source: Caselaw Access Project

author:
Justice Marshall Justice White, Justice Powell,
      Justice O’Connor,

license: Public Domain

text:
    WITTERS v. WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF SERVICES FOR THE BLIND
    No. 84-1070.
    Argued November 6, 1985
    Decided January 27, 1986
    MARSHALL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C. J., and Brennan, White, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist, and Stevens, JJ., joined, and in Parts I and III of which O’Connor, J., joined. White, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 490. Powell, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which BURGER, C. J., and Rehnquist, J., joined, post, p. 490. O’CONNOR, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, post, p. 493.

      Michael P. Farris argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioner.

      Timothy R. Malone, Assistant Attorney General of Washington, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Kenneth 0. Eikenberry, Attorney General, Philip H. Austin, Senior Deputy Attorney General, and David R. Minkel, Assistant Attorney General.

      Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the United States by Acting Solicitor General Fried, Acting Assistant Attorney General Willard, Michael C. McConnell, Anthony J. Steinmeyer, and Michael Jay Singer; for the American Jewish Committee by Samuel Rabinove and Richard T. Foltin; for the American Jewish Congress by Marc D. Stem and Ronald A. Krauss; for the Christian Legal Society et al. by Samual Eric Hans Ericsson, Kimberly Wood Colby, and Forest D. Montgomery; for the Rutherford Institute et al. by Larry L. Crain, Guy 0. Farley, Jr., John W. Whitehead, James J. Knicely, Thomas 0. Kotouc, Wendell R. Bird, and William B. Hollberg; and for the National Legal Christian Foundation.
      Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the American Civil Liberties Union et al. by Charles B. Wiggins, Jack D. Novik, Charles S. Sims, and Burt Neubome; for Americans United for Separation of Church and State by Lee Boothby and Walter E. Carson; and for the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith et al. by Ruti G. Teitel, Justin J. Finger, Jeffrey P. Sinensky, and Steven M. Freeman.

   Justice Marshall

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Washington Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment precludes the State of Washington from extending assistance under a state vocational rehabilitation assistance program to a blind person studying at a Christian college and seeking to become a pastor, missionary, or youth director. Finding no such federal constitutional barrier on the record presented to us, we reverse and remand.

f — {

Petitioner Larry Witters applied in 1979 to the Washington Commission for the Blind for vocational rehabilitation services pursuant to Wash. Rev. Code §74.16.181 (1981). That statute authorized the Commission, inter alia, to “[pjrovide for special education and/or training in the professions, business or trades” so as to “assist visually handicapped persons to overcome vocational handicaps and to obtain the maximum degree of self-support and self-care.” Ibid. Petitioner, suffering from a progressive eye condition, was eligible for vocational rehabilitation assistance under the terms of the statute. He was at the time attending Inland Empire School of the Bible, a private Christian college in Spokane, Washington, and studying the Bible, ethics, speech, and church administration in order to equip himself for a career as a pastor, missionary, or youth director. App. 7-8.

The Commission denied petitioner aid. It relied on an earlier determination embodied in a Commission policy statement that “[t]he Washington State constitution forbids the use of public funds to assist an individual in the pursuit of a career or degree in theology or related areas,” id., at 4, and on its conclusion that petitioner’s training was “religious instruction” subject to that ban. Id., at 1. That ruling was affirmed by a state hearings examiner, who held that the Commission was precluded from funding petitioner’s training “in light of the State Constitution’s prohibition against the state directly or indirectly supporting a religion.” App. to Pet. for Cert. F-6. The hearings examiner cited Wash. Const., Art. I, § 11, providing in part that “no public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise or instruction, or the support of any religious establishment,” and Wash. Const., Art. IX, §4, providing that “[a]ll schools maintained or supported wholly or in part by the public funds shall be forever free from sectarian control or influence.” App. to Pet. for Cert. F-4. That ruling, in turn, was upheld on internal administrative appeal.

Petitioner then instituted an action in State Superior Court for review of the administrative decision; the court affirmed on the same state-law grounds cited by the agency. The State Supreme Court affirmed as well. Witters v. Commission for the Blind, 102 Wash. 2d 624, 689 P. 2d 53 (1984). The Supreme Court, however, declined to ground its ruling on the Washington Constitution. Instead, it explicitly reserved judgment on the state constitutional issue and chose to base its ruling on the Establishment Clause of the Federal Constitution. The court stated:

“The Supreme Court has developed a 3-part test for determining the constitutionality of state aid under the establishment clause of the First Amendment. ‘First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion . . . ; finally, the statute must not foster “an excessive government entanglement with religion.”’ Lemon v. Kurtzman, [403 U. S. 602, 612-613 (1971)]. To withstand attack under the establishment clause, the challenged state action must satisfy each of the three criteria. ” Id., at 627-628, 689 P. 2d, at 55.

The Washington court had no difficulty finding the “secular purpose” prong of that test satisfied. Applying the second prong, however, that of “principal or primary effect,” the court held that “[t]he provision of financial assistance by the State to enable someone to become a pastor, missionary, or church youth director clearly has the primary effect of advancing religion.” Id., at 629, 689 P. 2d, at 56. The court, therefore, held that provision of aid to petitioner would contravene the Federal Constitution. In light of that ruling, the court saw no need to reach the “entanglement” prong; it stated that the record was in any case inadequate for such an inquiry.

We granted certiorari, 471 U. S. 1002 (1985), and we now reverse.

II

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment has consistently presented this Court with difficult questions of interpretation and application. We acknowledged in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602 (1971), that “we can only dimly perceive the lines of demarcation in this extraordinarily sensitive area of constitutional law.” Id., at 612, quoted in Mueller v. Allen, 463 U. S. 388, 393 (1983). Nonetheless, the Court’s opinions in this area have at least clarified “the broad contours of our inquiry,” Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U. S. 756, 761 (1973), and are sufficient to dispose of this case.

We are guided, as was the court below, by the three-part test set out by this Court in Lemon and quoted supra, at 484-485. See Grand Rapids School District v. Ball, 473 U. S. 373, 382-383 (1985). Our analysis relating to the first prong of that test is simple: all parties concede the unmistakably secular purpose of the Washington program. That program was designed to promote the well-being of the visually handicapped through the provision of vocational rehabilitation services, and no more than a minuscule amount of the aid awarded under the program is likely to flow to religious education. No party suggests that the State’s “actual purpose” in creating the program was to endorse religion, Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U. S. 38, 74 (1985), quoting Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U. S. 668, 690 (1984) (O’Connor, J., concurring), or that the secular purpose articulated by the legislature is merely “sham.” Wallace, supra, at 64 (Powell, J., concurring).

The answer to the question posed by the second prong of the Lemon test is more difficult. We conclude, however, that extension of aid to petitioner is not barred on that ground either. It is well settled that the Establishment Clause is not violated every time money previously in the possession of a State is conveyed to a religious institution. For example, a State may issue a paycheck to one of its employees, who may then donate all or part of that paycheck to a religious institution, all without constitutional barrier; and the State may do so even knowing that the employee so intends to dispose of his salary. It is equally well settled, on the other hand, that the State may not grant aid to a religious school, whether cash or in kind, where the effect of the aid is “that of a direct subsidy to the religious school” from the State. Grand, Rapids School District v. Ball, 473 U. S., at 394. Aid may have that effect even though it takes the form of aid to students or parents. Ibid.; see, e. g., Wolman v. Walter, 433 U. S. 229, 248-251 (1977); Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, supra; Sloan v. Lemon, 413 U. S. 825 (1973). The question presented is whether, on the facts as they appear in the record before us, extension of aid to petitioner and the use of that aid by petitioner to support his religious education is a permissible transfer similar to the hypothetical salary donation described above, or is an impermissible “direct subsidy.”

Certain aspects of Washington’s program are central to our inquiry. As far as the record shows, vocational assistance provided under the Washington program is paid directly to the student, who transmits it to the educational institution of his or her choice. Any aid provided under Washington’s program that ultimately flows to religious institutions does so only as a result of the genuinely independent and private choices of aid recipients. Washington’s program is “made available generally without regard to the sectarian-nonsectarian, or public-nonpublic nature of the institution benefited,” Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U. S., at 782-783, n. 38, and is in no way skewed towards religion. It is not one of “the ingenious plans for channeling state aid to sectarian schools that periodically reach this Court,” id., at 785. It creates no financial incentive for students to undertake sectarian education, see id., at 785-786. It does not tend to provide greater or broader benefits for recipients who apply their aid to religious education, nor are the full benefits of the program limited, in large part or in whole, to students at sectarian institutions. On the contrary, aid recipients have full opportunity to expend vocational rehabilitation aid on wholly secular education, and as a practical matter have rather greater prospects to do so. Aid recipients’ choices are made among a huge variety of possible careers, of which only a small handful are sectarian. In this case, the fact that aid goes to individuals means that the decision to support religious education is made by the individual, not by the State.

Further, and importantly, nothing in the record indicates that, if petitioner succeeds, any significant portion of the aid expended under the Washington program as a whole will end up flowing to religious education. The function of the Washington program is hardly “to provide desired financial support for nonpublic, sectarian institutions.” Id., at 783; see Sloan v. Lemon, supra; cf. Meek v. Pittenger, 421 U. S. 349, 363-364 (1975). The program, providing vocational assistance to the visually handicapped, does not seem well suited to serve as the vehicle for such a subsidy. No evidence has been presented indicating that any other person has ever sought to finance religious education or activity pursuant to the State’s program. The combination of these factors, we think, makes the link between the State and the school petitioner wishes to attend a highly attenuated one.

On the facts we have set out, it does not seem appropriate to view any aid ultimately flowing to the Inland Empire School of the Bible as resulting from a state action sponsoring or subsidizing religion. Nor does the mere circumstance that petitioner has chosen to use neutrally available state aid to help pay for his religious education confer any message of state endorsement of religion. See Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U. S., at 688 (O’Connor, J., concurring). Thus, while amici supporting respondent are correct in pointing out that aid to a religious institution unrestricted in its potential uses, if properly attributable to the State, is “clearly prohibited under the Establishment Clause,” Grand, Rapids, supra, at 395, because it may subsidize the religious functions of that institution, that observation is not apposite to this case. On the facts present here, we think the Washington program works no state support of religion prohibited by the Establishment Clause.

f — H I — I 1 — I

We therefore reject the claim that, on the record presented, extension of aid under Washington’s vocational rehabilitation program to finance petitioner’s training at a Christian college to become a pastor, missionary, or youth director would advance religion in a manner inconsistent with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. On remand, the state court is of course free to consider the applicability of the “far stricter” dictates of the Washington State Constitution, see Witters v. Commission for the Blind, 102 Wash. 2d, at 626, 689 P. 2d, at 55. It may also choose to reopen the factual record in order to consider the arguments made by respondent and discussed in nn. 3 and 5, supra. We decline petitioner’s invitation to leapfrog consideration of those issues by holding that the Free Exercise Clause"! requires Washington to extend vocational rehabilitation aid to petitioner regardless of what the State Constitution com- ffi1" mands or further factual development reveals, and we express no opinion on that matter. See Rescue Army v. Municipal Court, 331 U. S. 549, 568 (1947).

The judgment of the Washington Supreme Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Justice White,

concurring.

I remain convinced that the Court’s decisions finding constitutional violations where a State provides aid to private schools or their students misconstrue the Establishment Clause and disserve the public interest. Even under the cases in which I was in dissent, however, I agree with the Court that the Washington Supreme Court erred in this case. Hence, I join the Court’s opinion and judgment. At the same time, I agree with most of Justice Powell’s concurring opinion with respect to the relevance of Mueller v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388 (1983), to this case.

Justice Powell,

with whom The Chief Justice and Justice Rehnquist join, concurring.

The Court’s omission of Mueller v. Allen, 463 U. S. 388 (1983), from its analysis may mislead courts and litigants by suggesting that Mueller is somehow inapplicable to cases such as this one. I write separately to emphasize that Mueller strongly supports the result we reach today.

As the Court states, the central question in this case is whether Washington’s provision of aid to handicapped students has the “principal or primary effect” of advancing religion. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602, 612 (1971). See also Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U. S. 756, 783-785, n. 39 (1973). Mueller makes the answer clear: state programs that are wholly neutral in offering educational assistance to a class defined without reference to religion do not violate the second part of the Lemon v. Kurtzman test, because any aid to religion results from the private choices of individual beneficiaries. Mueller, 463 U. S., at 398-399. Thus, in Mueller, we sustained a tax deduction for certain educational expenses, even though the great majority of beneficiaries were parents of children attending sectarian schools. Id., at 401. We noted the State’s traditionally broad taxing authority, id., at 396, but the decision rested principally on two other factors. First, the deduction was equally available to parents of public school children and parents of children attending private schools. Id., at 397; see Nyquist, supra, at 782-783, n. 38. Second, any benefit to religion resulted from the “numerous private choices of individual parents of school-age children.” Mueller, supra, at 399.

The state program at issue here provides aid to handicapped students when their studies are likely to lead to employment. Aid does not depend on whether the student wishes to attend a public university or a private college, nor does it turn on whether the student seeks training for a religious or a secular career. It follows that under Mueller the State’s program does not have the “principal or primary effect” of advancing religion.

The Washington Supreme Court reached a different conclusion because it found that the program had the practical effect of aiding religion in this particular case. Witters v. Commission for the Blind, 102 Wash. 2d 624, 628-629, 689 P. 2d 53, 56 (1984). In effect, the court analyzed the case as if the Washington Legislature had passed a private bill that awarded petitioner free tuition to pursue religious studies.

Such an analysis conflicts with both common sense and established precedent. Nowhere in Mueller did we analyze the effect of Minnesota’s tax deduction on the parents who were parties to the case; rather, we looked to the nature and consequences of the program viewed as a whole. Mueller, supra, at 397-400. The same is true of our evaluation of the tuition reimbursement programs at issue in Nyquist, supra, at 780-789, and Sloan v. Lemon, 413 U. S. 825, 830-832 (1973). See also Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U. S. 236, 243-244, 248 (1968); Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U. S. 1, 16-17 (1947). This is the appropriate perspective for this case as well. Viewed in the proper light, the Washington program easily satisfies the second prong of the Lemon test.

I agree, for the reasons stated by the Court, that the State’s program has a secular purpose, and that no entanglement challenge is properly raised on this record. I therefore join the Court’s judgment. On the understanding that nothing we do today lessens the authority of our decision in Mueller, I join the Court’s opinion as well.

Justice O’Connor,

concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

I join Parts I and III of the Court’s opinion, and concur in the judgment. I also agree with the Court that both the purpose and effect of Washington’s program of aid to handicapped students are secular. As Justice Powell’s separate opinion persuasively argues, the Court’s opinion in Mueller v. Allen, 463 U. S. 388 (1983), makes clear that “state programs that are wholly neutral in offering educational assistance to a class defined without reference to religion do not violate the second part of the Lemon v. Kurtzman test, because any aid to religion results from the private decisions of beneficiaries.” Ante, at 490-491 (Powell, J., concurring) (footnote omitted). The aid to religion at issue here is the result of petitioner’s private choice. No reasonable observer is likely to draw from the facts before us an inference that the State itself is endorsing a religious practice or belief. See Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U. S. 668, 690 (1984) (O’Connor, J., concurring).

       In 1983 the Washington Legislature repealed chapters 74.16 and 74.17 of the Code, enacting in their place a new chapter 74.18. The statutory-revision abolished the Commission for the Blind and created respondent Department of Services for the Blind. See 1983 Wash. Laws, ch. 194, § 3. We shall refer to respondent for purposes of this opinion as “the Commission.”

       Washington Rev. Code, ch. 74.18, see n. 1, supra, establishes a requirement that aid recipients be persons who “(1) have no vision or limited vision which constitutes or results in a substantial handicap to employment and (2) can reasonably be expected to benefit from vocational rehabilitation services in terms of employability.” Wash. Rev. Code §74.18.130 (1983) (effective June 30,1983). It has not been established whether petitioner is eligible for aid under the new standard. That determination, however, will have no effect on any claim asserted by petitioner for reimbursement of aid withheld beginning in 1979.

       Respondent offers extensive argument before this Court relating to the practical workings of the state vocational assistance program. Focusing on the asserted practical “nature and operation of that program,” Brief for Respondent 6, respondent asserts that the nature of the program in fact leads to an impermissible “symbolic union” of governmental and religious functions, “requiring] government choices at every step of the rehabilitation process” and “intertwining . . . governmental decisionmaking . . . with decisionmaking by church and school authorities.” Id., at 20. Respondent contends that the program therefore violates the second and third prongs of the Lemon test in a way that “hands off” aid, such as that provided pursuant to the GI Bill, does not. Id., at 11.
      This argument, however, was not presented to the state courts, and appears to rest in large part on facts not part of the record before us. Because this Court must affirm or reverse upon the case as it appears in the record, Russell v. Southard, 12 How. 139, 159 (1851); see also New Haven Inclusion Cases, 399 U. S. 392, 450, n. 66 (1970), we have no occasion to consider the argument here. Nor is it appropriate, as a matter of good judicial administration, for us to consider claims that have not been the subject of factual development in earlier proceedings. On remand, it will be up to the Washington Supreme Court as a matter of state procedural law whether and to what extent it should reopen the record for the introduction of evidence on the issues raised for the first time in this Court.

       This is not the ease described in Grand Rapids School District v. Ball, 473 U. S. 373, 396 (1985) (‘Where ... no meaningful distinction can be made between aid to the student and aid to the school, ‘the concept of a loan to individuals is a transparent fiction’ ”), quoting Wolman v. Walter, 433 U. S. 229, 264 (1977) (opinion of Powell, J.); see also Wolman, supra, at 250.

       We decline to address the “entanglement” issue at this time. As a prudential matter, it would be inappropriate for us to address that question without the benefit of a decision on the issue below. Further, we have no reason to doubt the conclusion of the Washington Supreme Court that that analysis could be more fruitfully conducted on a more complete record.

       The Court offers no explanation for omitting Mueller from its substantive discussion. Indeed, save for a single citation on a phrase with no substantive import whatever, ante, at 485, Mueller is not even mentioned.

       Cf. Sloan v. Lemon, 413 U. S. 825, 832 (1973):
      “The State has singled out a class of its citizens for a special economic benefit. Whether that benefit be viewed as a simple tuition subsidy, as an incentive to parents to send their children to sectarian schools, or as a reward for having done so, at bottom its intended consequence is to preserve and support religion-oriented institutions.”

       Contrary to the Court’s suggestion, see ante, at 488, this conclusion does not depend on the fact that petitioner appears to be the only handicapped student who has sought to use his assistance to pursue religious training. Over 90% of the tax benefits in Mueller ultimately flowed to religious institutions. Compare Mueller v. Allen, 463 U. S., at 401, with id., at 405 (MARSHALL, J., dissenting). Nevertheless, the aid was thus channeled by individual parents and not by the State, making the tax deduction permissible under the “primary effect” test of Lemon.

       Under the Washington Supreme Court’s approach, the government could never provide aid of any sort to one who would use it for religious purposes, no matter what the characteristics of the challenged program. This Court has never taken such an approach. See Walz v. Tax Comm’n, 397 U. S. 664 (1970); Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U. S. 1, 16 (1947).


author: Justice Powell Justice Rehnquist,

text:
    MIDLANTIC NATIONAL BANK v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
    No. 84-801.
    Argued October 16, 1985
    Decided January 27, 1986

      Powell, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, Blackmun, and Stevens, JJ., joined. Rehnquist, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BURGER, C. J., and White and O’CONNOR, JJ., joined, post, p. 507.

      A. Dennis Terrell argued the cause for petitioner in No. 84-801. With him on the brief was Kenneth S. Kasper. William F. McEnroe argued the cause for petitioner in No. 84-805. With him on the brief was Thomas J. O’Neill, pro se.

      Mary C. Jacobson, Deputy Attorney General of New Jersey, argued the cause for respondent in No. 84-801. With her on the brief were Irwin I. Kimmelman, Attorney General, James J. Ciancia, Assistant Attorney General, and Richard F. Engel and Ross A. Lewin, Deputy Attorneys General. Robert Hermann, Solicitor General of New York, argued the cause for respondents in No. 84-805. With him on the brief were Robert Abrams, Attorney General, Nancy Stearns, Norman Spiegel, and Christopher Keith Hall, Assistant Attorneys General, Frederick A. 0. Schwarz, Jr., and Leonard Koerner.

      Together with No. 84-805, O’Neill, Trustee in Bankruptcy of Quanta Resources Corp., Debtor v. City of New York et al., and O’Neill, Trustee in Bankruptcy of Quanta Resources Corp., Debtor v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, also on certiorari to the same court.

         Thomas H. Jackson, pro se, filed a brief as amicus curiae urging reversal.
      Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the United States by Acting Solicitor General Fried, Assistant Attorney General Habicht, Deputy Solicitor General Claiborne, Kathryn A. Oberly, and Dirk D. Snel; for the State of California by John K. Van de Kamp, Attorney General, Theodora Berger, Assistant Attorney General, and Reed Sato, Lisa S. Trankley, and Craig C. Thompson, Deputy Attorneys General; and for the State of West Virginia et al. by Charlie Brown, Attorney General of West Virginia, Steven Johnston Knopp, Assistant Attorney General, James D. Morris, and Howard J. Wein.

        Ronald A. Zumbrun and Robert K. Best filed a brief for the Pacific Legal Foundation as amicus curiae.

   Justice Powell

delivered the opinion of the Court.

These petitions for certiorari, arising out of the same bankruptcy proceeding, present the question whether § 554(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U. S. C. § 554(a), authorizes a trustee in bankruptcy to abandon property in contravention of state laws or regulations that are reasonably designed to protect the public’s health or safety.

HH

Quanta Resources Corporation (Quanta) processed waste oil at two facilities, one in Long Island City, New York, and the other in Edgewater, New Jersey. At the Edgewater facility, Quanta handled the oil pursuant to a temporary operating permit issued by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), respondent in No. 84-801. In June 1981, Midlantic National Bank, petitioner in No. 84-801, provided Quanta with a $600,000 loan secured by Quanta’s inventory, accounts receivable, and certain equipment. The same month, NJDEP discovered that Quanta had violated a specific prohibition in its operating permit by accepting more than 400,000 gallons of oil contaminated with PCB, a highly toxic carcinogen. NJDEP ordered Quanta to cease operations at Edgewater, and the two began negotiations concerning the cleanup of the Edgewater site. But on October 6, 1981, before the conclusion of negotiations, Quanta filed a petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The next day, NJDEP issued an administrative order requiring Quanta to clean up the site. Quanta’s financial condition remained perilous, however, and the following month, it converted the action to a liquidation proceeding under Chapter 7. Thomas J. O’Neill, petitioner in No. 84-805, was appointed trustee in bankruptcy, and subsequently oversaw abandonment of both facilities.

After Quanta filed for bankruptcy, an investigation of the Long Island City facility revealed that Quanta had accepted and stored there over 70,000 gallons of toxic, PCB-contaminated oil in deteriorating and leaking containers. Since the mortgages on that facility’s real property exceeded the property’s value, the estimated cost of disposing of the waste oil plainly rendered the property a net burden to the estate. After trying without success to sell the Long Island City property for the benefit of Quanta’s creditors, the trustee notified the creditors and the Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey that he intended to abandon the property pursuant to § 554(a). No party to the bankruptcy proceeding disputed the trustee’s allegation that the site was “burdensome” and of “inconsequential value to the estate” within the meaning of § 554.

The City and the State of New York (collectively New York), respondents in No. 84-805, nevertheless objected, contending that abandonment would threaten the public’s health and safety, and would violate state and federal environmental law. New York rested its objection on “public policy” considerations reflected in applicable local laws, and on the requirement of 28 U. S. C. § 959(b) that a trustee “manage and operate” the property of the estate “according to the requirements of the valid laws of the State in which such property is situated.” New York asked the Bankruptcy Court to order that the assets of the estate be used to bring the facility into compliance with applicable law. After briefing and argument, the court approved the abandonment, noting that “[t]he City and State are in a better position in every respect than either the Trustee or debtor’s creditors to do what needs to be done to protect the public against the dangers posed by the PCB-contaminated facility.” The District Court for the District of New Jersey affirmed, and New York appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Upon abandonment, the trustee removed the 24-hour guard service and shut down the fire-suppression system. It became necessary for New York to decontaminate the facility, with the exception of the polluted subsoil, at a cost of about $2.5 million.

On April 23, 1983, shortly after the District Court had approved abandonment of the New York site, the trustee gave notice of his intention to abandon the personal property at the Edgewater site, consisting principally of the contaminated oil. The Bankruptcy Court approved the abandonment on May 20, over NJDEP’s objection that the estate had sufficient funds to protect the public from the dangers posed by the hazardous waste.

Because the abandonments of the New Jersey and New York facilities presented identical issues, the parties in the New Jersey litigation consented to NJDEP’s taking a direct appeal from the Bankruptcy Court to the Court of Appeals pursuant to § 405(c)(1)(B) of the Bankruptcy Act of 1978.

A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed. In re Quanta Resources Corp., 739 F. 2d 912 (1984); In re Quanta Resources Corp., 739 F. 2d 927 (1984). Although the court found little guidance in the legislative history of § 554, it concluded that Congress had intended to codify the judge-made abandonment practice developed under the previous Bankruptcy Act. Under that law, where state law or general equitable principles protected certain public interests, those interests were not overridden by the judge-made abandonment power. The court also found evidence in other provisions of the Bankruptcy Code that Congress did not intend to pre-empt all state regulation, but only that grounded on policies outweighed by the relevant federal interests. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals held that the Bankruptcy Court erred in permitting abandonment, and remanded both cases for further proceedings.

We granted certiorari and consolidated these cases to determine whether the Court of Appeals properly construed § 554, 469 U. S. 1207 (1985). We now affirm.

HH f-H

Before the 1978 revisions of the Bankruptcy Code, the trustee’s abandonment power had been limited by a judicially developed doctrine intended to protect legitimate state or federal interests. This was made clear by the few relevant cases. In Ottenheimer v. Whitaker, 198 F. 2d 289 (CA4 1952), the Court of Appeals concluded that a bankruptcy trustee, in liquidating the estate of a barge company, could not abandon several barges when the abandonment would have obstructed a navigable passage in violation of federal law. The court stated:

“The judge-made [abandonment] rule must give way when it comes into conflict with a statute enacted in order to ensure the safety of navigation; for we are not dealing with a burden imposed upon the bankrupt or his property by contract, but a duty and a burden imposed upon an owner of vessels by an Act of Congress in the public interest.” Id., at 290.

In In re Chicago Rapid Transit Co., 129 F. 2d 1 (CA7), cert. denied sub nom. Chicago Junction R. Co. v. Sprague, 317 U. S. 683 (1942), the Court of Appeals held that the trustee of a debtor transit company could not cease its operation of a branch railway line when local law required continued operation. While the court did not forbid the trustee to abandon property (i. e., to reject an unexpired lease), it conditioned his actions to ensure compliance with state law. Similarly, in In re Lewis Jones, Inc., 1 BCD 277 (Bkrtcy Ct. ED Pa. 1974), the Bankruptcy Court invoked its equitable power to “safeguard the public interest” by requiring the debtor public utilities to seal underground steam lines before abandoning them.

Thus, when Congress enacted §554, there were well-recognized restrictions on a trustee’s abandonment power. In codifying the judicially developed rule of abandonment, Congress also presumably included the established corollary that a trustee could not exercise his abandonment power in violation of certain state and federal laws. The normal rule of statutory construction is that if Congress intends for legislation to change the interpretation of a judicially created concept, it makes that intent specific. Edmonds v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 443 U. S. 256, 266-267 (1979). The Court has followed this rule with particular care in construing the scope of bankruptcy codifications. If Congress wishes to grant the trustee an extraordinary exemption from nonbankruptcy law, “the intention would be clearly expressed, not left to be collected or inferred from disputable considerations of convenience in administering the estate of the bankrupt.” Swarts v. Hammer, 194 U. S. 441, 444 (1904); see Palmer v. Massachusetts, 308 U. S. 79, 85 (1939) (“If this old and familiar power of the states [over local railroad service] was withdrawn when Congress gave district courts bankruptcy powers over railroads, we ought to find language fitting for so drastic a change”). Although these cases do not define for us the exact contours of the trustee’s abandonment power, they do make clear that this power was subject to certain restrictions when Congress enacted § 554(a).

I — I I — I H-i

Neither the Court nor Congress has granted a trustee in bankruptcy powers that would lend support to a right to abandon property in contravention of state or local laws designed to protect public health or safety. As we held last Term when the State of Ohio sought compensation for cleaning the toxic waste site of a bankrupt corporation:

“Finally, we do not question that anyone in possession of the site — whether it is [the debtor] or another in the event the receivership is liquidated and the trustee abandons the property, or a vendee from the receiver or the bankruptcy trustee — must comply with the environmental laws of the State of Ohio. Plainly, that person or firm may not maintain a nuisance, pollute the waters of the State, or refuse to remove the source of such conditions.” Ohio v. Kovacs, 469 U. S. 274, 285 (1985) (emphasis added).

Congress has repeatedly expressed its legislative determination that the trustee is not to have carte blanche to ignore nonbankruptcy law. Where the Bankruptcy Code has conferred special powers upon the trustee and where there was no common-law limitation on that power, Congress has expressly provided that the efforts of the trustee to marshal and distribute the assets of the estate must yield to governmental interest in public health and safety. Infra, at 503-504. One cannot assume that Congress, having placed these limitations upon other aspects of trustees’ operations, intended to discard a well-established judicial restriction on the abandonment power. As we held nearly two years ago in the context of the National Labor Relations Act, “the debtor-in-possession is not relieved of all obligations under the [Act] simply by filing a petition for bankruptcy.” NLRB v. Bildisco & Bildisco, 465 U. S. 513, 534 (1984).

The automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code, § 362(a), has been described as “one of the fundamental debtor protections provided by the bankruptcy laws.” S. Rep. No. 95-989, p. 54 (1978); H. R. Rep. No. 95-595, p. 340 (1977). Despite the importance of § 362(a) in preserving the debtor’s estate, Congress has enacted several categories of exceptions to the stay that allow the Government to commence or continue legal proceedings. For example, § 362(b)(5) permits the Government to enforce “nonmone-tary” judgments against a debtor’s estate. It is clear from the legislative history that one of the purposes of this exception is to protect public health and safety:

“Thus, where a governmental unit is suing a debtor to prevent or stop violation of fraud, environmental protection, consumer protection, safety, or similar police or regulatory laws, or attempting to fix damages for violation of such a law, the action or proceeding is not stayed under the automatic stay.” H. R. Rep. No. 95-595, supra, at 343 (emphasis added); S. Rep. No. 95-989, supra, at 52 (emphasis added).

Petitioners have suggested that the existence of an express exception to the automatic stay undermines the inference of a similar exception to the abandonment power: had Congress sought to restrict similarly the scope of § 554, it would have enacted similar limiting provisions. This argument, however, fails to acknowledge the differences between the predecessors of §§ 554 and 362. As we have noted, the exceptions to the judicially created abandonment power were firmly established. But in enacting §362 in 1978, Congress significantly broadened the scope of the automatic stay, see 1 W. Norton, Bankruptcy Law and Practice §20.03, pp. 5-6 (1981), an expansion that had begun only five years earlier with the adoption of the Bankruptcy Rules in 1973, see id., §20.02, at 4-5. Between 1973 and 1978, some courts had stretched the expanded automatic stay to foreclose States’ efforts to enforce their antipollution laws, and Congress wanted to overrule these interpretations in its 1978 revision. See H. R. Rep. No. 95-595, supra, at 174-175. In the face of the greatly increased scope of § 362, it was necessary for Congress to limit this new power expressly.

Title 28 U. S. C. § 959(b) provides additional evidence that Congress did not intend for the Bankruptcy Code to preempt all state laws. Section 959(b) commands the trustee to “manage and operate the property in his possession ... according to the requirements of the valid laws of the State.” Petitioners have contended that § 959(b) is relevant only when the trustee is actually operating the business of the debtor, and not when he is liquidating it. Even though § 959(b) does not directly apply to an abandonment under § 554(a) of the Bankruptcy Code — and therefore does not delimit the precise conditions on an abandonment — the section nevertheless supports our conclusion that Congress did not intend for the Bankruptcy Code to pre-empt all state laws that otherwise constrain the exercise of a trustee’s powers.

r*H <1

Although the reasons elaborated above suffice for us to conclude that Congress did not intend for the abandonment power to abrogate certain state and local laws, we find additional support for restricting that power in repeated congressional emphasis on its “goal of protecting the environment against toxic pollution.” Chemical Manufacturers Assn., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 470 U. S. 116, 143 (1985). Congress has enacted a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U. S. C. §§6901-6987, to regulate the treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes by monitoring wastes from their creation until after their permanent disposal. That Act authorizes the United States to seek judicial or administrative restraint of activities involving hazardous wastes that “may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment. ” 42 U. S. C. §6973; see also S. Rep. No. 98-284, p. 58 (1983). Congress broadened the scope of the statute and tightened the regulatory restraints in 1984. In the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended by Pub. L. 98-80, § 2(c)(2)(B), Congress established a fund to finance cleanup of some sites and required certain responsible parties to reimburse either the fund or the parties who paid for the cleanup. The Act also empowers the Federal Government to secure such relief as may be necessary to avert “imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health or welfare or the environment because of an actual or threatened release of a hazardous substance.” 42 U. S. C. § 9606. In the face of Congress’ undisputed concern over the risks of the improper storage and disposal of hazardous and toxic substances, we are unwilling to presume that by enactment of § 554(a), Congress implicitly overturned longstanding restrictions on the common-law abandonment power.

V

In the light of the Bankruptcy trustee’s restricted pre-1978 abandonment power and the limited scope of other Bankruptcy Code provisions, we conclude that Congress did not intend for § 554(a) to pre-empt all state and local laws. The Bankruptcy Court does not have the power to authorize an abandonment without formulating conditions that will adequately protect the public’s health and safety. Accordingly, without reaching the question whether certain state laws imposing conditions on abandonment may be so onerous as to interfere with the bankruptcy adjudication itself, we hold that a trustee may not abandon property in contravention of a state statute or regulation that is reasonably designed to protect the public health or safety from identified hazards. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

It is so ordered.

Justice Rehnquist,

with whom The Chief Justice, Justice White, and Justice O’Connor join, dissenting.

The Court today concludes that Congress did not intend the abandonment provision of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U. S. C. § 554(a), to pre-empt “certain state and local laws.” In something of a surprise ending, the Court limits the class of laws that can prevent an otherwise authorized abandonment by a trustee to those “reasonably designed to protect the public health or safety from identified hazards.” While this limitation reduces somewhat the scope of my disagreement with the result reached, it renders both the ratio decidendi and the import of the Court’s opinion quite unclear. More important, I remain unconvinced by the Court’s arguments supporting state power to bar abandonment. The principal and only independent ground offered — that Congress codified “well-recognized restrictions of a trustee’s abandonment power” — is particularly unpersuasive. It rests on a misreading of three pre-Code cases, the elevation of that misreading into a “well-recognized” exception to the abandonment power, and the unsupported assertion that Congress must have meant to codify the exception (or something like it). These specific shortcomings in the Court’s analysis, which are addressed in greater detail below, stem at least in part from the Court’s failure to discuss even in passing either the nature of abandonment or its role in federal bankruptcy.

Abandonment is “the release from the debtor’s estate of property previously included in that estate.” 2 W. Norton, Bankruptcy Law and Practice §39.01 (1984), citing Brown v. O’Keefe, 300 U. S. 598, 602-603 (1937). Prior to enactment of the Bankruptcy Code in 1978, there was no statutory provision specifically authorizing abandonment in liquidation cases. By analogy to the trustee’s statutory power to reject executory contracts, courts had developed a rule permitting the trustee to abandon property that was worthless or not expected to sell for a price sufficiently in excess of encumbrances to offset the costs of administration. 4 L. King, Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 554.01 (15th ed. 1985) (hereinafter Collier). This judge-made rule served the overriding purpose of bankruptcy liquidation: the expeditious reduction of the debtor’s property to money, for equitable distribution to creditors, Kothe v. R. C. Taylor Trust, 280 U. S. 224, 227 (1930). 4 Collier ¶ 554.01. Forcing the trustee to administer burdensome property would contradict this purpose, slowing the administration of the estate and draining its assets.

The Bankruptcy Code expressly incorporates the power of abandonment into federal bankruptcy legislation for the first time. The relevant provision bears repeating:

“(a) After notice and a hearing, the trustee may abandon any property of the estate that is burdensome to the estate or that is of inconsequential value to the estate.” 11 U. S. C. § 554(a) (amended 1984).

This language, absolute in its terms, suggests that a trustee’s power to abandon is limited only by considerations of the property’s value to the estate. It makes no mention of other factors to be balanced or weighed and permits no easy inference that Congress was concerned about state environmental regulations. Indeed, as the Court notes, when Congress was so concerned it expressed itself clearly, specifically exempting some environmental injunctions from the automatic stay provisions of §362 of the Code, 11 U. S. C. §§ 362(b)(4), (5) (1982 ed. and Supp. II). See Ohio v. Kovacs, 469 U. S. 274 (1985).

Nor does the scant legislative history of § 554 support the Court’s interpretation. Nowhere does that legislative history suggest that Congress intended to limit the trustee’s authority to abandon burdensome property where abandonment might be opposed by those charged with the exercise of state police or regulatory powers.

The Court seeks to turn the seemingly unqualified language and the absence of helpful legislative history to its advantage. Adopting the reasoning of the Court of Appeals, the Court argues that in light of Congress’ failure to elaborate, § 554 must have been intended to codify prior “abandonment” case law, and that under prior law “a trustee could not exercise his abandonment power in violation of certain state and federal laws,” ante, at 501. I disagree. We have previously expressed our unwillingness to read into unqualified statutory language exceptions or limitations based upon legislative history unless that legislative history demonstrates with extraordinary clarity that this was indeed the intent of Congress. E. g., Garcia v. United States, 469 U. S. 70, 75 (1984). I think that upon analysis the “legislative history” relied upon by the Court here falls far short of this standard.

The Court relies on just three cases for its claimed “established corollary” to the pre-Code abandonment power. A close reading of those cases, however, reveals that none supports the rule announced today. In Ottenheimer v. Whitaker, 198 F. 2d 289 (CA4 1952), the Court of Appeals held that a trustee could not abandon worthless barges obstructing traffic in Baltimore Harbor when the abandonment would have violated federal law. The Court concluded that the “judge-made rule [of abandonment] must give way” to “an Act of Congress in the public interest.” Id., at 290. Ottenheimer thus depended on the need to reconcile a conflict between a judicial gloss on the Bankruptcy Act and the commands of another federal statute. We implicitly confirmed the validity of such an approach two Terms ago in NLRB v. Bildisco & Bildisco, 465 U. S. 513, 523-524 (1984). Here, by contrast, the “conflict” is with the uncertain commands of state laws that the Court declines to identify. In addition, the Court of Appeals relied heavily on the fact that the pre-Code law of abandonment was judge-made, which in turn raises the somewhat Delphic inquiry as to whether that court would have decided the case the same way under the present Code.

In re Lewis Jones, Inc., 1 BCD 277 (Bkrtcy Ct. ED Pa. 1974), was a Bankruptcy Court decision concluding that the principle of Ottenheimer did not apply because there was no conflicting statute. But because the right to abandon was based on judge-made law, the court nonetheless found itself free to protect the public interest by requiring a trustee seeking abandonment to first spend funds of the estate to seal manholes and vents in an underground pipe network. While this case admittedly comes closer to supporting the Court’s position than does Ottenheimer, it too turns on the judge-made nature of the abandonment power. Moreover, I do not believe that the isolated decision of a single Bankruptcy Court rises to the level of “established law” that we can fairly assume Congress intended to incorporate. See Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Curran, 456 U. S. 353, 379-382 (1982).

In In re Chicago Rapid Transit Co., 129 F. 2d 1 (CA7), cert. denied sub nom. Chicago Junction R. Co. v. Sprague, 317 U. S. 683 (1942), the District Court sitting in bankruptcy had authorized the bankrupt to abandon a lease of a rail line, and a lessor appealed. The bankrupt did not appeal the District Court’s imposition of conditions on the abandonment; the propriety of those conditions thus was not before the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the District Court’s authorization of abandonment. So while there may be dicta in the Court of Appeals’ opinion that would support some limitation on the power of abandonment, the holding of the case certainly does not. In short, none of these cases supports the Court’s view that § 554(a) contains an implicit exception for “certain state and local laws.”

Even assuming these cases stand for the proposition ascribed to them in the Court’s opinion, that opinion’s brief discussion of the cases, ante, at 500-501, certainly does not support the claim that they reflect an “established corollary” to pre-Code abandonment law. Generally speaking, three rather isolated cases do not constitute the sort of settled law that we can fairly assume Congress intended to codify absent some expression of its intent to do so. Perhaps recognizing this, respondents place substantial reliance for their view that the exception was “well settled” on the following statement in the (pre-Code) 14th edition of Collier on Bankruptcy, accompanying a citation to Ottenheimer and Chicago Rapid Transit: “Recent cases illustrate, however, that the trustee in the exercise of the power to abandon is subject to the application of general regulations of a police nature.” 4A J. Moore, Collier on Bankruptcy ¶70.42[2], pp. 502-504 (14th ed. 1978); see also In re Quanta Resources Corp., 739 F. 2d 912, 916 (1984) (quoting same language from Collier). Respondents further observe that the section of this treatise addressing abandonment was cited in a note to an early precursor of §554, §4-611 of the proposed Bankruptcy Act of 1973, H. R. Doc. No. 93-137, Part II, p. 181, reprinted in A. Resnick & E. Wypyski, 2 Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978: A Legislative History, Doc. No. 22 (1979). While resourceful, this argument is wholly unpersuasive.

The reference to Collier is not part of the Code’s “ ‘legislative history’ in any meaningful sense of the term,” Board of Governors, FRS v. Dimension Financial Corp., ante, at 372. And the proposition for which the section in Collier is cited is not the view that authority for abandonment is qualified by state police power, but instead the much less remarkable proposition that “[t]he concept of abandonment is well recognized in the case law. See 4A Collier ¶70.42[3].” In order to divine that the statutory power to abandon in the proposed Code was to be conditioned on compliance with state police power regulations, therefore, a Senator or Congressman would not merely have had to look at the legislative history of the precursor to the Code, but also would have had to read the several-page treatise section cited in that earlier legislative history.

Neither the three cases cited by the Court nor the attenuated reference to the since superseded version of Collier supports the inference that Congress, while writing § 554 in unqualified terms, intended to incorporate so ill-defined and uncertain an exception to the abandonment authority of the trustee. After suggesting that “if Congress intends for legislation to change the interpretation of a judicially created concept” it should do so expressly, ante, at 501, the Court concedes that these cases “do not define for us the exact contours of the trustee’s abandonment power,” ibid. The Court never identifies the source from which it draws the “exact contours” -of the rule it announces today; congressional intent does not appear to be a likely candidate. Congress knew how to draft an exception covering the exercise of “certain” police powers when it wanted to. See 11 U. S. C. §§ 362(b)(4), (5) (1982 ed. and Supp. II); swpra, at 509. It also knew how to draft a qualified abandonment provision. See § 1170(a)(2) (abandonment of railroad lines permitted only if “consistent with the public interest”). Congress’ failure to so qualify § 554 indicates that it intended the relevant inquiry at an abandonment hearing to be limited to whether the property is burdensome and of inconsequential value to the estate.

I find the Court’s discussion of 28 U. S. C. § 959(b) somewhat difficult to fathom. After suggesting that § 959(b) “provides additional evidence” for the self-evident proposition “that Congress did not intend for the Bankruptcy Code to pre-empt all state laws,” ante, at 505, the Court concedes that the provision “does not directly apply to an abandonment under § 554(a) of the Bankruptcy Code,” ibid, (emphasis added). The precise nature of its indirect application, however, is left unclear. Respondents contend that § 959(b) operates to bar abandonment in these cases. Assuming that temporary management or operation of a facility during liquidation is governed by § 959(b), I believe that a trustee’s filing of a petition to abandon, as opposed to continued operation of a site pending a decision to abandon, does not constitute “manage[ment]” or “operation]” under that provision. Not only would a contrary reading strain the language of § 959(b), cf. In re Adelphi Hospital Corp., 579 F. 2d 726, 729, n. 6 (CA2 1978) (per curiam) (in pre-Code liquidation proceeding trustee “is in no sense a manager of an institution’s operations”), it also would create an exception to the abandonment power without a shred of evidence that Congress intended one. As one commentator has noted, § 554(a) “is among the few provisions in the Bankruptcy Code that do not contain explicit exceptions.” Note, 85 Colum. L. Rev. 870, 883 (1985). I would not read 28 U. S. C. § 959(b) as creating an implicit exception.

Citing SEC v. United Realty & Improvement Co., 310 U. S. 434, 455 (1940), respondents argue that the Bankruptcy Court’s equitable powers support the result reached below. I disagree. While the Bankruptcy Court is a court of equity, the Bankruptcy Code “does not authorize freewheeling consideration of every conceivable equity.” Bildisco & Bildisco, 465 U. S., at 527. The Bankruptcy Court may not, in the exercise of its equitable powers, enforce its view of sound public policy at the expense of the interests the Code is designed to protect. In these cases, it is undisputed that the properties in question were burdensome and of inconsequential value to the estate. Forcing the trustee to expend estate assets to clean up the sites would plainly be contrary to the purposes of the Code.

I fully appreciate the Court’s concern that abandonment may “aggravate] already existing dangers by halting security measures that preven[t] public entry, vandalism, and fire.” Ante, at 499, n. 3. But in almost all cases, requiring the trustee to notify the relevant authorities before abandoning will give those authorities adequate opportunity to step in and provide needed security. As the Bankruptcy Court noted in No. 84-805: “The City and State are in a better position in every respect than either the Trustee or debtor’s creditors to do what needs to be done to protect the public against the dangers posed by the PCB-contaminated facility.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 73a. And requiring notice before abandonment in appropriate cases is perfectly consistent with the Code. It advances the State’s interest in protecting the public health and safety, and, unlike the rather uncertain exception to the abandonment power propounded by the Court, at the same time allows for the orderly liquidation and distribution of the estate’s assets. Here, of course, the trustee provided such notice and the relevant authorities were afforded an opportunity to take appropriate preventative and remedial measures.

I likewise would not exclude the possibility that there may be a far narrower condition on the abandonment power than that announced by the Court today, such as where abandonment by the trustee itself might create a genuine emergency that the trustee would be uniquely able to guard against. The United States in its brief as amicus curiae suggests, for example, that there are limits on the authority of a trustee to abandon dynamite sitting on a furnace in the basement of a schoolhouse. Although I know of no situations in which trustees have sought to abandon dynamite under such circumstances, the narrow exception that I would reserve surely would embrace that situation.

What the Court fails to appreciate is that respondents’ interest in these cases lies not just in protecting public health and safety but also in protecting the public fisc. In No. 84-805, before undertaking cleanup efforts, New York unsuccessfully sought from the Bankruptcy Court a first lien on the Long Island City property to the extent of any expenditures it might make to bring the site into compliance with state and local law. New York did not appeal the court’s denial of a first lien, and proceeded to clean up the site (except for the contaminated subsoil). It now presses a claim for reimbursement, maintaining that the trustee should not have been allowed to abandon the site. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, in No. 84-801, apparently seeks to undo the abandonment and force the trustee to expend the estate’s remaining assets cleaning up the site, thereby reducing the cleanup costs that must ultimately be borne by the State.

The Court states that the “abandonment power is not to be fettered by laws or regulations not reasonably calculated to protect the public health or safety from imminent and identifiable harm.” Ante, at 507, n. 9. Because the Court declines to identify those laws that its deems so “reasonably calculated,” I can only speculate about its view of respondents’ claim that abandonment can be conditioned on a total cleanup. One might assume, however, that since it affirms the judgments below the Court means to adopt respondents’ position. The Court of Appeals, as I read its opinions in these cases, apparently would require the trustee to expend all of Quanta’s available assets to clean up the sites. But barring abandonment and forcing a cleanup would effectively place respondents’ interest in protecting the public fisc ahead of the claims of other creditors. Congress simply did not intend that §554 abandonment hearings would be used to establish the priority of particular claims in bankruptcy. While States retain considerable latitude to ensure that priority status is allotted to their cleanup claims, see Ohio v. Kovacs, 469 U. S., at 285-286 (O’Connor, J., concurring), I believe that the Court errs by permitting them to impose conditions on the abandonment power that Congress never contemplated. Accordingly, in each of these cases I would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

       Section 554(a) reads:
      “After notice and a hearing, the trustee may abandon any property of the estate that is burdensome to the estate or that is of inconsequential value to the estate.”
      Technical amendments in the Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984 added the words “and benefit” after “value” in § 554(a). Pub. L. 98-353, Tit. Ill, § 468(a), 98 Stat. 380.

       The sole issue presented by these petitions is whether a trustee may abandon property under § 554 in contravention of local laws designed to protect the public’s health and safety. New York is claiming reimbursement for its expenditures as an administrative expense. That question, however, like the question of the ultimate disposition of the property, is not before us.

       The trustee was not required to take even relatively minor steps to reduce imminent danger, such as security fencing, drainage and diking repairs, sealing deteriorating tanks, and removing explosive agents. Moreover, the trustee’s abandonment at both sites aggravated already existing dangers by halting security measures that prevented public entry, vandalism, and fire. Joint Appendix in No. 83-5142 (CA3), pp. 11-12 (affidavit of Richard Docyk, Deputy Chief Inspector for N. Y. City Fire Department); id., at 26 (transcript of proceedings before DeVito, J.). The 470,000 gallons of highly toxic and carcinogenic waste oil in unguarded, deteriorating containers “present risks of explosion, fire, contamination of water supplies, destruction of natural resources, and injury, genetic damage, or death through personal contact.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 4, 23; see Joint Appendix, supra, at 17 (70,000 gallons at New York site); Appendix in No. 83-5730 (CA3), p. A7 (400,000 gallons at New Jersey site); id., at A46 (deteriorating containers); Joint Appendix, supra, at 11 (deteriorating tanks); id., at 26 (guard service); id., at 12 (risk of fire); id., at 11 (contamination of adjacent areas); id., at 20 (health effects of exposure to PCBs and their derivatives).

       Judge Gibbons dissented, arguing that §554 permits abandonment without any exception analogous to that provided to the automatic stay. The dissent further contended that the majority’s interpretation of § 554 raised substantial questions under the Takings Clause by potentially destroying the interest of secured creditors, see United States v. Security Industrial Bank, 459 U. S. 70 (1982), and that the majority had failed to address the important underlying issue of the priority of the States’ claims for reimbursement.

       Section 362(a) provides:
      “(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a petition filed under section 301, 302, or 303 of this title, or an application filed under section 5(a)(3) of the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 (15 U. S. C. 78eee(a)(3)), operates as a stay, applicable to all entities, of—
      “(1) the commencement or continuation, including the issuance or employment of process, of a judicial, administrative, or other proceeding against the debtor that was or could have been commenced before the commencement of the case under this title, or to recover a claim against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case under this title;
      “(2) the enforcement, against the debtor or against property of the estate, of a judgment obtained before the commencement of the case under this title;
      “(3) any act to obtain possession of property of the estate or of property from the estate;
      “(4) any act to create, perfect, or enforce any lien against property of the estate;
      “(5) any act to create, perfect, or enforce against property of the debtor any lien to the extent that such lien secures a claim that arose before the commencement of the case under this title;
      “(6) any act to collect, assess, or recover a claim against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case under this title;
      “(7) the setoff of any debt owing to the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case under this title against any claim against the debtor; and
      “(8) the commencement or continuation of a proceeding before the United States Tax Court concerning the debtor.”

       See, e. g., In re Hillsdale Foundry Co., 1 BCD 195 (Bkrtcy Ct. WD Mich. 1974) (action by Michigan Attorney General to enforce State’s antipollution laws held subject to automatic stay). The House Report also referred to an unreported case from Texas where a stay prevented the State of Maine from closing down a debtor’s plant that was polluting a river in violation of the State’s environmental protection laws. H. R. Rep. No. 95-595, pp. 174-175 (1977).

       Section 959(b) provides:
      “Except as provided in section 1166 of title 11, a trustee, receiver or manager appointed in any cause pending in any court of the United States, including a debtor in possession, shall manage and operate the property in his possession as such trustee, receiver or manager according to the requirements of the valid laws of the State in which such property is situated, in the same manner that the owner or possessor thereof would be bound to do if in possession thereof.”

       Congress eliminated the small generator exception and subjected many more facilities to the regulations. Pub. L. 98-616, 98 Stat. 3221, 3248-3272 (codified at 42 U. S. C. § 6921(d) (1982 ed., Supp. III)). Another provision automatically broadens the Act’s coverage by automatically assigning a hazardous rating to substances that the Environmental Protection Agency does not classify by a set deadline. 98 Stat. 3227-3231 (codified at 42 U. S. C. §§6924(d), (e), (f)(3), (g)(6) (1982 ed., Supp. III)). Amended enforcement provisions allow more citizen suits, 98 Stat. 3271-3272 (codified at 42 U. S. C. § 6973 (1982 ed., Supp. Ill)), and authorize administrative orders or suits to compel “corrective action” after a leak has occurred. 98 Stat. 3257-3258 (codified at 42 U. S. C. § 6928(h) (1982 ed., Supp. III)).

       This exception to the abandonment power vested in the trustee by § 554 is a narrow one. It does not encompass a speculative or indeterminate future violation of such laws that may stem from abandonment. The abandonment power is not to be fettered by laws or regulations not reasonably calculated to protect the public health or safety from imminent and identifiable harm.

       Under the former Bankruptcy Act, title to the debtor’s property vested in the trustee. Abandonment divested the trustee of title and revested it in the debtor. 4 Collier ¶554.02[2], Under the Code, the trustee no longer takes title to the debtor’s property, and he is simply divested of control over the property by the abandonment. Ibid. Although § 554 does not specify to whom the property is abandoned, the legislative history suggests that it is to the person having a possessory interest in the property. S. Rep. No. 95-989, p. 92 (1978); Ohio v. Kovacs, 469 U. S. 274, 284-285, n. 12 (1985).

       Last Term in Ohio v. Kovacs, supra, which involved the discharge-ability of certain environmental injunctions in bankruptcy, we briefly addressed the abandonment of hazardous waste sites:
      “After notice and hearing, the trustee many abandon any property of the estate that is burdensome to the estate or that is of inconsequential value to the estate. 11 U. S. C. § 554. Such abandonment is to the person having the possessory interest in the property. S. Rep. No. 95-989, p. 92 (1978). ... If the site at issue were [the debtor’s] property, the trustee would shortly determine whether it was of value to the estate. If the property was worth more than the costs of bringing it into compliance with state law, the trustee would undoubtedly sell it for its net value, and the buyer would clean up the property, in which event whatever obligation [the debtor] might have had to clean up the property would have been satisfied. If the property were worth less than the cost of cleanup, the trustee would likely abandon it to its prior owner, who would have to comply with the state environmental law to the extent of his or its ability.” Id., at 284-285, n. 12.

       The Court finds “additional support” for its restriction of the abandonment power in recent federal statutes concerned with protecting the environment. If these statutes operated to bar abandonment here — something neither respondents nor the Court suggests — then this might be a different case. See NLRB v. Bildisco & Bildisco, 465 U. S. 513 (1984). But the statutes do not bar abandonment, and the majority’s reference to their obvious concern over the risks of storing hazardous substances is little more than a makeweight.

       NJDEP does not contend that the estate, including any assets otherwise subject to Midiantic’s secured claim, contains sufficient assets to complete the cleanup.

       1 would think that this command qualifies, in the words of the Court, as a “conditio[n] on abandonment... so onerous as to interfere with the bankruptcy adjudication itself,” ante, at 507.


author: Justice Rehnquist

text:
    PARSONS STEEL, INC., et al. v. FIRST ALABAMA BANK et al.
    No. 84-1616.
    Argued December 3, 1985
    Decided January 27, 1986

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

      Frank M. Wilson argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs was James Jerry Wood.

      M. Roland Nachman, Jr., argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief was James A. Byram, Jr.

   Justice Rehnquist

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Full Faith and Credit Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1738, requires federal courts as well as state courts to give state judicial proceedings “the same full faith and credit... as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State . . . from which they are taken.” The Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U. S. C. § 2283, generally prohibits a federal court from granting an injunction to stay proceedings in a state court, but excepts from that prohibition the issuance of an injunction by a federal court “where necessary ... to protect or effectuate its judgments.” In the present case the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the quoted exception to the latter Act worked a pro tanto amendment to the former, so that a federal court might issue an injunction against state-court proceedings even though the prevailing party in the federal suit had litigated in the state court and lost on the res judicata effect of the federal judgment. We granted certio-rari to consider this question, 472 U. S. 1026 (1985), and now reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

Petitioners Parsons Steel, Inc., and Jim and Melba Parsons sued respondents First Alabama Bank of Montgomery and Edward Herbert, a bank officer, in Alabama state court in February 1979, essentially alleging that the bank had fraudulently induced the Parsonses to permit a third person to take control of a subsidiary of Parsons Steel and eventually to obtain complete ownership of the subsidiary. The subsidiary was adjudicated an involuntary bankrupt in April 1979, and the trustee in bankruptcy was added as a party plaintiff in the state action. In May 1979 Parsons Steel and the Par-sonses sued the bank in the United States District Court for the District of Alabama, alleging that the same conduct on the part of the bank that was the subject of the state-court suit also violated the Bank Holding Company Act (BHCA) amendments, 12 U. S. C. §§1971-1978. The trustee in bankruptcy chose not to participate in the federal action.

The parties conducted joint discovery in the federal and state actions. The federal action proceeded to trial on the issue of liability before the state action went to trial. A jury returned a verdict in favor of petitioners, but the District Court granted judgment n.o.v. to the bank. That judgment was affirmed on appeal. Parsons Steel, Inc. v. First Alabama Bank of Montgomery, 679 F. 2d 242 (CA11 1982). After the federal judgment was entered, respondents pleaded in the state action the defenses of res judicata and collateral estoppel based on that judgment. The Alabama court, however, ruled that res judicata did not bar the state action. Almost a year after the federal judgment was entered, the state complaint was amended to include a Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) claim that the bank’s foreclosure sale of the subsidiary’s assets was commercially unreasonable. A jury returned a general verdict in favor of petitioners, awarding a total of four million and one dollars in damages.

Having lost in state court, respondents returned to the District Court that had previously entered judgment in the bank’s favor and filed the present injunctive action against petitioners, the plaintiffs in the state action. The District Court found that the federal BHCA suit and the state action were based on the same factual allegations and claimed substantially the same damages. The court held that the state claims should have been raised in the federal action as pendent to the BHCA claim and accordingly that the BHCA judgment barred the state claims under res judicata. Determining that the Alabama judgment in effect nullified the earlier federal-court judgment in favor of the bank, the District Court enjoined petitioners from further prosecuting the state action.

A divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed in relevant part, holding that the issuance of the injunction was not “an abuse of discretion” by the District Court. 747 F. 2d 1367, 1381 (1980). The majority first agreed with the District Court that the fraud and UCC claims presented issues of fact and law that could have been and should have been raised in the same action as the BHCA claim. Thus the parties to the BHCA action and their privies, including the trustee in bankruptcy, were barred by res judicata from raising these claims in state court after the entry of the federal judgment.

The majority then held that the injunction was proper under the so-called “relitigation exception” to the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U. S. C. § 2283, which provides:

“A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments” (emphasis added).

In reaching this holding, the majority explicitly declined to consider the possible preclusive effect, pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1738, of the state court’s determination after full litigation by the parties that the earlier federal-court judgment did not bar the state action. According to the majority, “while a federal court is generally bound by other state court determinations, the relitigation exception empowers a federal court to be the final adjudicator as to the res judicata effects of its prior judgments on a subsequent state action.” 747 F. 2d, at 1376 (footnote omitted).

Finally, the majority ruled that respondents had not waived their right to an injunction by waiting until after the trial in the state action was completed. The majority concluded that the state-court pleadings were so vague that it was not clear until after trial that essentially the same cause of action was involved as the BHCA claim and that the earlier federal judgment was in danger of being nullified. According to the majority, the Anti-Injunction Act does not limit the power of a federal court to protect its judgment “to specific points in time in state court trials or appellate procedure.” Id., at 1377.

The dissenting judge rejected “the majority’s conclusion that the Anti-Injunction Act. . . implicitly amended the Full Faith and Credit Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1738.” Id., at 1381 (Hill, J., dissenting). He agreed with the majority that “section 2283 allows the district court to enter an injunction, perhaps grounded in the concept of res judicata, unless the state court has already addressed the res judicata issue on the merits,” but would have held in cases where the state court has decided the res judicata issue that “section 1738 requires the federal court to afford full faith and credit to the state court’s resolution of the issue.” Ibid.

In our view, the majority of the Court of Appeals gave unwarrantedly short shrift to the important values of federalism and comity embodied in the Full Faith and Credit Act. As recently as last March, in Marrese v. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 470 U. S. 373 (1985), we reaffirmed our holding in Migra v. Warren City School Dist. Bd. of Education, 465 U. S. 75 (1984), that under the Full Faith and Credit Act a federal court must give the same preclusive effect to a state-court judgment as another court of that State would give. “It has long been established that §1738 does not allow federal courts to employ their own rules of res judicata in determining the effect of state judgments. Rather, it goes beyond the common law and commands a federal court to accept the rules chosen by the State from which the judgment is taken.” Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp., 456 U. S. 461, 481-482 (1982). The Full Faith and Credit Act thus “allow[s] the States to determine, subject to the requirements of the statute and the Due Process Clause, the preclusive effect of judgments in their own courts.” Marrese, supra, at 380.

In the instant case, however, the Court of Appeals did not consider the possible preclusive effect under Alabama law of the state-court judgment, and particularly of the state court’s resolution of the res judicata issue, concluding instead that the relitigation exception to the Anti-Injunction Act limits the Full Faith and Credit Act. We do not agree. “[A]n exception to § 1738 will not be recognized unless a later statute contains an express or implied partial repeal.” Kremer, supra, at 468; Allen v. McCurry, 449 U. S. 90, 99 (1980). Here, as in Kremer, there is no claim of an express repeal; rather, the Court of Appeals found an implied repeal. “ Tt is, of course, a cardinal principle of statutory construction that repeals by implication are not favored,’ Radzanower v. Touche Ross & Co., 426 U. S. 148, 154 (1976); United States v. United Continental Tuna Corp., 425 U. S. 164, 168 (1976), and whenever possible, statutes should be read consistently.” 456 U. S., at 468. We believe that the Anti-Injunction Act and the Full Faith and Credit Act can be construed consistently, simply by limiting the relitigation exception of the Anti-Injunction Act to those situations in which the state court has not yet ruled on the merits of the res judicata issue. Once the state court has finally rejected a claim of res judicata, then the Full Faith and Credit Act becomes applicable and federal courts must turn to state law to determine the preclusive effect of the state court’s decision.

The contrary holding of the Court of Appeals apparently was based on the fact that Congress in 1948 amended the Anti-Injunction Act to overrule this Court’s decision in Toucey v. New York Life Insurance Co., 314 U. S. 118 (1941), in favor of the understanding of prior law expressed in Justice Reed’s dissenting opinion. See Revisor’s Note to 1948 Revision of Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U. S. C., p. 377. But the instant case is a far cry from Toucey, and one may fully accept the logic of Justice Reed’s dissent without concluding that it sanctions the result reached by the Court of Appeals here. In each of the several cases involved in Toucey, the prevailing party in the federal action sought an injunction against relitigation in state court as soon as the opposing party commenced the state action, and before there was any resolution of the res judicata issue by the state court. In the instant case, on the other hand, respondents chose to fight out the res judicata issue in state court first, and only after losing there did they return to federal court for another try.

The Court of Appeals also felt that the District Court’s injunction would discourage inefficient simultaneous litigation in state and federal courts on the same issue — that is, the res judicata effect of the prior federal judgment. But this is one of the costs of our dual court system:

“In short, the state and federal courts had concurrent jurisdiction in this case, and neither court was free to prevent either party from simultaneously pursuing claims in both courts.” Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Locomotive Engineers, 898 U. S. 281, 295 (1970).

Indeed, this case is similar to Atlantic Coast Line, in which we held that the various exceptions to the Anti-Injunction Act did not permit a federal court to enjoin state proceedings in circumstances more threatening to federal jurisdiction than the circumstances of this case. There we stated that the phrase “to protect or effectuate its judgments” authorized a federal injunction of state proceedings only “to prevent a state court from so interfering with a federal court’s consideration or disposition of a case as to seriously impair the federal court’s flexibility and authority to decide that case.” Ibid.

We hold, therefore, that the Court of Appeals erred by refusing to consider the possible preclusive effect, under Alabama law, of the state-court judgment. Even if the state court mistakenly rejected respondents’ claim of res judicata, this does not justify the highly intrusive remedy of a federal-court injunction against the enforcement of the state-court judgment. Rather, the Full Faith and Credit Act requires that federal courts give the state-court judgment, and particularly the state court’s resolution of the res judicata issue, the same preclusive effect it would have had in another court of the same State. Challenges to the correctness of a state court’s determination as to the conclusive effect of a federal judgment must be pursued by way of appeal through the state-court system and certiorari from this Court. See Angel v. Bullington, 330 U. S. 183 (1947).

We think the District Court is best situated to determine and apply Alabama preclusion law in the first instance. See Marrese v. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, supra, at 386-387; Migra v. Warren City School Dist. Bd. of Education, 465 U. S., at 87. Should the District Court conclude that the state-court judgment is not entitled to preclu-sive effect under Alabama law and the Full Faith and Credit Act, it would then be in the best position to decide the propriety of a federal-court injunction under the general principles of equity, comity, and federalism discussed in Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U. S. 225, 243 (1972).

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

       Although the opinion of the Court of Appeals does not mention it, respondents apparently also filed in state court a timely post-trial motion for new trial or judgment n.o.v.

       The Full Faith and Credit Act provides, in pertinent part, that state judicial proceedings “shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States ... as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State . . . from which they are taken.”

       The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the District Court for a determination whether the trustee in bankruptcy should be allowed to litigate his UCC claim in state court because the trustee was not a party to the federal suit and the UCC claim might have been based on facts other than those that formed the basis for the federal action.

       As an alternative basis for reversing the decision of the Court of Appeals, petitioners contend that the relitigation exception to the Anti-Injunction Act was never intended by Congress to allow the issuance of a federal-court injunction in situations where the later state action involves claims that could have been litigated, but were not actually litigated, in the prior federal action. Petitioners also ask us to review the Court of Appeals’ holding that the trustee in bankruptcy, who was not a party to the first federal action, was nevertheless bound under res judicata by the judgment of the District Court in that action. Because of our resolution of the primary issue raised by petitioners, we do not address these additional arguments.


text:
    October 7, 1985
    No. 85-561.
    Jones et al. v. Lightner, dba Lightner Auto Sales.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 53.


text:
    No. 84-1794.
    Gerace, Commissioner, New York Department of Agriculture and Markets, et al. v. Grocery Manufacturers of America, Inc., et al.
   Appeal from C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of Federation of Homemakers, Inc., for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Judgment affirmed.

Justice Rehnquist and Justice O’Connor would note probable jurisdiction and set case for oral argument.


text:
    No. 84-1791.
    Corpus Christi People’s Baptist Church, Inc., et al. v. Texas.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Tex. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 84-1804.
    Walker v. City of Warren.
   Appeal from Ct.

App. Mich, dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 84-1841.
    Methodist Hospital of Brooklyn et al. v. State Insurance Fund et al.
   Appeal from Ct. App. N. Y. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 84-1882.
    St. Joseph’s Hill Infirmary, Inc. v. Pacific Care Center, Inc.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Mo., Eastern Dist., dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 84-1901.
    Whalen v. Dean Steel Erection Co., Inc.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Va. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 84-1921.
    Marshall v. Court of Appeals of Maryland.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Md. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 84-1933.
    Corey Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Board of Zoning Adjustment of the City of Atlanta et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ga. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 84-1941.
    Calder Race Course, Inc., et al. v. Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, Department of Business Regulation, et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Fla. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 84-6766.
    Thomsen v. American Lutheran Church, Inc., et al.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Minn, dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 84-6800.
    Rhodes v. Board of Education of the Chama Valley Independent School District et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. N. M. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 84-6888.
    Raske v. Jorandby et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Fla. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 84-6997.
    Penza v. New England Medical Center Inc. et al.
   Appeal from App. Ct. Mass, dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 85-4.
    Maresca et al. v. Cuomo, Governor of New York, et al.
   Appeal from Ct. App. N. Y. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 85-72.
    Maine State Troopers Assn. v. Maine et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Jud. Ct. Me. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 85-110.
    Bint et al. v. Creative Forest Products et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Idaho dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 85-189.
    Norton v. Illinois.
   Appeal from App. Ct. Ill., 3d Dist., dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 85-205.
    Asmussen et al. v. City of Austin, Texas, et al. (two cases).
   Appeals from Ct. App. Tex., 3d Sup. Jud. Dist., dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 85-5010.
    Mihal et al. v. Sargis et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ohio dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 85-5177.
    Gordon v. Idaho.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Idaho dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 84-1824.
    Whitaker et al. v. Knapp.
   Appeal from C. A. 7th Cir. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 84-1835.
    American Insurance Assn. et al. v. Chu, Commissioner of Taxation and Finance of the State of New York, et al.
   Appeal from Ct. App. N. Y. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 84-1860.
    Roussos v. Retina Consultants, P. C., et al.
   Appeal from Ct. Sp. App. Md. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 84-1902.
    Strode v. Gregory et al.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist., dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 84-1945.
    Galuszka v. Schwab, for and on Behalf of the Minor, Schwab.
   Appeal from Ct. App. La., 4th Cir., dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 84-1968.
    Zuger v. United States.
   Appeal from C. A. 2d Cir. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 84-6832.
    Rucker v. City of St. Louis et al.
   Appeal from C. A. 8th Cir. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 84-6856.
    Prenzler v. Reynolds, U. S. Attorney, et al.
   Appeal from C. A. 9th Cir. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 84-6961.
    Rodman v. Continental Insurance Cos. et al.
   Appeal from C. A. 9th Cir. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-92.
    Edgerton v. Delaware.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Del. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-95.
    Moeller v. Carradine et al.
   Appeal from C. A. 8th Cir. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-102.
    Men’s Wearhouse, Inc. v. Helms.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Tex., 1st Sup. Jud. Dist., dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-116.
    Peters v. California.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist., dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-134.
    Zuger v. United States.
   Appeal from C. A. 2d Cir. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5007.
    Pavilonis v. Massachusetts.
   Appeal from Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass, dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5148.
    Bowden v. Idaho Department of Health and Welfare.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Idaho dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 84-1891.
    Bruno v. New Orleans Department of Police.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. La. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.

Justice White and Justice Blackmun would postpone consideration of question of jurisdiction to a hearing of the case on the merits.


text:
    No. 84-6865.
    Rucker v. City of St. Louis et al.
   Appeal from D. C. E. D. Mo. dismissed for want of jurisdiction.


text:
    No. 85-57.
    Stop-N-Go, Inc. v. Bradfield, Administrator of the Estate of Bradfield.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ohio dismissed for want of jurisdiction.


text:
    No. 85-148.
    Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan v. Milliken, Governor of Michigan, et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Mich, dismissed for want of substantial federal question.

Justice Brennan, Justice White, and Justice Rehnquist would note probable jurisdiction and set case for oral argument.


text:
    No. 84-1715.
    City of Lawton, Oklahoma, et al. v. Lusby et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U. S. 808 (1985).


text:
    No. 84-1768.
    Alabama Department of Corrections v. Glover.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Kentucky v. Graham, 478 U. S. 159 (1985).


text:
    No. 84-1971.
    Sun Oil Co. v. Wortman et al.
   Sup. Ct. Kan. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U. S. 797 (1985).


text:
    No. 84-6842.
    Williams v. Kemp, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Francis v. Franklin, 471 U. S. 307 (1985).


text:
    No. 84-6946.
    Jefferson v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Garrett v. United States, 471 U. S. 773 (1985).


text:
    No. 84-6953.
    Burger v. Kemp, Warden.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Francis v. Franklin, 471 U. S. 307 (1985).


text:
    No. 85-66.
    Florida v. Arango.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of United States v. Bagley, 473 U. S. 667 (1985).

Justice Brennan, Justice Marshall, Justice Blackmun, and Justice Stevens dissent and would deny cer-tiorari.


text:
    No. 85-5078.
    Sotelo v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings, including, if appropriate, the reentry of its judgment affirming petitioner’s conviction and appointment .of counsel to assist petitioner in seeking timely review of that judgment in this Court.

Justice Rehnquist dissents.


text:
    No. 84-1862.
    Moreland v. Poss.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari dismissed for want of a final judgment.


text:
    No.-.
    No.-.
    C. H. B. Foods, Inc. v. English; and Hylin, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Hylin v. United States.
   Motions to direct the Clerk to file petitions for writs of certiorari out of time denied.


text:
    No. A-41.
    Park County Resource Council, Inc., et al. v. United States Department of Agriculture et al.
   D. C. Wyo. Application for stay pending appeal, addressed to The Chief Justice and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-88.
    Helfricht v. New Jersey.
   Super. Ct. N. J., App. Div. Application to continue a stay, addressed to Justice Brennan and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-145.
    Schuchman et al. v. United States.
   Application for injunction and all other relief, addressed to Justice Brennan and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. D-312.
    In re Ergazos,
   460 U. S. 1065. Application for reinstatement to the Bar of this Court denied.


text:
    No. D-488.
    In re Disbarment of Rouse.
    [For earlier order herein, see 471 U. S. 1012.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-496.
    In re Disbarment of Hyter.
   Charles Kilburn Hyter, of Hutchinson, Kan., having requested to resign as a member of the Bar of this Court, it is ordered that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys admitted to practice before the Bar of this Court. The rule to show cause, heretofore issued on June 3, 1985 [471 U. S. 1133], is hereby discharged.


text:
    No. D-498.
    In re Disbarment of Slone.
   Harold G. Slone, of New York, N. Y., having requested to resign as a member of the Bar of this Court, it is ordered that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys admitted to practice before the Bar of this Court. The rule to show cause, heretofore issued on June 3, 1985 [471 U. S. 1134], is hereby discharged.


text:
    No. D-499.
    In re Disbarment of Jacob.
    [For earlier order herein, see 472 U. S. 1005.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-500.
    In re Disbarment of Walters.
   Harris N. Walters, of Boynton, Fla., having requested to resign as a member of the Bar of this Court, it is ordered that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys admitted to practice before the Bar of this Court. The rule to show cause, heretofore issued on June 10, 1985 [472 U. S. 1005], is hereby discharged.


text:
    No. D-502.
    In re Disbarment of Atkins.
   Benjamin Sloan Atkins, of Atlanta, Ga., having requested to resign as a member of the Bar of this Court, it is ordered that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys admitted to practice before the Bar of this Court. The rule to show cause, heretofore issued on June 10, 1985 [472 U. S. 1005], is hereby discharged.