of limitations for all civil actions for which the Code does not otherwise provide a limitations period. Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. Code Ann. § 5-101 (1984). Finding that Grattan’s and Hedman’s amended complaint stated claims that related back to the action originally filed in the Maryland court some eight months after their cause of action arose, the Court of Appeals held that the action was not time-barred, and remanded to the District Court.

We granted certiorari to resolve confusion in the Circuits regarding reliance upon a state administrative statute of limitations in a federal civil rights suit. 464 U. S. 981 (1983). We now affirm.

II

The century-old Civil Rights Acts do not contain every rule of decision required to adjudicate claims asserted under them. In the absence of specific guidance, Congress has directed federal courts to follow a three-step process to borrow an appropriate rule. 42 U. S. C. § 1988. First, courts are to look to the laws of the United States “so far as such laws are suitable to carry [the civil and criminal civil rights statutes] into effect.” Ibid. If no suitable federal rule exists, courts undertake the second step by considering application of state “common law, as modified and changed by the constitution and statutes” of the forum State. Ibid. A third step asserts the predominance of the federal interest:, courts are to apply state law only if it is not “inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.” Ibid.

A

The task before the courts in the present case was to identify a limitations period governing respondents’ claims under 42 U. S. C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, and 1986. The Civil Rights Acts do not provide the rule. Only 42 U. S. C. § 1986 contains a statute of limitations. Other sources of federal law are no more helpful. On several occasions, this Court has rejected arguments that a particular federal statute of limitations applied, O’Sullivan v. Felix, 233 U. S. 318, 324-325 (1914) (rejecting federal statute of limitations for suits for a penalty, because civil actions under Civil Rights Act are remedial), or has implicitly rejected linkage with other federal statutes, emphasizing the independence of the remedial scheme established by the Reconstruction-Era Acts. See, e. g., Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 421 U. S. 454, 459-461 (1975) (§ 1981 and Title VII (Equal Employment Opportunity) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provide independent rights and remedies); Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U. S. 409, 416-417, and n. 20 (1968) (enactment of Title VIII (Fair Housing) of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 “had no effect upon § 1982”). It is now settled that federal courts will turn to state law for statutes of limitations in actions brought under these civil rights statutes. See, e. g., Chardon v. Fumero Soto, 462 U. S. 650, 655-656 (1983).

B

We have described in a variety of ways the task of a court when determining which of a set of arguably relevant state statutes of limitations should govern a suit brought under the Civil Rights Acts. For example, in Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, supra, at 462, an action brought under 42 U. S. C. § 1981, we described the goal as that of identifying the “most appropriate” state statute of limitations. In Board of Regents v. Tomanio, 446 U. S. 478, 483-484 (1980), an action under § 1983, we suggested that the court should select “the state law of limitations governing an analogous cause of action.” See also Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, supra, at 469 (“that [period of limitations] which the State would apply if the action had been brought in a state court”) (Marshall, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). We agree with the Court of Appeals that the District Court’s selection of Art. 49B of the Maryland Code was erroneous under this approach. The functional differences between the federal causes of action and the state administrative law make Art. 49B an inappropriate analog from which to borrow to effectuate Congress’ purpose in enacting the Civil Rights Acts.

In the Civil Rights Acts, Congress established causes of action arising out of rights and duties under the Constitution and federal statutes. These causes of action exist independent of any other legal or administrative relief that may be available as a matter of federal or state law. They are judicially enforceable in the first instance. The statutes are characterized by broadly inclusive language. They do not limit who may bring suit, do not limit the cause of action to a circumscribed set of facts, nor do they preclude money damages or injunctive relief. An appropriate limitations period must be responsive to these characteristics of litigation under the federal statutes. A state law is not “appropriate” if it fails to take into account practicalities that are involved in litigating federal civil rights claims and policies that are analogous to the goals of the Civil Rights Acts.

Applying these criteria for disqualifying a particular state law, we begin with the observation that borrowing an administrative statute of limitations ignores the dominant characteristic of civil rights actions: they belong in court. McDonald v. West Branch, 466 U. S. 284, 290 (1984). Assuring the full availability of a judicial forum necessitates attention to the practicalities of litigation. Litigating a civil rights claim requires considerable preparation. An injured person must recognize the constitutional dimensions of his injury. He must obtain counsel, or prepare to proceed pro se. He must conduct enough investigation to draft pleadings that meet the requirements of federal rules; he must also establish the amount of his damages, prepare legal documents, pay a substantial filing fee or prepare additional papers to support a request to proceed in forma pauperis, and file and serve his complaint. At the same time, the litigant must look ahead to the responsibilities that immediately follow filing of a complaint. He must be prepared to withstand various responses, such as a motion to dismiss, as well as to undertake additional discovery.

The practical difficulties facing an aggrieved person who invokes administrative remedies are strikingly different. Maryland’s scheme is modeled on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. §2000e et seq., and is typical of statutes in some 30 States. See Pet. for Cert. 10, and n. 7. A person’s sole responsibility under this scheme is to “make, sign and file with the Human Relations Commission ... a complaint in writing under oath.” Md. Ann. Code, Art. 49B, § 9(a) (1979). The complaint need contain no more than the name and address of the person or entity alleged to have committed the discriminatory act, “the particulars thereof,” and “other information as may be required from time to time by the Commission.” Ibid. Although the complainant is potentially liable for a malicious filing, § 12(b), he has no obligation to investigate his allegations more fully. The entire burden of investigating and developing the case rests on the Human Rights Commission, which is empowered to issue subpoenas, conduct hearings, and seek judicial enforcement of its orders. §§ 11-12.

When a legislature selects a statute of limitations to govern a particular cause of action, it takes into account the burdens borne by the parties to a suit of that sort. Article 49B, § 9(a), tells a person when he must act if he wishes to request the aid of the Human Rights Commission in resolving an employment discrimination dispute.. The time limit established by the Maryland Legislature reflects in part the minimal burden state law places on the administrative complainant, which does not correspond in any significant way to the substantial burden federal law places on a civil rights litigant. Indeed, Maryland’s administrative procedure acknowledges these different burdens. Where a complainant has only six months to initiate a grievance, the Human Affairs Commission — which after receiving notice of the complaint essentially assumes the role of “litigant” — may engage in investigation and negotiations toward settlement for at least two years before bringing formal charges against an employer. Code of Maryland Regulations 14.03.01.01-14.03.01.03.A (1983).

A legislative definition of a statute of limitations also reflects a policy assessment of the state causes of action to which it applies. Occidental Life Insurance Co. v. EEOC, 432 U. S. 355, 367 (1977) (“State legislatures do not devise their limitations periods with national interests in mind, and it is the duty of the federal courts to assure that the importation of state law will not frustrate or interfere with the implementation of national policies”). For instance, the length of a limitations period will be influenced by the legislature’s determination of the importance of the underlying state claims, the need for repose for potential defendants, considerations of judicial or administrative economy, and the relationship to other state policy goals. To the extent that particular state concerns are inconsistent with, or of marginal relevance to, the policies informing the Civil Rights Acts, the resulting state statute of limitations may be inappropriate for civil rights claims.

The divergence between the goals of the federal civil rights statutes and of the state employment discrimination administrative statute is clear in the present case. The goals of the federal statutes are compensation of persons whose civil rights have been violated, and prevention of the abuse of state power. Board of Regents v. Tomanio, 446 U. S., at 488; Robertson v. Wegmann, 436 U. S. 584, 590-591 (1978). That these are not. the goals of the statute empowering Maryland’s administrative agency to resolve employment discrimination complaints is apparent both because the remedial authority of the agency is limited, and because the state scheme does not create a private right of action. The stated goal of the state administrative procedure is the prompt identification and resolution of employment disputes. The administrative scheme, including a short statute of limitations, encourages conciliation and private settlement through the agency’s intervention in live disputes.

Petitioners urge the prompt assertion and resolution of public employee disputes in particular, noting that this important policy “is clearly mirrored in ... an abbreviated period for the filing of claims of employment discrimination with the state fair employment practices agency,” enacted in Maryland and most other States. Brief for Petitioners 30, and n. 19. That policy, keyed to a classification of plaintiffs, cannot pre-empt the broadly remedial purposes of the Civil Rights Acts, which make no distinction among persons who may look to the court to vindicate their federal constitutional rights. If the statute of limitations in Art. 49B is “abbreviated” precisely because it effectuates the narrower state goal, a federal court should look elsewhere in state law for an appropriate limitations period.

Similarly, the state petitioners argue that the short limitations period in Art. 49B should be applied here because it affords public officers “some reasonable protection from the seemingly endless stream of unfounded, and often stale, lawsuits brought against them.” Brief for Petitioners 30. This contention undercuts rather than buttresses the case for applying the limitations period embodied in Art. 49B to federal civil rights actions. The statement suggests that the legislative choice of a restrictive 6-month limitations period reflects in part a judgment that factors such as minimizing the diversion of state officials’ attention from their duties outweigh the interest in providing employees ready access to a forum to resolve valid claims. That policy is manifestly inconsistent with the central objective of the Reconstruction-Era civil rights statutes, which is to ensure that individuals whose federal constitutional or statutory rights are abridged may recover damages or secure injunctive relief. See Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U. S. 225, 239 (1972); Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U. S. 88, 97 (1971); McNeese v. Board of Education, 373 U. S. 668, 671-672 (1963); Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167, 173 (1961).

III

In sum, the Court of Appeals properly applied the tests established by our prior cases for determining whether a particular state statute of limitations should control a suit brought under the Civil Rights Acts. Both the practical differences between the administrative proceeding contemplated by the Maryland statute and a civil action in a federal court, and the divergence in the objectives of the state administrative procedure to resolve employment discrimination suits and a federal cause of action to vindicate constitutional rights, lead us to conclude that borrowing the limitations period from Maryland’s Art. 49B was inappropriate. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore

Affirmed.

Justice Powell,

concurring in the judgment.

The question is what is the appropriate statute of limitations applicable to this Maryland employment discrimination case under 42 U. S. C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 1985(3). The Court of Appeals in McNutt v. Duke Precision Dental Orthodontic Laboratories, Inc., 698 F. 2d 676 (CA4 1983), and again in this case, held that in all claims for which no other limitations period is specifically provided, Maryland’s general 3-year period of limitations is the most appropriate for federal courts to apply in actions under the Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts. The Court of Appeals rejected petitioners’ reliance on Maryland’s 6-month period of limitations applicable to state administrative complaints of employment discrimination. As petitioners have adduced no persuasive reason to doubt that the Court of Appeals correctly decided this question, I agree with the judgment of the Court.

Justice Rehnquist,

with whom The Chief Justice and Justice O’Connor join, concurring in the judgment.

I concur in the judgment of the Court, agreeing with the Court of Appeals that in these circumstances the statute of limitations imposed on administrative complaints filed under Md. Ann. Code, Art. 49B, § 9(a) (1979), is not the most appropriate statute of limitations to be applied in this case. I write separately because I cannot agree with the standard by which the Court purports to reach this result. In my view, the search for the most appropriate statute of limitations should begin with determining the intent of the state legislature in enacting a particular statute of limitations.

The task before us is straightforward: we are to examine Maryland law to determine what is the most appropriate statute of limitations to apply to respondents’ lawsuit. The Court is presented with this task because Congress has seen fit not to prescribe a specific statute of limitations to govern actions under most of the federal civil rights statutes, instead directing courts to apply state law if “not inconsistent” with federal law. See 42 U. S. C. § 1988; cf. § 1986 (setting a 1-year statute of limitations). The Court addresses the question before us by assuming that certain functional differences may exist between claims asserted under the federal civil rights laws and claims asserted under state law. Under this approach, the appropriateness of a particular state statute of limitations for purposes of borrowing in a federal civil rights action depends on whether the state law reflects the “practicalities” that attend litigation under the federal civil rights statutes and embodies policies “analogous” to those of the federal civil rights statutes. But the test prescribed by the Court is consistent neither in principle nor in practice with our prior decisions.

I part ways with the majority, first of all, with its view of the “practicalities” of litigation that so trouble the Court. These seeming difficulties are hardly unique to respondents’ claims or any other garden-variety federal civil rights claim. The Court apparently believes that a person asserting a federal civil rights claim must undertake an involved investigation preparatory to filing suit. See ante, at 50-51. The basis for this assumption is not clear. The Federal Rules require nothing more than a plain statement of the grounds for relief, Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(a), while the Rules of discovery that enable a party to develop his case fully prior to trial come into play after suit has been filed. To be sure, at least a modicum of investigation should be necessary before initiating suit: the amount will depend not on the fact that a federal civil rights claim is being asserted, but on the particular facts that give rise to a claim. But there is nothing inherent in a claim asserted under § 1981, § 1983, or § 1985, in light of modern pleading rules, that makes such a claim invariably more difficult to investigate than a claim asserted under state law. Cf. Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 421 U. S. 454, 464 (1975).

It is true that a longer statute of limitations will give a person more time to reflect and to recognize that he may have some means of relief. But that common-sense truism hardly qualifies as a “practicality” that should ordinarily affect a court’s analysis whether to borrow a particular state statute of limitations. Were it otherwise, a federal court should always prefer a longer statute of limitations over an alternative, but shorter, period, a type of approach we have rejected before. Cf. Robertson v. Wegmann, 436 U. S. 584 (1978). While the “practicalities” of preparing a case may have some relevance to the question whether a state statute of limitations should be applied, see ante, at 53, the Court’s focus on the “practicalities” of filing a lawsuit alleging a federal civil rights claim do not illuminate any convincing reason why the limitations period contained in Md. Ann. Code, Art. 49B, § 9(a) (1979), is inconsistent with federal law.

The second part of the Court’s proposed test for determining whether to apply a particular state statute of limitations is whether the state policies underlying the statute of limitations reflect policies “analogous” — whatever that may mean — to federal civil rights claims. From the application of that principle to this case, the Court seems to believe that the basic purpose underlying the federal civil rights statutes, vindication of a violation of a federal right, necessitates a statute of limitations that is both general in the remedies it encompasses and nondiscriminatory between the federal plaintiffs bringing suit. The logical result of this approach is that a federal court should always prefer a general statute of limitations to any specific state statute of limitations directed at a particular type of claim or involving a particular party as plaintiff or defendant. Thus, a general catchall statute of limitations, or one covering all forms of invasions of personal rights, would be the appropriate statute of limitations to govern nearly all federal civil rights actions.

This approach, of course, means that any federal civil rights action grounded on a contract claim could avoid the statute of limitations applying to contract claims, or that a claim against a state-employed doctor, though alleging only malpractice, might benefit from a longer statute of limitations than ordinarily applying to medical malpractice actions. This desire for uniform treatment of federal civil rights claims is at odds with the fact that Congress has seen no need to establish a uniform approach in federal civil rights actions. Board of Regents v. Tomanio, 446 U. S. 478, 489 (1980); Robertson v. Wegmann, 436 U. S., at 593, n. 11. More significantly, it fails to recognize that a state statute of limitations can still be consistent with federal law notwithstanding the fact that the particular statute of limitations applies only to a particular class of claims cognizable under a federal civil rights statute, or involves a particular class of parties.

On several occasions the Court has addressed the issue of whether a limitations period is inconsistent with the federal policy embodied in the civil rights statutes. In Robertson, for example, we indicated that the. dual policies of preventing the abuse of state power and compensating victims for violations of federal rights were the yardsticks by which any state limitations period must be measured. Id., at 591. We developed the concept of inconsistency further in Tomanio, supra, where we observed that to gauge consistency, “the state and federal policies which the respective legislatures sought to foster must be identified and compared.” Id., at 487. We went on to affirm in that case that statutes of limitations have “long been respected as fundamental to a well-ordered judicial system,” ibid., and to state that “in general, state policies of repose cannot be said to be disfavored in federal law,” id., at 488. Finally, in Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, supra, the Court addressed the question of inconsistency to determine whether an otherwise applicable state 1-year statute of limitations should be tolled pending federal administrative proceedings. We rejected the petitioner’s contention in Johnson that state rules for tolling were inconsistent with federal law, since they forced him to bring a § 1981 claim during the pendency of federal agency proceedings. We noted that there was not “anything peculiar to a federal civil rights action that would justify special reluctance in applying state law.” Id., at 464.

The Court, of course, purports to measure the statute of limitations in this case against the relevant federal policies forming the basis of respondents’ cause of action. See ante, at 53-55. Under the Court’s reasoning, however, the policies of repose and prevention of stale claims that generally underlie limitations statutes will always be of marginal relevance to compensating victims of violations of federal rights. Thus, the approach adopted by the Court utterly disregards our earlier observation, also in Robertson, that “[a] state statute cannot be considered ‘inconsistent’ with federal law merely because the statute causes the plaintiff to lose the litigation.” 436 U. S., at 593.

Congress, moreover, has instructed federal courts to refer to state statutes when federal law does not provide a rule of decision for actions brought under one of the civil rights statutes. See 42 U. S. C. § 1988. This admonition is more than a mere “technical obstacle to be circumvented if possible.” Tomanio, supra, at 484. Only if state law is “inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States,” 42 U. S. C. § 1988, are federal courts free to disregard otherwise applicable state statutes of limitations. As our decision in Tomanio made clear, the intent of the state legislature in enacting a particular limitations statute is extremely relevant to determining whether the applicable state law is inconsistent with federal law. The conclusion that I reach is that if the legislature has indicated that a particular statute of limitations should apply to a claim, that statute is prima facie the most appropriate statute of limitations to apply to a federal civil rights action.

Congress, however, has prescribed limits to this reliance on legislative intent in 42 U. S. C. § 1988. Plainly, if the state statute of limitations discriminates against federal claims, such that a federal claim would be time-barred, while an equivalent state claim would not, then the state law is inconsistent with federal law. Alternatively, if the state statute of limitations fails to afford a reasonable time to the federal claimant, then state legislative intent can also be disregarded. Exactly what constitutes a reasonable time, however, is not to be determined a 'priori. The willingness of Congress to impose a 1-year limitations period in 42 U. S. C. § 1986 demonstrates that at least a 1-year period is reasonable. In another context we have been willing to impose a 6-month limitations period on a federal claimant, in circumstances where the “practicalities” of litigation seem materially the same as in this case. DelCostello v. Teamsters, 462 U. S. 151 (1983). Even shorter periods of limitation might be permissible, if the state interest in repose is strong and the nature of the claim is such that the magnitude of the harm is readily ascertainable in a short period.

I agree with the court below that it is unlikely that the Maryland Legislature intended for the 6-month statute of limitations embodied in Md. Ann. Code, Art. 49B, §9(a) (1979), to apply to the federal civil rights claims asserted in this case. Unlike the Court, however, I do not believe that the “practicalities” of litigation necessarily mean that a 6-month limitations period is an unreasonable time in which to bring a federal cause of action. Perhaps if the legislative intent had been clear, borrowing the administrative statute of limitations would have been consistent with the underlying federal policies embodied in these civil rights statutes. On the other hand, the differences between the two types of claims, one judicial, the other administrative, reinforce the conclusion that the Maryland Legislature did not intend that Art. 49B, § 9(a), apply to federal civil rights claims. Thus, to this limited extent, the “practicalities” of litigation bear on the question whether the state legislature intended for the statute to apply to this federal claim.

In sum, I believe that the correct inquiry is to examine the intent of the state legislature in enacting a statute of limitations. If that inquiry indicates that the legislature would have intended that statute to apply to the particular claim before the court, then the court must apply that limitations period, unless the statute discriminates against the federal claim or does not afford a reasonable amount of time in which to bring the claim. Since it appears that the legislature did not intend that Md. Ann. Code, Art. 49B, apply to respondents’ claims, I would affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.

       Respondents’ original state-court action sought a declaratory judgment that their dismissals were arbitrary and without basis in law or fact, and constituted a deprivation of property without due process and a denial of equal protection. App. 6-7. The state court sustained petitioners’ supplemental demurrer on the ground that the facts set forth in the complaint did not state a case appropriate for declaratory relief, but granted leave to amend. Id,., at 11.

       Title 42 U. S. C. § 1981 guarantees the right to be free from racial discrimination in specific activities, such as making contracts and bringing suit.

       Title 42 U. S. C. §1983 confers a private federal right of action for damages and injunctive relief against state actors who deprive any citizen or person within the jurisdiction of the United States of “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.” See, e. g., Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167 (1961) (constitutional deprivations); Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U. S. 1 (1980) (statutory violations).

       Title 42 U. S. C. § 1985(3) creates a private right of action for damages for injury or deprivation caused by a conspirator to deprive “any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws.”

       Title 42 U. S. C. § 1986 creates a right to recover damages “in an action on the case” brought within one year after the cause of action has accrued against every person who has knowledge of, and power to prevent, a § 1985 conspiracy, but neglects or refuses to act.

       Maryland assures “all persons equal opportunity in receiving employment and in all labor management-union relations regardless of race, color, religion, ancestry or national origin, sex, age, marital status, or physical or mental handicap unrelated in nature and extent so as to reasonably preclude the performance of the employment.” Md. Ann. Code, Art. 49B, § 14 (1979). Article 49B prohibits discrimination in public accommodations and in housing, as well as in employment. §§ 5, 8, 16, 20-22 (1979 and Supp. 1983).

       “A civil action at law shall be filed within three years from the date it accrues unless another provision of the Code provides a different period of time within which an action shall be commenced.” Petitioners do not contest here that this is the appropriate state-law statute of limitations for federal civil rights actions if Art. 49B, §9(a), does not apply.

       The District Court held that the First Amendment claim was governed by Maryland’s 3-year statute of limitations, but that it, too, was time-barred because it did not relate back, under the analysis required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, to the action filed in state court. App. to Pet. for Cert. 37-38. That ruling was not appealed. 710 F. 2d, at 162. The Court of Appeals’ holding that respondents’ other claims relate back to the action filed in state court is not at issue in the present case.

       “Several Circuits have adopted positions similar to that taken by the Court of Appeals in this case. See, e. g., Childers v. Independent School Dist. No. 1 of Bryan County, 676 F. 2d 1338, 1342-1343 (CA10 1982) (rejecting applicability of Oklahoma’s Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act 120-day limitation on filing administrative claims to public employee’s claim of discrimination infringing First Amendment rights, brought under 42 U. S. C. § 1983); Zuniga v. AMFAC Foods, Inc., 580 F. 2d 380, 384, n. 5 (CA10 1978) (rejecting Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act 6-month period in § 1981 action because “limitations periods for state statutory nonjudicial proceedings are inapplicable to civil rights actions in courts of law”), overruled on other grounds, Garcia v. Wilson, 731 F. 2d 640 (CA10 1984) (en banc) (holding that all § 1983 claims in the Circuit will be characterized uniformly as actions for injuries to personal rights for statute of limitations purposes, rather than in terms of the specific facts generating a particular suit); Chambers v. Omaha Public School Dist., 536 F. 2d 222, 225-228 (CA8 1976) (rejecting applicability of Nebraska’s Fair Employment Practices Act 180-day administrative statute of limitations to public employee’s action under 42 U. S. C. §§ 1981, 1983, alleging First and Fourteenth Amendment violations in nonrenewal of contract); Mason v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 517 F. 2d 520, 521-522 (CA6 1975) (rejecting applicability of Ohio’s 1-year Civil Rights Act administrative statute of limitations to private employee’s claim of racial discrimination in promotion and discharge, brought under 42 U. S. C. § 1981); Garner v. Stephens, 460 F. 2d 1144, 1147-1148, and n. 1 (CA6 1972) (Kentucky Civil Rights Commission’s 90-day statute of limitations); Waters v. Wisconsin Steel Works of Int’l Harvester Co., 427 F. 2d 476, 488-489 (CA7) (rejecting applicability of Illinois’ 120-day Fair Employment Practices Act administrative claim statute of limitations to private employee’s § 1981 action), cert. denied, 400 U. S. 911 (1970). But see Warner v. Perrina, 585 F. 2d 171, 173-175 (CA6 1978) (applying Ohio’s 180-day fair housing law limitations period to § 1982 action); Green v. Ten Eyck, 572 F. 2d 1233, 1237-1238 (CA8 1978) (Missouri’s 180-day fair housing law barred §§ 1981, 1982 claims, but not § 1983 claim against state officials); Warren v. Norman Realty Co., 513 F. 2d 730, 733-735 (CA8) (applying Nebraska’s Civil Rights Act 180-day limitation to housing discrimination claim filed under §§ 1981, 1982, where state law specifically creates a civil action for-private litigants as'alternative to administrative relief), cert. denied, 423 U. S. 855 (1975).
      The First Circuit has upheld reliance upon administrative statutes of limitations. See, e. g., Burns v. Sullivan, 619 F. 2d 99 (applying Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination 6-month limitation on filing administrative complaints in public employee’s action under 42 U. S. C. § 1983), cert. denied, 449 U. S. 893 (1980). The First Circuit has followed Bums in Carter v. Supermarkets General Corp., 684 F. 2d 187, 189 (1982) (private employee, § 1981 action); Holden v. Commission Against Discrimination of Massachusetts, 671 F. 2d 30 (claim of racially motivated discharge brought under 42 U. S. C. §§ 1983,1985), cert. denied, 459 U. S. 843 (1982); Hussey v. Sullivan, 651 F. 2d 74 (1981) (per curiam) (claim of political discrimination under 42 U. S. C. §§ 1983, 1985(3)).

       Title 42 U. S. C. § 1988 provides in pertinent part:
      “The jurisdiction. . . conferred on the district courts by the [civil and criminal Civil Rights Titles] for the protection of all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and for their vindication, shall be exercised and enforced in conformity with the laws of the United States, so far as such laws are suitable to carry the same into effect; but in all cases where they are not adapted to the object, or are deficient in the provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against law, the common law, as modified and changed by the constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court having jurisdiction of such civil or criminal cause is held, so far as the same is not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, shall be extended to and govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the cause. . .
      For discussion of the history of 42 U. S. C. § 1988 and its complementary role in the scheme of federal civil rights legislation, see Moor v. County of Alameda, 411 U. S. 693, 702, and n. 13, 703-706, and nn. 18-19 (1973).

       Neither the District Court, the Court of Appeals, nor the parties have suggested that the statute of limitations inquiry would vary depending on the particular federal civil rights statute under which a person claimed relief. That issue is not presented to us.

       “Because our affirmance of the Court of Appeals’ judgment reinstates respondents’ claims (with the exception of the First Amendment claim, n. 8, supra), we have no occasion to discuss the District Court’s conclusion that the explicit 1-year statute of limitations in § 1986 did not control that claim because the related § 1985 claim was time-barred by the state-law 6 months’ limitations period.

       Although the pleading and amendment of pleadings rules in federal court are to be liberally construed, the administration of justice is not well served by the filing of premature, hastily drawn complaints. The recent revision of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 emphasizes that an attorney or pro se litigant certifies that “to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry [a complaint] is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.”

       It is true that we have “borrowed” a 6-month administrative statute of limitations in the labor context, DelCostello v. Teamsters, 462 U. S. 151 (1983), but we do not find that decision relevant to the civil rights issue before us. In DelCostello, we held that the limitations period fixed by § 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act for filing unfair labor practice claims with the National Labor Relations Board offered the most analogous limitations period for suits alleging breaches of the collective-bargaining agreement. The importance of uniformity in the labor law field, and “the realities of labor relations and litigation,” id., at 167, informed our decision not to adopt a state statute of limitations that would be at odds with the purpose of the substantive federal law. Congress, for whatever reason, sees no need for national uniformity in all aspects of civil rights cases. See Robertson v. Wegmann, 436 U. S. 584, 594, n. 11 (1978). Moreover, the state administrative statute here, unlike the federal statute we relied on in DelCostello, is not functionally related to Congress’ policy enacted in the relevant substantive law.

       To this degree the second and third steps of the § 1988 inquiry shade into each other. The step three inquiry — whether a state rule of decision is inconsistent with the Constitution or federal law — is not necessary to resolve this case, but must be made, for example, when a state legislature has enacted a statute of limitations specifically applicable to actions brought under one or all of the Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts. See, e. g., Johnson v. Davis, 582 F. 2d 1316 (CA4 1978) (rejecting Virginia’s express 1-year statute of limitations for § 1983 actions as discriminating against federal cause of action). See also Campbell v. Haverhill, 155 U. S. 610, 615 (1895) (patent action) (state statute of limitations must operate uniformly on state and federal rights, and “must give a party a reasonable time to sue”).

       If the Human Affairs Commission concludes that an employer has violated the statute, it has authority to issue a cease-and-desist order, which may include reinstatement or hiring, with or without backpay limited to a 2-year period, and other equitable relief. Md. Ann. Code, Art. 49B, § 11(e) (1979). At the time of the District Court’s decision, monetary damages were not available to public employees. § 7(b) (1979). Maryland has since amended the law. 1980 Md. Laws, ch. 568.

       Maryland’s administrative procedure provides for judicial review on the record of a final administrative decision. Md. Ann. Code, Art. 49B, § 12 (Supp. 1983). The statute does not create a private right of action, nor provide for de novo judicial consideration of an employment discrimination complaint. § 12(a). These restrictions limit the state procedure in deterring employment discrimination.

       As the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has noted, “[i]t would be anomalous for a federal court to apply a state policy restricting remedies against public officials to a federal statute that is designed to augment remedies against those officials, especially a federal statute that affords remedies for the protection of constitutional rights.” Pauk v. Board of Trustees of City University of New York, 654 F. 2d 856, 862 (1981) (rejecting applicability of 1-year and 90-day limitation period in N. Y. Gen. Mun. Law § 50 — i (McKinney Supp. 1983-1984) for actions against city or its employees to action brought under § 1983), cert. denied, 455 U. S. 1000 (1982).


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Justice Powell Justice Rehnquist,

license: Public Domain

text:
    UNITED STATES v. YERMIAN
    No. 83-346.
    Argued March 27, 1984
    Decided June 27, 1984

      Powell, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Burger, C. J., and White, Marshall, and Blackmun, JJ., joined. Rehnquist, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Brennan, Stevens, and O’Connor, JJ., joined, post, p. 75.

      Carolyn F. Corwin argued the cause for the United States. With her on the briefs were Solicitor General Lee, Assistant Attorney General Trott, and Deputy Solicitor General Frey.

      Stephen J. Hillman, by appointment of the Court, 464 U. S. 1036, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was James R. Dunn.

   Justice Powell

delivered the opinion of the Court.

It is a federal crime under 18 U. S. C. § 1001 to make any false or fraudulent statement in any matter within the jurisdiction of a federal agency. To establish a violation of §1001, the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity. This case presents the question whether the Government also must prove that the false statement was made with actual knowledge of federal agency jurisdiction.

HH

Respondent E small Yermian was convicted m the District Court of Central California on three counts of making false statements in a matter within the jurisdiction of a federal agency, in violation of § 1001. The convictions were based on false statements respondent supplied his employer in connection with a Department of Defense security questionnaire. Respondent was hired in 1979 by Guitón Industries, a defense contractor. Because respondent was to have access to classified material in the course of his employment, he was required to obtain a Department of Defense Security Clearance. To this end, Gulton’s security officer asked respondent to fill out a “Worksheet For Preparation of Personnel Security Questionnaire.”

In response to a question on the worksheet asking whether he had ever been charged with any violation of law, respondent failed to disclose that in 1978 he had been convicted of mail fraud, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1341. In describing his employment history, respondent falsely stated that he had been employed by two companies that had in fact never employed him. The Guitón security officer typed these false representations onto a form entitled “Department of Defense Personnel Security Questionnaire.” Respondent reviewed the typed document for errors and signed a certification stating that his answers were “true, complete, and correct to the best of [his] knowledge” and that he understood “that any misrepresentation or false statement . . . may subject [him] to prosecution under section 1001 of the United States Criminal Code.” App. 33.

After witnessing respondent’s signature, Gulton’s security officer mailed the typed form to the Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office for processing. Government investigators subsequently discovered that respondent had submitted false statements on the security questionnaire. Confronted with this discovery, respondent acknowledged that he had responded falsely to questions regarding his criminal record and employment history. On the basis of these false statements, respondent was charged with three counts in violation of § 1001.

At trial, respondent admitted to having actual knowledge of the falsity of the statements he had submitted in response to the Department of Defense security questionnaire. He explained that he had made the false statements so that information on the security questionnaire would be consistent with similar fabrications he had submitted to Guitón in his employment application. Respondent’s sole defense at trial was that he had no actual knowledge that his false statements would be transmitted to a federal agency.

Consistent with this defense, respondent requested a jury instruction requiring the Government to prove not only that he had actual knowledge that his statements were false at the time they were made, but also that he had actual knowledge that those statements were made in a matter within the jurisdiction of a federal agency. The District Court rejected that request and instead instructed the jury that the Government must prove that respondent “knew or should have known that the information was to be submitted to a government agency.” Respondent’s objection to this instruction was overruled, and the jury returned convictions on all three counts charged in the indictment.

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the District Court had erred in failing to give respondent’s requested instruction. 708 F. 2d 365 (1983). The Court of Appeals read the statutory terms “knowingly and willfully” to modify both the conduct of making false statements and the circumstance that they be made “in any matter within the jurisdiction of [a federal agency].” The court therefore concluded that “as an essential element of a section 1001 violation, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew at the time he made the false statement that it was made in a matter within the jurisdiction of a federal agency.” Id., at 371 (footnotes omitted). The Court of Appeals rejected the Government’s argument that the “reasonably foreseeable” standard provided by the District Court’s jury instructions satisfied any element of intent possibly associated with the requirement that false statements be made within federal agency jurisdiction. Id., at 371-372.

The decision of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit conflicts with decisions by the three other Courts of Appeals that have considered the issue. United States v. Baker, 626 F. 2d 512 (CA5 1980); United States v. Lewis, 587 F. 2d 854 (CA6 1978) (per curiam); United States v. Stanford, 589 F. 2d 285 (CA7 1978), cert. denied, 440 U. S. 983 (1979). We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict, 464 U. S. 991 (1983), and now reverse.

II

The only issue presented in this case is whether Congress intended the terms “knowingly and willfully” in § 1001 to modify the statute’s jurisdictional language, thereby requiring the Government to prove that false statements were made with actual knowledge of federal agency jurisdiction. The issue thus presented is one of statutory interpretation. Accordingly, we turn first to the language of the statute.

A

The relevant language of § 1001 provides:

“Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully . . . makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, . . . shall be fined . . . .”

The statutory language requiring that knowingly false statements be made “in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States” is a jurisdictional requirement. Its primary purpose is to identify the factor that makes the false statement an appropriate subject for federal concern. Jurisdictional language need not contain the same culpability requirement as other elements of the offense. Indeed, we have held that “the existence of the fact that confers federal jurisdiction need not be one in the mind of the actor at the time he perpetrates the act made criminal by the federal statute.” United States v. Feola, 420 U. S. 671, 676-677, n. 9 (1975). Certainly in this case, the statutory language makes clear that Congress did not intend the terms “knowingly and willfully” to establish the standard of culpability for the jurisdictional element of § 1001. The jurisdictional language appears in a phrase separate from the prohibited conduct modified by the terms “knowingly and willfully.” Any natural reading of § 1001, therefore, establishes that the terms “knowingly and willfully” modify only the making of “false, fictitious or fraudulent statements,” and not the predicate circumstance that those statements be made in a matter within the jurisdiction of a federal agency. Once this is clear, there is no basis for requiring proof that the defendant had actual knowledge of federal agency jurisdiction. The statute contains no language suggesting any additional element of intent, such as a requirement that false statements be “knowingly made in a matter within federal agency jurisdiction,” or “with the intent to deceive the Federal Government.” On its face, therefore, § 1001 requires that the Government prove that false statements were made knowingly and willfully, and it unambiguously dispenses with any requirement that the Government also prove that those statements were made with actual knowledge -of federal agency jurisdiction. Respondent’s argument that the legislative history of the statute supports a contrary interpretation is unpersuasive.

B

The first federal criminal statute prohibiting the making of a false statement in matters within the jurisdiction of any federal agency was the Act of October 23, 1918 (1918 Act), ch. 194, 40 Stat. 1015. That Act provided in pertinent part:

“[Wjhoever, ... for the purpose and with the intent of cheating and swindling or defrauding the Government of the United States, or any department thereof, . . . shall knowingly and willfully . . . make . . . any false or fraudulent statements or representations . . . shall be fined . . . .”

Interpreting that provision in United States v. Cohn, 270 U. S. 339 (1926), this Court held that only false statements made with intent to cause “pecuniary or property loss” to the Federal Government were prohibited. Id., at 346-347. The Court rejected the Government’s argument that the terms “with the intent of . . . defrauding” the Federal Government “should be construed as being used not merely in its primary sense of cheating the Government out of property or money, but also in the secondary sense of interfering with or obstructing one of its lawful governmental functions by deceitful and fraudulent means.” Id., at 346. The Court reasoned that if Congress had intended to prohibit all intentional deceit of the Federal Government, it would have used the broad language then employed in § 37 of the Penal Code, which “by its specific terms, extends broadly to every conspiracy ‘to defraud the United States in any manner and for any purpose,’ with no words of limitation whatsoever.” Ibid.

Concerned that the 1918 Act, as thus narrowly construed, was insufficient to protect the authorized functions of federal agencies from a variety of deceptive practices, Congress undertook to amend the federal false-statements statute in 1934. The 1934 provision finally enacted, however, rejected the language suggested in Cohn, and evidenced a conscious choice not to limit the prohibition to false statements made with specific intent to deceive the Federal Government.

The first attempt to amend the false-statements statute was unsuccessful. After debates in both Houses, Congress passed H. R. 8046. That bill provided in pertinent part:

“[E]very person who with the intent to defraud the United States knowingly or willfully makes . . . any false or fraudulent . . . statement, . . . concerning or pertaining to any matter within the jurisdiction of any department, establishment, administration, agency, office, board, or commission of the United States, . . . shall be punished by . . . fine ... or by imprisonment... , or by both . . . 78 Cong. Rec. 3724 (1934) (emphasis added).

President Roosevelt, however, vetoed the bill because it prohibited only those offenses already covered by the 1918 Act, while reducing the penalties. This was hardly the measure needed to increase the protection of federal agencies from the variety of deceptive practices plaguing the New Deal administration.

To remedy the President’s concerns, Congress quickly passed a second bill that broadened the scope of the federal false-statements statute by omitting the specific-intent language of the prior bill. The 1934 provision finally enacted into law provided in pertinent part:

“[WJhoever shall knowingly .and willfully falsify or conceal or cover up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or make . . . any false or fraudulent statements or representations, ... in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States . . . shall be fined . . . Act of June 18, 1934, ch. 587, 48 Stat. 996.

Noticeably lacking from this enactment is any requirement that the prohibited conduct be undertaken with specific intent to deceive the Federal Government, or with actual knowledge that false statements were made in a matter within federal agency jurisdiction. If Congress had intended to impose either requirement, it would have modified the prior bill by replacing the phrase “with intent to defraud the United States” with the phrase “with intent to deceive the United States,” or by inserting the phrase “knowing such statements to be in any matter within the jurisdiction of any federal agency.” That Congress did not include such language, either in the 1934 enactment or in the 1948 revision, provides convincing evidence that the statute does not require actual knowledge of federal involvement.

Finally, there is no support in the legislative history for respondent’s argument that the terms “knowingly and willfully” modify the phrase “in any matter within the jurisdiction of [a federal agency].” The terms “knowingly and willfully” appeared in the 1918 Act, but the phrase “in any matter within the jurisdiction of [a federal agency]” did not. It is clear, therefore, that in the 1918 Act the terms “knowingly and willfully” did not require proof of actual knowledge of federal involvement. Nor does the legislative history suggest that by adding the jurisdictional prerequisite to the current provision Congress intended to extend the scope of those two terms. The jurisdictional language was added to the current provision solely to limit the reach of the false-statements statute to matters of federal interest.

By requiring proof of specific intent to defraud the United States, Congress limited the 1918 prohibition to matters pertaining to federal concern. There was no reason, therefore, to include the phrase “in any matter within the jurisdiction of [a federal agency].” Once the specific-intent language of the 1918 Act was eliminated, however, the current jurisdictional phrase was necessary to ensure that application of the federal prohibition remained limited to issues of federal concern. There is no indication that the addition of this phrase was intended also to change the meaning of the terms “knowingly and willfully” to require proof of actual knowledge of federal involvement. As this Court observed in United States v. Bramblett, 348 U. S. 503 (1955), the 1934 enactment “deleted all words as to purpose,” and inserted the phrase “in any matter within the jurisdiction” of a federal agency “simply to compensate for the deleted language as to purpose — to indicate that not all falsifications but only those made to government organs were reached.” Id., at 506, 507-508.

Ill

Respondent argues that absent proof of actual knowledge of federal agency jurisdiction, § 1001 becomes a “trap for the unwary,” imposing criminal sanctions on “wholly innocent conduct.” Whether or not respondent fairly may characterize the intentional and deliberate lies prohibited by the statute (and manifest in this case) as “wholly innocent conduct,” this argument is not sufficient to overcome the express statutory language of §1001. Respondent does not argue that Congress lacks the power to impose criminal sanctions for deliberately false statements submitted to a federal agency, regardless of whether the person who made such statements actually knew that they were being submitted to the Federal Government. Cf. Feola, 420 U. S., at 676, n. 9. That is precisely what Congress has done here. ' In the unlikely event that § 1001 could be the basis for imposing an unduly harsh result on those who intentionally make false statements to the Federal Government, it is for Congress and not this Court to amend the criminal statute.

I — I <3

Both the plain language and the legislative history establish that proof of actual knowledge of federal agency jurisdiction is not required under § 1001. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals to the contrary.

It is so ordered.

Justice Rehnquist,

with whom Justice Brennan, Justice Stevens, and Justice O’Connor join, dissenting.

It is common ground that in a prosecution for the making of false statements the Government must prove that the defendant actually knew that the statements were false at the time he made them. See Bryson v. United States, 396 U. S. 64, 68-70 (1969). The question presented here is whether the Government must also prove that the defendant actually knew, that his statements were made in a matter within “the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States.” The Court concludes that the plain language and the legislative history of 18 U. S. C. § 1001 conclusively establish that the statute is intended to reach false statements made without actual knowledge of federal involvement in the subject matter of the false statements. I cannot agree.

The Court nonetheless proceeds on the assumption that some lesser culpability standard is required in § 1001 prosecutions, but declines to decide what that lesser standard is. Even if I agreed with the Court that actual knowledge of federal involvement is not required here, I could not agree with the Court’s disposition of this case because it reverses the Court of Appeals without determining for itself, or remanding for the lower court to determine, whether the jury instructions in respondent’s case were proper. I think that our certiorari jurisdiction is best exercised to resolve conflicts in statutory construction, and not simply to decide whether a jury in a particular case was correctly charged as to the elements of the offense. But here the Court, in a remarkable display of left-footedness, accomplishes neither result: reading its opinion from beginning to end, one neither knows what the congressionally intended element of intent is, nor whether the jury was properly instructed in this case.

I — I

I think that in this case, [a]fter seizing] every thing from which aid can be derived/ United States v. Fisher, 2 Cranch 358, 386 (1805) (Marshall, C. J.), we are left with an ambiguous statute.” United States v. Bass, 404 U. S. 336, 347 (1971). Notwithstanding the majority’s repeated, but sparsely supported, assertions that the evidence of Congress’ intent not to require actual knowledge is “convincing,” and “unambiguous],” ante, at 69, and n. 7, 73, I believe that the language and legislative history of §1001 can provide “no more than a guess as to what Congress intended.” Ladner v. United States, 358 U. S. 169, 178 (1958). I therefore think that the canon of statutory construction which requires that “ambiguity concerning the ambit of criminal statutes . . . be resolved in favor of lenity,” Rewis v. United States, 401 U. S. 808, 812 (1971), is applicable here. Accordingly, I would affirm the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that actual knowledge of federal involvement is a necessary element for conviction under § 1001.

The federal false-statements statute, 18 U. S. C. §1001, provides that

“[w]hoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully . . . makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, . . . shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both” (emphasis added).

The majority correctly begins its analysis with the language of the statute, see United States v. Turkette, 452 U. S. 576, 580 (1981), but in my view, it incorrectly concludes that the statutory language is unambiguous.

In drawing that conclusion, the Court does no more than point out that the “in any matter” language is placed at the beginning of the sentence in a phrase separate from the láter phrase specifying the prohibited conduct. The Court then concludes that under any “natural reading” of the statute, it is clear that “knowingly and willfully” modify only the phrase specifying the prohibited conduct. Ante, at 69-70. Although “there is no errorless test for identifying or recognizing ‘plain’ or ‘unambiguous’ language” in a statute, United States v. Turkette, supra, at 580, the Court’s reasoning here amounts to little more than simply pointing to the ambiguous phrases and proclaiming them clear. In my view, it is quite impossible to tell which phrases the terms “knowingly and willfully” modify, and the magic wand of ipse dixit does nothing to resolve that ambiguity. I agree with the Court of Appeals that

“neither the grammatical construction nor the punctuation of the statute indicates whether the ‘knowingly and willfully’ phrase modifies only the phrase ‘makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements’ or the broader phrase ‘in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States . . . makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements.’” 708 F. 2d 365, 368 (CA9 1983) (emphasis in original).

Nor does the fact that the “in any matter” language appears as an introductory phrase at the beginning of the statute support the Court’s conclusion that Congress did not intend that phrase to be modified by the culpability language. This is so because, before the 1948 revision of the statute— a housekeeping overhaul intended to make no substantive changes, United States v. Bramblett, 348 U. S. 503, 508 (1955) — the “in any matter” language in fact did not appear as an introductory phrase in the statute. Before the 1948 revision, the 1934 statute read as follows:

“[W]hoever shall knowingly and willfully . . . make . . . any false or fraudulent statements or representations, ... in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States . . -. shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” Act of June 18, 1934, ch. 587, 48 Stat. 996 (emphasis added).

Turning its attention, as it must, to that version of the statute, the Court again does no more than proclaim that the most “natural reading,” even of the 1934 statute, with the “in any matter” language at the end rather than at the beginning of the statute, is that “knowingly and willfully” modify only the making of false statements. Ante, at 69, n. 6. But the fact that the Court’s “natural reading” has not seemed so natural to the judges of the Ninth and Fifth Circuits, nor for that matter to me, indicates that the Court’s reading, though certainly a plausible one, is not at all compelled by the statutory language. See 2A C. Sands, Sutherland on Statutory Construction §46.04 (4th ed. 1973 and 1984 Cum. Supp.).

The legislative history is similarly unclear, but in my view, slightly more supportive of respondent’s position than of the Court’s position. It is in any event certainly not the kind of clear expression of legislative intent which is sufficient to explain an otherwise ambiguous statute and to overcome the application of the rule of lenity.

As the Court points out, the 1918 Act was the first federal prohibition on the making of false statements, and that Act included language requiring that the prohibited false statements be made “for the purpose and with the intent of cheating and swindling or defrauding the Government of the United States, or any department thereof.” Act of Oct. 23, 1918, ch. 194, 40 Stat. 1015. All agree that that quoted language directly supports the Court of Appeals’ holding here, Brief for United States 10, and the Court rests its entire holding on the absence of that language in the current statute. Ante, at 71-74.

Examination of the evolution of the statute, however, reveals only meager support for the Court’s conclusion that Congress made “a conscious choice,” ante, at 71, to eliminate the requirement of actual knowledge of federal involvement when it deleted the quoted language. To me, the change in the statutory language is as readily explained by Congress’ desire to eliminate, not the intent requirement, but rather the “cheating and swindling or defrauding” language — language which this Court in United States v. Cohn, 270 U. S. 339, 346-347 (1926), had relied on in construing the 1918 Act narrowly to apply only to “the fraudulent causing of pecuniary or property loss” to the Federal Government.

In Cohn the Court expressly rejected the Government’s argument that Congress intended the 1918 Act to go beyond merely protecting the Government from being cheated out of its own money or property, and in addition intended it to protect the Government from the interference with and obstruction of any of its lawful functions by deceitful or fraudulent means. Ibid. The Court specifically focused on the use of the word “defraud” in the statute and concluded that even when used in connection with the words “cheating and swindling,” the word “defraud” is only to be given its ordinary •meaning of “fraudulently] causing. . . pecuniary or property loss.” Ibid.

The restricted scope of the 1918 Act resulting from the Cohn decision became a serious problem with the advent of the New Deal programs in the 1930’s. Early in 1934 Secretary of the Interior Ickes contacted the Chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees and proposed a false-statements bill, intended to be broader than the 1918 Act, that would fill a gap he perceived in the present Criminal Code. See H. R. Rep. No. 829, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., 1-2 (1934); 78 Cong. Rec. 2858-2859 (1934). In particular the Secretary was concerned that there were at present no statutes outlawing, for example, the presentation of false documents and statements to the Department of the Interior in connection with the shipment of “hot oil,” or to the Public Works Administration in connection with the transaction of business with that agency. See S. Rep. No. 1202, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (1934).

To address the Secretary’s concerns, both the House and the Senate tried their hands at drafting a bill penalizing the making of false statements in connection with areas of federal agency concern. The House version, H. R. 8046, which was the version finally passed, provided:

“[E]very person who with intent to defraud the United States knowingly or willfully makes . . . any false . . . statement, . . . concerning or pertaining to any matter within the jurisdiction of any department, establishment, administration, agency, office, board, or commission of the United States . . . shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $5,000 or by imprisonment for a term of not more than 5 years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.” ' 78 Cong. Rec. 3724 (1934) (emphasis added).

The language of the bill and the House Report accompanying the bill made clear that H. R. 8046 required proof that the defendant actually knew that his fraudulent statements were directed at the Federal Government. The House Report explicitly noted that the “rights of the accused are protected by the provision that the act must be committed willfully and knowingly and with intent to defraud the United States.” H. R. Rep. No. 829, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., 2 (1934) (emphasis added). Statements made on the floor of both Houses during consideration of the bills indicate that the legislators understood that the purpose of the legislation was to deter those individuals “hovering over every department of the Government like obscene harpies, like foul buzzards” intending to deceive the Federal Government. 78 Cong. Rec. 2858 (1934); see id., at 3724.

In spite of the noble goals and colorful metaphors that H. R. 8046 carried with it, President Roosevelt vetoed the bill for what seems now to be a rather obvious reason. In his veto message President Roosevelt pointed out that the statute as drafted was superfluous — it prohibited the very same conduct that was already prohibited by the 1918 Act and it even specified lesser penalties for that conduct. Id., at 6778-6779. Indeed in comparing the bill with the 1918 Act, it is all too obvious that when Congress made the prohibition depend on an intent to defraud, it subjected the new statute to the same narrowing construction that the Court had given to the 1918 Act in Cohn — the very construction that had created the need for the new Act. Thus, to eliminate the President’s problems with the bill, Congress simply enhanced the penalties provision and omitted the limiting language. That language, of course, was the “intent to defraud the United States” language. Another bill, H. R. 8912, was then passed by both Houses, 78 Cong. Rec. 12452 (1934), and, for purposes of this case, the statute assumed its present form, except for the phraseology changes made in the 1948 revision previously discussed.

Of course the Court is correct that Congress could have made its intent clearer by rewriting the limiting language so as to require an “intent to deceive” rather than an “intent to defraud” the Federal Government. See ante, at 73, and n. 13. But the fact still remains that nowhere in the admittedly sparse legislative history is there any indication that Congress intended the postveto changes to alter the culpability requirement that had been a part of the Act since 1918. Indeed in United States v. Gilliland, 312 U. S. 86, 94 (1941), we pointed out that the purpose of the amendment simply was to “omi[t] the limiting words which had been deemed to make the former provision applicable only to cases where pecuniary or property loss to the government had been caused” (footnote omitted). It seems to me highly unlikely that, without so much as a hint of explanation, Congress would have changed the statute from one intended to deter the perpetration of deliberate deceit on the Federal Government, to one intended to criminalize the making of even the most casual false statements so long as they turned out, unbeknownst to their maker, to be material to some federal agency function. The latter interpretation would substantially extend the scope of the statute even to reach, for example, false statements privately made to a neighbor if the neighbor then uses those statements in connection with his work for a federal agency.

Of course “[i]t is not unprecedented for Congress to enact [such] stringent legislation,” United States v. Feola, 420 U. S. 671, 709 (1975) (Stewart, J., dissenting). But I cannot subscribe to the Court’s interpretation of this statute in such a way as to “make a surprisingly broad range of unremarkable conduct a violation of federal law,” Williams v. United States, 458 U. S. 279, 286 (1982), when the legislative history simply “fails to evidence congressional awareness of the statute’s claimed scope.” Id., at 290. Thus, I would hold that the rule of lenity is applicable in this case and that it requires the Government to prove that a defendant in a § 1001 prosecution had actual knowledge that his false statements were made in a matter within federal agency jurisdiction.

I — I h — I

Seemingly aware of the broad range of conduct that § 1001 could sweep within its scope under today’s interpretation, the Court apparently does not hold that the words “in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States” are jurisdictional words only and that no state of mind is required with respect to federal agency involvement. Ante, at 68-69, and n. 5. Instead, the Court suggests that some lesser state of mind may well be required in § 1001 prosecutions in order to prevent the statute from becoming a “trap for the unwary.” Ante, at 75, n. 14. Accordingly, it expressly declines to decide whether the trial judge erred in its jury instructions in this case. Ibid.

In my view, the Court has simply disregarded the clearest, albeit not conclusive, evidence of legislative intent and then has invited lower courts to improvise a new state-of-mind requirement, almost out of thin air, in order to avoid the unfairness of the Court’s decision today. I think that the Court’s opinion will engender more confusion than it will resolve with respect to the culpability requirement in § 1001 cases not before the Court. And, unfortunately, it tells us absolutely nothing about whether respondent Yermian received a proper jury instruction in the case that is before the Court.

If the proper standard is something other than “actual knowledge” or “reasonable foreseeability,” then respondent is entitled to a new trial and a proper instruction under that standard. The Court seems to believe that the question of the proper culpability requirement is not before it, ante, at 68, n. 5, 75, n. 14, because it apparently concludes that that question is not embraced in the Governments’ petition for certiorari asking for review of the Court of Appeals’ holding with respect to the actual knowledge standard. See Pet. for Cert. I. Apparently the Court believes that respondent should have filed a cross-petition for certiorari if he wished to raise the issue of the proper standard and the propriety of the jury instructions in his case. But it is an elementary proposition that a “cross-petition is not necessary to enable a party to advance any ground, even one rejected or not raised below, in support of the judgment in his favor.” R. Stern & E. Gressman, Supreme Court Practice 478 (5th ed. 1978); see Dayton Board of Education v. Brinkman, 433 U. S. 406, 419 (1977). Here, respondent’s alternative argument for a “recklessness” standard, if accepted, mandates affirmance of the Court of Appeals’ judgment below that he is entitled to a new trial. If the Court is unwilling to decide the issue itself, I believe that at a minimum it must remand for a decision on the issue, see Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 471, 475-476, n. 6 (1970) (dictum), rather than simply leaving the propriety of respondent’s conviction in a state of limbo.

I respectfully dissent.

       That section provides in full:
      “Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”

       Respondent maintained this defense despite the fact that both the worksheet and the questionnaire made reference to the Department of Defense, and the security questionnaire signed by respondent was captioned “Defense Department.” The latter document also contained a reference to the “Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office,” stated that respondent’s work would require access to “secret” material, and informed respondent that his signature would grant “permission to the Department of Defense to obtain and review copies of [his] medical and institutional records.” App. 29, 32. Nevertheless, respondent testified that he had not read the form carefully before signing it and thus had not noticed either the words “Department of Defense” on the first page or the certification printed above the signature block.

       Respondent’s proposed instruction would have informed the jury:
      “Unless you find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant knew his statements were being made to the United States Department of Defense, you must acquit.” Defendant’s Proposed Instruction No. 9, App. 49.

       The jury instructions concerning the essential elements of a §1001 violation read in full:
      “Three essential elements are required to be proved in order to establish the offense charged in the indictment:
      “FIRST: That the defendant made and used, or caused to be made and used, a false writing or document in relation to a matter within the jurisdiction of a department or agency of the United States, as charged;
      “SECOND: That he did such act or acts with knowledge of the accused that the writing or document was false or fictitious and fraudulent in some material particular, as alleged;
      “THIRD: That the defendant knew or should have known that the information was to be submitted to a government agency;
      “FOURTH: That he did such act or acts knowingly and willfully.” Id., at 25.

       The Government never objected to the District Court’s instruction requiring proof that respondent reasonably should have known that his false statements were made within the jurisdiction of a federal agency. Thus, in this case the Government was required to prove that federal agency jurisdiction was reasonably foreseeable. See n. 14, infra.

       The structure of the statutory language found in the 1934 predecessor to § 1001 made the issue equally clear. The jurisdictional language of that provision appeared as a separate phrase at the end of the description of the prohibited conduct and provided in pertinent part:
      “[Wjhoever shall knowingly and willfully. . . make. . . any false or fraudulent statements or representations, ... in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States . . . shall be fined.” Act of June 18, 1934, ch. 587, 48 Stat. 996.
      The most natural reading of this version of the statute also establishes that “knowingly and willfully” applies only to the making of false or fraudulent statements and not to the predicate facts for federal jurisdiction.

       Because the statutory language unambiguously dispenses with an actual knowledge requirement, we have no occasion to apply the principle of lenity urged by the dissent. See McElroy v. United States, 455 U. S. 642, 658 (1982); United States v. Bramblett, 348 U. S. 503, 509-510 (1955) (although “criminal statutes are to be construed strictly . . . , this does not mean that every criminal statute must be given the narrowest possible meaning in complete disregard of the purpose of the legislature”).

       The earliest predecessor of the 1918 Act limited its criminal sanctions to false claims made by military personnel and presented to “any person or officer in the civil or military service of the United States.” Act of Mar. 2, 1863, 12 Stat. 696. The Act was extended in 1873 to cover “every person” — not merely military personnel — who presented a false claim to an officer or agent of the United States. Act of Dec. 1,1873, approved June 22, 1874. In 1908 and 1909, the penalties of the Act were changed, and the statutory provision was redesignated as § 35. Act of May 30, 1908, 35 Stat. 555; Act of Mar. 4, 1909, 35 Stat. 1088. The 1918 Act revised § 35 and added the false-statements provision relevant here. 40 Stat. 1015.

       See H. R. Rep. No. 829, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., 1-2 (1934); 78 Cong. Rec. 3724 (1934).

       The Senate initially had proposed a similar bill (S. 2686), but that bill omitted the essential element of specific intent to defraud the United States. The Senate bill provided in relevant part:
      “[E]very person who knowingly or willfully makes . . . any false or fraudulent. . . writing . . . pertaining to any . . . matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the Federal Government. . . shall be punished . . . 78 Cong. Rec., at 2858-2859.
      The Senate later withdrew its bill in favor of H. R. 8046, and the latter was passed by both Houses of Congress. Id., at 5746.

       The President’s veto message read in part as follows:
      “This bill [H. R. 8046], in effect, seeks to punish every person who, with intent to defraud the United States, knowingly or willfully makes . . . any false representation concerning any matter within the jurisdiction of any agency of the United States ....
      “These offenses are already covered by existing law, which provides for more severe punishment than that proposed by the bill. [The 1918 Act] . . . provides for the punishment of all persons who, for the purpose and with the intent of cheating and swindling or defrauding the Government of the United States . . . knowingly and willfully. . . make[s]. . . any false or fraudulent statement or representation ....
      “The bill is objectionable in that its result would be to reduce the punishment for certain frauds against the United States.” Id., at 6778-6779.

       See United States v. Godwin, 666 F. 2d 975, 976 (CA5 1978) (“Intent to deceive and intent to defraud are not synonymous. Deceive is to cause to believe the false or to mislead. Defraud is to deprive of some right, interest or property by deceit”). Accord, United States v. Lichenstein, 610 F. 2d 1272 (CA5), cert. denied, 447 U. S. 907 (1980).

       The dissent suggests that when Congress eliminated the phrase “with intent to defraud the United States,” it really meant only to eliminate the word “defraud,” but to retain the element of intent with respect to the United States. See post, at 81-82. If that had been the intention of Congress, it simply would have replaced the word “defraud” with the word “deceive” and retained the express-intent requirement. Congress did not do so, and this Court should not rewrite the statute in a way that Congress did not intend.

       In the context of this case, respondent’s argument that § 1001 is a “trap for the unwary” is particularly misplaced. It is worth noting that the jury was instructed, without objection from the prosecution, that the Government must prove that respondent “knew or should have known” that his false statements were made within the jurisdiction of a federal agency.
      As the Government did not object to the reasonable-foreseeability instruction, it is unnecessary for us to decide whether that instruction erroneously read a culpability requirement into the jurisdictional phrase. Moreover, the only question presented in this case is whether the Government must prove that the false statement was made with actual knowledge of federal agency jurisdiction. The jury’s finding that federal agency jurisdiction was reasonably foreseeable by the defendant, combined with the requirement that the defendant had actual knowledge of the falsity of those statements, precludes the possibility that criminal penalties were imposed on the basis of innocent conduct.