source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Justice White Justice Kennedy,

license: Public Domain

text:
    UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO-CLC v. RAWSON, individually and as guardian ad litem for RAWSON, et al.
    No. 89-322.
    Argued March 26, 1990
    Decided May 14, 1990

      White, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens, and O’Connor, JJ., joined. Kennedy, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Scalia, J., joined, post, p. 376.

      George H. Cohen argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Robert M. Weinberg, Julia P. Clark, Laurence Gold, Bernard Kleiman, Carl Frankel, Paul D. Carey, and James D. Nelson.

      Kenneth B. Howard argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Kerwin C. Bennett and Lloyd J. Webb .

      Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for Continental Beverage Packaging, Inc., by Robert A. Christensen and Stanley S. J aspan; and for Public Citizen by Paul Alan Levy and Alan B. Morrison.

   Justice White

delivered the opinion of the Court.

We granted certiorari in this case because the decisions of the Supreme Court of Idaho, holding that petitioner may be liable under state law for the negligent inspection of a mine where respondents’ decedents worked, raised important questions about the operation of federal and state law in defining the duties of a labor union acting as a collective-bargaining agent.

I

This dispute arises out of an underground fire that occurred on May 2, 1972, at the Sunshine Mine in Kellogg, Idaho, and caused the deaths of 91 miners. Respondents, the survivors of four of the deceased miners, filed this state-law wrongful-death action in Idaho state court. Their complaint alleged that the miners’ deaths were proximately caused by fraudulent and negligent acts of petitioner United Steelworkers of America (Union), the exclusive bargaining representative of the miners working at the Sunshine Mine. As to the negligence claim, the complaint specifically alleged that the Union “undertook to act as accident prevention representative and enforcer of an agreement negotiated between [sic] [the Union] on behalf of the deceased miners,” App. 53-54, and “undertook to provide representatives who inspected [the Sunshine Mine] and pretended to enforce the contractual accident prevention clauses,” id., at 54. Respondents’ answers to interrogatories subsequently made clear that their suit was based on contentions that the Union had, through a collective-bargaining agreement negotiated with the operator of the Sunshine Mine, caused to be established a joint management-labor safety committee intended to exert influence on management on mine safety measures; that members of the safety committee designated by the Union had been inadequately trained on mine safety issues; and that the Únion, through its representatives on the safety committee, had negligently performed inspections of the mine that it had promised to conduct, failing to uncover obvious and discoverable deficiencies. Id., at 82-83.

The trial court granted summary judgment for the Union, accepting the Union’s argument that “federal law has preempted the field of union representation and its obligation to its membership,” App. to Pet. for Cert. 164a, and that “[negligent performance of [a union’s] contractual duties does not state a claim under federal law for breach of fair representation,” id., at 163a. The Supreme Court of Idaho reversed. Dunbar v. United Steelworkers of America, 100 Idaho 523, 602 P. 2d 21 (1979). In the view of the Supreme Court of Idaho, although federal law unquestionably imposed on the Union a duty of fair representation of the miners, respondents’ claims were “not necessarily based on the violation of the duty of fair representation and such is not the only duty owed by a union to its members.” Id., at 526, 602 P. 2d, at 24. Three of the five justices concurred specially to emphasize that “the precise nature of the legal issues raised by [respondents’] wrongful death action is not entirely clear at the present procedural posture of the case,” and that “a final decision whether the wrongful death action ... is preempted . . . must therefore await a full factual development.” Id., at 547, 602 P. 2d, at 25 (Bakes, J., specially concurring). We denied the Union’s petition for certiorari. Steelworkers v. Dunbar, 446 U. S. 983 (1980).

After extensive discovery, the trial court again granted summary judgment for the Union. App. to Pet. for Cert. 89a-106a. As to respondents’ fraud claim, the court concluded that the record was devoid of evidence supporting the contentions that the Union had made misrepresentations of fact, that the Union had intended to defraud the miners, or that the miners had relied on Union representations. Id., at 96a. On the negligence count, the trial court first noted that, in its view, respondents’ claims centered on the collective-bargaining contract between the Union and the Sunshine Mine, especially Article IX of the agreement, which established the joint management-labor safety committee. Id., at 90a-91a. The trial court urged the State Supreme Court to reconsider its conclusion that respondents’ state-law negligence claim was not pre-empted by federal labor law, reasoning that “[respondents] are complaining about the manner in which the Union carried out the collective bargaining agreement, essentially saying the Union advisory committee should have done more,” and that respondents “are attempting to hold the [Union] liable on the basis of its representational duties.” Id., at 103a-104a.

The Supreme Court of Idaho originally affirmed the grant of summary judgment on appeal. Id., at 49a-88a. On rehearing, however, the Idaho Supreme Court withdrew its prior opinion and concluded that respondents had stated a valid claim under Idaho law that was not pre-empted by federal labor law. Rawson v. United Steelworkers of America, 111 Idaho 630, 726 P. 2d 742 (1986). Distinguishing this Court’s decision in Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U. S. 202 (1985), which held that resolution of a state-law tort claim must be treated as a claim arising under federal labor law when it is substantially dependent on construction of the terms of a collective-bargaining agreement, the Supreme Court of Idaho stated that “in the instant case, the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement do not require interpretation, . . . but rather the provisions determine only the nature and scope of the Union’s duty.” 111 Idaho, at 640, 726 P. 2d, at 752. The court continued: “Our narrow holding today is that the Union, having inspected, assumed a duty to use due care in inspecting and, from the duty to use due care in inspecting arose the further duty to advise the committee of any safety problems the inspection revealed.” Ibid. The court also affirmed the trial court’s conclusion that summary judgment for the Union was proper on respondents’ fraud claim. Id., at 633, 726 P. 2d, at 745.

The Union again petitioned for certiorari. While that petition was pending, we decided Electrical Workers v. Hechler, 481 U. S. 851 (1987), in which it was held that an individual employee’s state-law tort suit against her union for breach of the union’s duty of care to provide the employee with a safe workplace must be treated as a claim under federal labor law, when the duty of care allegedly arose from the collective-bargaining agreement between the union and the employer. Six days later, we granted the Union’s petition, vacated the judgment of the Supreme Court of Idaho, and remanded this case for further consideration in light of Hechler. Steelworkers v. Rawson, 482 U. S. 901 (1987).

On remand, the Supreme Court of Idaho “adhere[d] to [its] opinion as written.” 115 Idaho 785, 788, 770 P. 2d 794, 797 (1988). The court also distinguished Hechler, stressing that there we had considered a situation where the alleged duty of care arose from the collective-bargaining agreement, whereas in this case “the activity was concededly undertaken and the standard of care is imposed by state law without reference to the collective bargaining agreement.” 115 Idaho, at 786, 770 P. 2d, at 795. The court further stated that it was “not faced with looking at the Collective Bargaining Agreement to determine whether it imposes some new duty upon the union — rather it is conceded that the union undertook to inspect and, thus, the issue is solely whether that inspection was negligently performed under traditional Idaho tort law.” Id., at 787, 770 P. 2d, at 796.

We granted certiorari, 493 U. S. 1017 (1990), and we now reverse.

II

Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (LMRA), 61 Stat. 156, 29 U. S. C. § 185(a), states:

“Suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce as defined in this Act, or between any such labor organizations, may be brought in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties, without respect to the amount in controversy or without regard to the citizenship of the parties.”

Over 30 years ago, this Court held that § 301 not only provides the federal courts with jurisdiction over controversies involving collective-bargaining agreements but also authorizes the courts to fashion “a body of federal law for the enforcement of these collective bargaining agreements.” Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills of Alabama, 353 U. S. 448, 451 (1957). Since then, the Court has made clear that § 301 is a potent source of federal labor law, for though state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over controversies involving collective-bargaining agreements, Charles Dowd Box Co. v. Courtney, 368 U. S. 502 (1962), state courts must apply federal law in deciding those claims, Teamsters v. Lucas Flour Co., 369 U. S. 95 (1962), and indeed any state-law cause of action for violation of collective-bargaining agreements is entirely displaced by federal law under § 301, see Avco Corp. v. Machinists, 390 U. S. 557 (1968). State law is thus “preempted” by § 301 in that only the federal law fashioned by the courts under § 301 governs the interpretation and application of collective-bargaining agreements.

In recent cases, we have recognized that the pre-emptive force of § 301 extends beyond state-law contract actions. In Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, supra, we held that a state-law tort action against an employer may be pre-empted by § 301 if the duty to the employee of which the tort is a violation is created by a collective-bargaining agreement and without existence independent of the agreement. Any other result, we reasoned, would “allow parties to evade the requirements of §301 by relabeling their contract claims as claims for tortious breach of contract.” Id., at 211. We extended this rule of pre-emption to a tort suit by an employee against her union in Electrical Workers v. Hechler, supra. There Hechler alleged that her union had by virtue of its collective-bargaining agreement with the employer and its relationship with her assumed the duty to ensure that she was provided with a safe workplace, and that the union had violated this duty. As in Allis-Chalmers, the duty relied on by Hechler was one without existence independent of the collective-bargaining agreement (unions not, under the common law of Florida, being charged with a duty to exercise reasonable care in providing a safe workplace, see 481 U. S., at 859-860), but was allegedly created by the collective-bargaining agreement, of which Hechler claimed to be a third-party beneficiary, see id., at 861. Because resolution of the tort claim would require a court to “ascertain, first, whether the collective-bargaining agreement in fact placed an implied duty of care on the Union . . . , and second, the nature and scope of that duty,” id., at 862, we held that the tort claim was not sufficiently independent of the collective-bargaining agreement to withstand the preemptive force of §301.

At first glance it would not appear difficult to apply these principles to the instant case. Respondents alleged in their complaint that the Union was negligent in its role as “enforcer of an agreement negotiated between [sic] [the Union] on behalf of the deceased miners,” App. 53-54, a plain reference to the collective-bargaining agreement with the operator of the Sunshine Mine. Respondents’ answers to interrogatories gave substance to this allegation by stating that “by the contract language” of the collective-bargaining agreement, the Union had caused the establishment of the joint safety committee with purported influence on mine safety issues, and that members of the safety committee had failed reasonably to perform inspections of the mine or to uncover obvious and discoverable deficiencies in the mine safety program. App. 82-83. The only possible interpretation of these pleadings, we believe, is that the duty on which respondents relied as the basis of their tort suit was one allegedly assumed by the Union in the collective-bargaining agreement. Prior to our remand, the Supreme Court of Idaho evidently was of this view as well. The court noted then that the Union could be liable under state tort law because it allegedly had contracted to inspect, and had in fact inspected, the mine “pursuant to the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement.” 111 Idaho, at 638, 726 P. 2d, at 750. Although the Idaho Supreme Court believed that resolution of the tort claim would not require interpretation of the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement, it acknowledged that the provisions of that agreement determined “the nature and scope of the Union’s duty,” id., at 640, 726 P. 2d, at 752.

The situation is complicated, however, by the Idaho Supreme Court’s opinion after our remand. Although the court stated that it adhered to its prior opinion as written, 115 Idaho, at 788, 770 P. 2d, at 797, it also rejected the suggestion that there was any need to look to the collective-bargaining agreement to discern whether it placed any implied duty on the Union. Rather, Idaho law placed a duty of care on the Union because the Union did, in fact, actively inspect the mine, and the Union could be held liable for the negligent performance of that inspection. Id., at 787, 770 P. 2d, at 796. According to the Supreme Court of Idaho, the Union may be liable under state tort law because its duty to perform that inspection reasonably arose from the fact of the inspection itself rather than the fact that the provision for the Union’s participation in mine inspection was contained in the labor contract.

As we see it, however, respondents’ tort claim cannot be described as independent of the collective-bargaining agreement. This is not a situation where the Union’s delegates are accused of acting in a way that might violate the duty of reasonable care owed to every person in society. There is no allegation, for example, that members of the safety committee negligently caused damage to the structure of the mine, an act that could be unreasonable irrespective of who committed it and could forseeably cause injury to any person who might possibly be in the vicinity.

Nor do we understand the Supreme Court of Idaho to have held that any casual visitor in the mine would be liable for violating some duty to the miners if the visitor failed to report obvious defects to the appropriate authorities. Indeed, the court did not disavow its previous opinion, where it acknowledged that the Union’s representatives were participating in the inspection process pursuant to the provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement, and that the agreement determined the nature and scope of the Union’s duty. If the Union failed to perform a duty in connection with inspection, it was a duty arising out of the collective-bargaining agreement signed by the Union as the bargaining agent for the miners. Clearly, the enforcement of that agreement and the remedies for its breach are matters governed by federal law. “[(Questions relating to what the parties to a labor agreement agreed, and what legal consequences were intended to flow from breaches of that agreement, must be resolved by reference to uniform federal law, whether such questions arise in the context of a suit for breach of contract or in a suit alleging liability in tort.” Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U. S., at 211. Pre-emption by federal law cannot be avoided by characterizing the Union’s negligent performance of what it does on behalf of the members of the bargaining unit pursuant to the terms of the collective-bargaining contract as a state-law tort. Accordingly, this suit, if it is to go forward at all, must proceed as a case controlled by federal, rather than state, law.

Ill

The Union insists that the case against it may not go forward even under federal law. It argues first that only the duty of fair representation governs the exercise of its representational functions under the collective-bargaining contract, and that a member may not sue it under §301 for breach of contract. Second, the Union submits that even if it may be sued under §301, the labor agreement contains no enforceable promise made by it to the members of the unit in connection with inspecting the mine. Third, the Union asserts that as the case now stands, it is charged with only negligence, which is insufficient to prove a breach of its duty of fair representation.

“It is now well established that, as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees, . . . the Union had a statutory duty fairly to represent all of those employees, both in its collective bargaining . . . and in its enforcement of the resulting collective bargaining agreement.” Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U. S. 171, 177 (1967). “Under this doctrine, the exclusive agent’s statutory authority to represent all members of a designated unit includes a statutory obligation to serve the interests of all members without hostility or discrimination toward any, and to exercise its discretion with complete good faith and honesty, and to avoid arbitrary conduct.” Ibid. This duty of fair representation is of major importance, but a breach occurs “only when a union’s conduct toward a member of the collective bargaining unit is arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.” Id., at 190. The courts have in general assumed that mere negligence, even in the enforcement of a collective-bargaining agreement, would not state a claim for breach of the duty of fair representation, and we endorse that view today.

The Union’s duty of fair representation arises from the National Labor Relations Act itself. See Breininger v. Sheet Metal Workers, 493 U. S. 67, 86-87 (1989); DelCostello v. Teamsters, 462 U. S. 151, 164 (1983); United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Mitchell, 451 U. S. 56, 66 (1981) (Stewart, J., concurring in judgment). The duty of fair representation is thus a matter of status rather than contract. We have never held, however, that, as a matter of federal law, a labor union is prohibited from voluntarily assuming additional duties to the employees by contract. Although at one time it may have appeared most unlikely that unions would be called upon to assume such duties, see Humphrey v. Moore, 375 U. S. 335, 356-357 (1964) (Goldberg, J., concurring in result), nonetheless “it is of the utmost importance that the law reflect the realities of industrial life and the nature of the collective bargaining process,” id., at 358, and it may well be that if unions begin to assume duties traditionally viewed as the prerogatives of management, cf. Breininger, supra, at 87-88; Electrical Workers v. Hechler, 481 U. S., at 859-860, employees will begin to demand that unions be held more strictly to account in their carrying out of those duties. Nor do we know what the source of law would be for such a prohibition, for “when neither the collective-bargaining process nor its end product violates any command of Congress, a federal court has no authority to modify the substantive terms of a collective-bargaining contract.” United Mine Workers of America Health and Retirement Funds v. Robinson, 455 U. S. 562, 576 (1982); cf. H. K. Porter Co. v. NLRB, 397 U. S. 99, 106-108 (1970).

Our decision in Electrical Workers v. Hechler, supra, is relevant here. There we were presented with a claim by an employee that the union had breached its duty to provide her with a safe workplace. The alleged duty was plainly based on the collective-bargaining agreement that the union had negotiated with the employer; Hechler argued that she was a third-party beneficiary of that agreement. Id., at 861, 864-865. Hechler carefully distinguished her §301 claim from a fair representation claim, id., at 864, and so did we, for the distinction had a significant effect: The statutes of limitations for the two claims are different. Id., at 863-865. We therefore accepted, and again accept, that “a labor union . . . may assume a responsibility towards employees by accepting a duty of care through a contractual agreement,” id., at 860, even if that contractual agreement is a collective-bargaining contract to which only the union and the employer are signatories.

But having said as much, we also think it necessary to emphasize caution, lest the courts be precipitate in their efforts to find unions contractually bound to employees by collective-bargaining agreements. The doctrine of fair representation is an important check on the arbitrary exercise of union power, but it is a purposefully limited check, for a “wide range of reasonableness must be allowed a statutory bargaining representative in serving the unit it represents.” Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U. S. 330, 338 (1953). If an employee claims that a union owes him a more far-reaching duty, he must be able to point to language in the collective-bargaining agreement specifically indicating an intent to create obligations enforceable against the union by the individual employees. Cf. Republic Steel Corp. v. Maddox, 379 U. S. 650, 653 (1965).

Applying this principle to the case at hand, we are quite sure that respondents may not maintain a § 301 suit against the Union. Nothing in the collective-bargaining agreement suggests that it creates rights directly enforceable by the individual employees against the Union. The pertinent part of the collective-bargaining agreement, Article IX, consists entirely of agreements between the Union and the employer and enforceable only by them. App. 20-22. Section 2 of the Article provides that “a committee consisting of two (2) supervisory personnel and two (2) reliable employees, approved by the Union, shall inspect” the mine if an employee complains to the shift boss that he is being forced to work in unusually unsafe conditions but receives no redress, id., at 20, but even if this section might be interpreted as obliging the Union to inspect the mine in such circumstances, the promise is not one specifically made to, or enforceable by, individual employees. Nor have respondents placed anything in the record indicating that any such complaints were made or that the Union failed to act on them. Section 4 of the Article states that a Union member may accompany the state mine safety inspection team on its inspections of the mine, and Section 5 states that a Union designate and the Safety Engineer “shall make a tour of a section of the mine” once each month, id., at 22, but again the agreement gives no indication that these obligations, if such is what they are, may be enforced by an individual employee.

Moreover, under traditional principles of contract interpretation, respondents have no claim, for with exceptions under federal labor law not relevant here, see Lewis v. Benedict Coal Carp., 361 U. S. 459, 468-471 (1960), third-party beneficiaries generally have no greater rights in a contract than does the promisee. For respondents to have an enforceable right as third-party beneficiaries against the Union, at the very least the employer must have an enforceable right as promisee. But the provisions in the collective-bargaining agreement relied on by respondents are not promises by the Union to the employer. Cf. Teamsters v. Lucas Flour Co., 369 U. S., at 104-106. They are, rather, concessions made by the employer to the Union, a limited surrender of the employer’s exclusive authority over mine safety. A violation by the employer of the provisions allowing inspection of the mine by Union delegates might form the basis of a § 301 suit against the employer, but we are not presented with such a case.

IV

In performing its functions under the collective-bargaining agreement, the Union did, as it concedes, owe the miners a duty of fair representation, but we have already noted that respondents’ allegation of mere negligence will not state a claim for violation of that duty. Supra, at 372-373. Indeed, respondents have never specifically relied on the federal duty of fair representation, nor have they alleged that the Union improperly discriminated among its members or acted in arbitrary and capricious fashion in failing to exercise its duties under the collective-bargaining agreement. Cf. Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U. S., at 177. Respondents did, of course, allege that the Union had committed fraud on the membership in violation of state law, a claim that might implicate the duty of fair representation. The Supreme Court of Idaho held, however, that summary judgment was properly entered on this claim because respondents had failed to demonstrate specific facts showing the existence of a genuine issue for trial. 111 Idaho, at 633, 726 P. 2d, at 745. Respondents did not cross-petition to challenge this aspect of the Idaho Supreme Court’s judgment, and we are in no position to question it.

It follows that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Idaho must be

Reversed.

Justice Kennedy,

with whom The Chief Justice and Justice Scalia join, dissenting.

The Idaho Supreme Court held that summary judgment was improper and that Tharon Rawson and the other respondents could proceed to trial against the United Steelworkers of America (Union) on a state-law tort theory. Although the respondents have not yet established liability under Idaho law, the Union argues that federal law must govern and bar their suit. To support this position, the Union relies on both §301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U. S. C. § 185(a), and the duty of fair representation implicit in §9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 49 Stat. 453, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 159(a). The Court accepts the Union’s contentions with respect to §301 and does not reach the issue of pre-emption by the duty of fair representation. With all respect, I dissent. Neither of the Union’s arguments for displacing Idaho law without any trial on the merits has validity.

I

The Union bases its §301 argument on our decisions m Lingle v. Norge Division of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U. S. 399, 405-406 (1988); Electrical Workers v. Hechler, 481 U. S. 851, 854 (1987); and Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U. S. 202, 211 (1985). These cases hold that § 301 pre-empts state-law causes of action that require interpretation of a collective-bargaining agreement. In my view, they have no application here. The Idaho Supreme Court, whose determination of state law supersedes that of the trial court, has declared that the respondents’ case rests on allegations of the Union’s active negligence in a voluntary undertaking, not its contractual obligations.

Adopting verbatim a standard from the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323 (1965), the Idaho Court expressed the law governing the respondents’ claims as follows:

“ ‘One who undertakes, gratuitously or for consideration, to render services to another which he should recognize as necessary for the protection of the other’s person or things, is subject to liability to the other for physical harm resulting from his failure to exercise reasonable care to perform his undertaking, if
“‘(a) his failure to exercise such care increases the risk of harm, [or]
“ ‘(b) the harm is suffered because of the other’s reliance upon the undertaking.’” Rawson v. United Steelworkers of America, 111 Idaho 630, 637, 726 P. 2d 742, 749 (1986).

According to the Idaho Supreme Court’s second opinion, the respondents, can prove the elements of the tort described in §323 without relying on the Union’s collective-bargaining agreement. The Court states:

“In the instant case, we are not faced with looking at the Collective Bargaining Agreement to determine whether it imposes some new duty upon the union— rather it is conceded the union undertook to inspect and, thus, the issue is solely whether that inspection was negligently performed under traditional Idaho tort law.” 115 Idaho 785, 787, 770 P. 2d 794, 796 (1989).

Placing this analysis of state law in the context of our precedents, the Idaho court explains:

“[T]he instant case is clearly distinguishable from Heckler in that here the state tort basis of the action was not abandoned, but has been pursued consistently both at the trial and appellate levels and the tort exists without reference to the collective bargaining agreement.” Id., at 787-788, 770 P. 2d, at 796-797.

The court states further:

“[As in Lingle v. Norge Division of Magic Chef, Inc., supra], no interpretation of the collective-bargaining agreement is required to determine whether the union member of the inspection team committed a tort when he committed various acts and omissions such as failure to note the self-rescuers were stored in boxes with padlocks or that the activating valves of the oxygen-breathing-apparatuses were corroded shut. Rather, such alleged acts of negligence are measured by state tort law.” Id., at 788, 770 P. 2d, at 797.

These statements reveal that the Idaho Supreme Court understood the federal pre-emption standards and interpreted state law not to implicate them. Because we have no basis for disputing the construction of state law by a state supreme court, see Clemons v. Mississippi, 494 U. S. 738, 747 (1990), I submit that, at this stage of the proceedings, we must conclude that § 301 does not govern the respondents’ claims.

The Court reaches a different conclusion because it doubts that the Idaho Supreme Court means what it seems to have said. The Court bases its view, to a large extent, on the Idaho court’s expressed intention to “adhere to [its first] opinion as written.” 115 Idaho, at 788, 770 P. 2d, at 797. The first opinion says: “Because the union, pursuant to the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement, had contracted to inspect and in fact, inspected the mine, it owed the (minimal) duty to its members to exercise due care in inspecting and in reporting the findings of its inspection.” 111 Idaho, at 638, 726 P. 2d, at 750. The Court construes the remark to negate the unequivocal statements quoted above. I cannot accept this labored interpretation.

The Idaho Supreme Court’s adherence to the first opinion does not implicate § 301 because it does not require interpretation of a collective-bargaining agreement. The first opinion suggests that the respondents may refer to the collective-bargaining agreement. It does not eliminate the possibility, identified three times in the second opinion, that the respondents may prove the elements of § 323 without relying on the collective-bargaining agreement. Even the Union concedes:

“After Heckler, as we understand matters, both plaintiffs and the Idaho court would locate the source of the union’s duty to inspect [in a non-negligent manner] in the union’s action of accompanying company and state inspectors on inspections of the mine, and not in any contractual agreement by the union to inspect.” Brief for Petitioner 27-28.

The Court, thus, reads too much into the last sentence of the Idaho Supreme Court’s second opinion.

I see no reason not to allow this case to go forward with a simple mandate: The respondents may press their state claims so long as they do not rest upon the collective-bargaining agreement. To the extent that any misunderstanding might exist, this approach would preserve all federal interests. If the Idaho Supreme Court, after a trial on the merits, were to uphold a verdict resting on the Union’s obligations under the collective-bargaining agreement, we could reverse its decision. But for now we must take the case as the Idaho Supreme Court has given it to us. According to the second opinion, the respondents may prove the elements of §323 without relying on the Union’s contractual duties.

The Court also rules against the respondents because it surmises that § 323 has no general applicability. The Court assumes that only union members could recover from the Union for its negligence in inspecting the mine and that union members could not recover from anyone else for comparable negligence. See ante, at-370-371. I agree that a State cannot circumvent our decisions in Lingle, Hechler, and Allis-Chalmers, by the mere “relabeling” as a tort claim an action that in law is based upon the collective-bargaining process. Allis-Chalmers, 471 U. S., at 211. We must have the ultimate responsibility for deciding whether a state law depends on a collective-bargaining agreement for the purposes of § 301. In this case, however, I see no indication that the tort theory pressed by the respondents has the limited application presumed by the Court.

The Idaho Supreme Court did not invent, for the purposes of this case, the theory underlying the respondents’ claims. As Cardozo put it: “It is ancient learning that one who assumes to act, even though gratuitously, may thereby become subject to the duty of acting carefully, if he acts at all.” Glanzer v. Shepard, 233 N. Y. 236, 239, 135 N. E. 275, 276 (1922). Restatement § 323, upon which the Idaho Court relies, embodies this principle and long has guided the interpretation of Idaho tort law. See, e. g., Steiner Corp. v. American District Telegraph, 106 Idaho 787, 791, 683 P. 2d 435, 439 (1984) (fire alarm failure); S. H. Kress & Co. v. Godman, 95 Idaho 614, 616, 515 P. 2d 561, 563 (1973) (boiler explosion); Fagundes v. State, 116 Idaho 173, 176, 774 P. 2d 343, 346 (App. 1989) (helicopter crash); Carroll v. United Steelworkers of America, 107 Idaho 717, 723, 692 P. 2d 361, 367 (1984) (Bistline, J., dissenting) (machinery accident). The Court has identified no basis for its assumption that § 323 has a narrower scope than its plain language and these cases indicate. I thus would not find pre-emption on the mere supposition that the Union’s duty runs only to the union members.

II

The Union also argues that the duty of fair representation immunizes it from liability under § 323. Allowing the States to impose tort liability on labor organizations, it contends, would upset the balance of rights and duties that federal law has struck between unions and their members. I disagree because nothing in the NLRA supports the Union’s position.

Section 9(a) of the NLRA, 29 U. S. C. § 159(a), grants a duly elected union the exclusive authority to represent all employees in a collective-bargaining unit. We have reasoned:

“The fair interpretation of the statutory language is that the organization chosen to represent a craft is chosen to represent all its members, the majority as well as the minority, and it is to act for and not against those whom it represents. It is a principle of general application that the exercise of a granted power to act in behalf of others involves the assumption toward them of a duty to exercise the power in their interest and behalf, and that such a grant of power will not be deemed to dispense with all duty toward those from whom it is exercised unless so expressed.” Steele v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 323 U. S. 192, 202 (1944) (footnote omitted) (interpretation of § 2(a) of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U. S. C. § 152 (1982 ed.), adopted for § 9(a) of the NLRA in Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U. S. 330, 337 (1953)).

As a result, we have read § 9(a) to establish a duty of fair representation requiring a union “to serve the interests of all members without hostility or discrimination toward any, to exercise its discretion with complete good faith and honesty, and to avoid arbitrary conduct.” Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U. S. 171, 177 (1967).

Although we have inferred that Congress intended to impose a duty of fair representation in § 9(a), I see no justification for the further conclusion that Congress desired to grant unions an immunity from all state tort law. Nothing about a union’s status as the exclusive representative of a bargaining unit creates a need to exempt it from general duties to exercise due care to avoid injuring others. At least to some extent, therefore, I would conclude that Congress “by silence indicate[d] a purpose to let state regulation be imposed.” Retail Clerks v. Schermerhorn, 375 U. S. 96, 104 (1963).

Our decision in Farmer v. Carpenters, 430 U. S. 290 (1977), confirms this view. Farmer held that the NLRA did not pre-empt a union member’s action against his union for intentional infliction of emotional distress. See id., at 305. The union member complained that his union ridiculed him in public and refused to refer jobs to him in accordance with hiring hall rules. See id., at 293. In analyzing this claim, we ruled that the NLRA’s pre-emption of state tort law depends on two factors: “the state interests in regulating the conduct in question and the potential for interference with the federal regulatory scheme. ” Id., at 297. Both of these factors militated against pre-emption in Farmer. Noting that “our cases consistently have recognized the historic state interest in ‘such traditionally local matters as public safety and order,”’ id., at 299 (quoting Allen-Bradley Local v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Bd., 315 U. S. 740, 749 (1942)), we ruled that the tort law addressed proper matters of state concern. We further observed that, although the tort liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress might interfere with the federal prohibition against discrimination by a union, that “potential for interference is insufficient to counterbalance the legitimate and substantial interest of the State in protecting its citizens.” 430 U. S., at 304.

The Farmer analysis reveals that Idaho may hold the union liable for negligence in inspecting the mine. The strength and legitimacy of the State’s interests in mine safety stand beyond question; the Union’s failure to exercise due care, according to the allegations, caused or contributed to the deaths of 91 Idaho miners. Allowing this case to proceed to trial, moreover, would pose little threat to the federal regulatory scheme. State courts long have held unions liable for personal injuries under state law. See, e. g., DiLuzio v. United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America, 386 Mass. 314, 318, 435 N. E. 2d 1027, 1030 (1982) (assault at workplace); Brawner v. Sanders, 244 Ore. 302, 307, 417 P. 2d 1009, 1012 (1966) (in banc) (personal injuries); Marshall v. International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union, 57 Cal. 2d 781, 787, 371 P. 2d 987, 991 (1962) (stumble in union hall parking lot); Inglis v. Operating Engineers Local Union No. 12, 58 Cal. 2d 269, 270, 373 P. 2d 467, 468 (1962) (assault at union meeting); Hulahan v. Sheehan, 522 S. W. 2d 134, 139-141 (Mo. App. 1975) (slip and fall on union hall stairs). The Union presents no argument that this longstanding practice has interfered with federal labor regulation. Indeed, as the Court itself holds, nothing in the federal statutory scheme addresses the Union’s conduct or provides redress for the injuries that it may have produced. See ante, at 373-375.

The Union’s position also deviates from the well-established position of the Courts of Appeals. These courts have found pre-emption by the duty of fair representation in two situations. First, the courts have said that the duty of fair fair representation pre-empts state duties that depend on a collective-bargaining agreement or on the union’s status as the exclusive collective bargaining agent. See, e. g., Richardson v. United Steelworkers of America, 864 F. 2d 1162, 1165-1167 (CA5 1989); Condon v. Local 2944, United Steelworkers of America, 683 F. 2d 590, 595 (CA1 1982). As noted above, however, the Union’s duties in this case do not stem from a contract or from its status as a union. Second, other courts have found the federal duty of fair representation to supplant equivalent state-law duties. See, e. g., Jones v. Truck Drivers Local Union No. 299, 838 F. 2d 856, 861 (CA6 1988) (sex discrimination); Maynard v. Revere Copper Products, 773 F. 2d 733, 735 (CA6 1985) (handicapped discrimination); Peterson v. Air Line Pilots Assn., International, 759 F. 2d 1161, 1170 (CA4 1985) (blacklisting). In this case, state law differs from federal law in that the duty of fair representation does not address the conduct in question. The Union, as a result, has shown no support for its contention that the duty of fair representation pre-empts the Idaho tort law. For these reasons, I dissent.


author: Justice Marshall Justice Stevens, Justice Scalia,

text:
    UNITED STATES v. MUNOZ-FLORES
    No. 88-1932.
    Argued February 20, 1990
    Decided May 21, 1990

      Marshall, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Brennan, White, Blackmun, and Kennedy, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which O’Con-nor, J., joined, post, p. 401. Scalia, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 408.

      Deputy Solicitor General Bryson argued the cause for the United States. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Starr, Assistant Attorney General Dennis, and Clifford M. Sloan.

      Judy Clarke argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief was Mario G. Conte.

   Justice Marshall

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case raises the question whether 18 U. S. C. § 3013, which requires courts to impose a monetary “special assessment” on any person convicted of a federal misdemeanor, was passed in violation of the Origination Clause of the Constitution. That Clause mandates that “[a]ll Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.” U. S. Const., Art. I, § 7, cl. 1. We conclude initially that this case does not present a political question and therefore reject the Government’s argument that the case is not justiciable. On the merits, we hold that the special assessment statute does not violate the Origination Clause because it is not a “Bil[l] for raising Revenue.”

I

In June 1985, German Munoz-Flores was charged with aiding the illegal entry of aliens into the United States. He subsequently pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor counts of aiding and abetting aliens to elude examination and inspection by immigration officers. The Magistrate sentenced respondent to probation and ordered him to pay a special assessment of $25 on each count under the then-applicable version of 18 U. S. C. §3013 (1982 ed., Supp. V). Pet. for Cert. 27a-28a.

Respondent moved to correct his sentence, asserting that the special assessments were unconstitutional because Congress had passed § 3013 in violation of the Origination Clause. The Magistrate denied the motion, and the District Court affirmed. Id., at 26a. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit vacated the portion of the District Court’s sentencing order that imposed the special assessments. 863 F. 2d 654 (1988). The court held that respondent’s claim did not raise a nonjusticiable political question. Id., at 656-657. On the merits, the court ruled that § 3013 was a “Bil[l] for raising Revenue,” id., at 657-660, and that it had originated in the Senate because that Chamber was the first to pass an assessment provision, id., at 660-661. The court therefore concluded that §3013 had been passed in violation of the Origination Clause. Id., at 661.

The United States petitioned for a writ of certiorari, arguing that § 3013 did not violate the Origination Clause. The Government noted that the Ninth Circuit had rejected its argument that the case raised a political question, Pet. for Cert. 5, n. 5, but did not ask this Court to review that ruling. We granted certiorari and directed the parties to brief the political question issue. 493 U. S. 808 (1989).

II

A

In Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 217 (1962), this Court identified the features that characterize a case raising a nonjusticiable political question:

“Prominent on the surface of any case held to involve a political question is found a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion; or the impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government; or an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.”

Accord, INS v. Chadha, 462 U. S. 919, 941 (1983) (quoting Baker, supra, at 217).

The United States contends that “[t]he most persuasive factor suggesting nonjusticiability” is the concern that courts not express a “lack of . . . respect” for the House of Representatives. Brief for United States 10. In the Government’s view, the House’s passage of a bill conclusively establishes that the House has determined either that the bill is not a revenue bill or that it originated in the House. Hence, the Government argues, a court’s invalidation of a law on Origination Clause grounds would evince a lack of respect for the House’s determination. The Government may be right that a judicial finding that Congress has passed an unconstitutional law might in some sense be said to entail a “lack of respect” for Congress’ judgment. But disrespect, in the sense the Government uses the term, cannot be sufficient to create a political question. If it were, every judicial resolution of a constitutional challenge to a congressional enactment would be impermissible. Congress often explicitly considers whether bills violate constitutional provisions. See, e. g., 135 Cong. Rec. 23121-23122 (1989) (remarks of Sen. Biden) (expressing the view that the Flag Protection Act of 1989, 103 Stat. 777, does not violate the First Amendment); 133 Cong. Rec. 30498-30499 (1987) (remarks of Sen. Hatch) (arguing that the independent counsel law, 28 U. S. C. § 591 et seq., was unconstitutional). Because Congress is bound by the Constitution, its enactment of any law is predicated at least implicitly on a judgment that the law is constitutional. Indeed, one could argue that Congress explicitly determined that this bill originated in the House because it sent the bill to the President with an “H. J. Res.” designation. See post, at 409 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). Yet such congressional consideration of constitutional questions does not foreclose subsequent judicial scrutiny of the law’s constitutionality. On the contrary, this Court has the duty to review the constitutionality of congressional enactments. As we have said in rejecting a claim identical to the one the Government, makes here: “Our system of government requires that federal courts on occasion interpret the Constitution in a manner at variance with the construction given the document by another branch. The alleged conflict that such an adjudication may cause cannot justify the courts’ avoiding their constitutional responsibility.” Powell v. McCormack, 395 U. S. 486, 549 (1969).

The United States seeks to differentiate an Origination Clause claim from other constitutional challenges in two ways. The Government first argues that the House has the power to protect its institutional interests by refusing to pass a bill if it believes that the Origination Clause has been violated. Second, the Government maintains that the courts should not review Origination Clause challenges because compliance with that provision does not significantly affect individual rights. Of course, neither the House’s power to protect itself nor the asserted lack of a connection between the constitutional claim and individual rights is a factor that Baker identifies as characteristic of cases raising political questions. Rather, the Government attempts to use its arguments to establish that judicial resolution of Origination Clause challenges would entail a substantial lack of respect for the House, a factor that Baker does identify as relevant to the political question determination. Neither of the Government’s arguments persuades us.

Although the House certainly can refuse to pass a bill because it violates the Origination Clause, that ability does not absolve this Court of its responsibility to consider constitutional challenges to congressional enactments. See supra, at 391. Nor do the House’s incentives to safeguard its origination prerogative obviate the need for judicial review. As an initial matter, we are unwilling to presume that the House has a greater incentive to safeguard its origination power than it does to refuse to pass a bill that it believes is unconstitutional for other reasons. Such a presumption would demonstrate a profound lack of respect for a coordinate branch of Government’s pledge to uphold the entire Constitution, not just those provisions that protect its institutional prerogatives.

Even if we were to assume that the House does have more powerful incentives to refuse to pass legislation that violates the Origination Clause, that assumption would not justify the Government’s conclusion that the Judiciary has no role to play in Origination Clause challenges. In many cases involving claimed separation-of-powers violations, the branch whose power has allegedly been appropriated has both the incentive to protect its prerogatives and institututional mechanisms to help it do so. Nevertheless, the Court adjudicates those separation-of-powers claims, often without suggesting that they might raise political questions. See, e. g., Mistretta v. United States, 488 U. S. 361, 371-379 (1989) (holding that Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, 18 U. S. C. §3551 et seq., and 28 U. S. C. §991 et seq., did not result in Executive’s wielding legislative powers, despite either House’s power to block Act’s passage); Morrison v. Olson, 487 U. S. 654, 685-696 (1988) (holding that independent counsel provision of Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 28 U. S. C. § 591 et seq., is not a congressional or judicial usurpation of executive functions, despite President’s veto power); INS v. Chadha, 462 U. S. 919 (1983) (explicitly finding that separation-of-powers challenge to legislative veto presented no political question). In short, the fact that one institution of Government has mechanisms available to guard against incursions into its power by other governmental institutions does not require that the Judiciary remove itself from the controversy by labeling the issue a political question.

The Government’s second suggestion — that judicial intervention in this case is unwarranted because the case does not involve individual rights —reduces to the claim that a person suing in his individual capacity has no direct interest in our constitutional system of separation of powers, and thus has no corresponding right to demand that the Judiciary ensure the integrity of that system. This argument is simply irrelevant to the political question doctrine. That doctrine is designed to restrain the Judiciary from inappropriate interference in the business of the other branches of Government; the identity of the litigant is immaterial to the presence of these concerns in a particular case. And we are unable to discern how, from the perspective of interbranch relations, the asserted lack of connection between Origination Clause claims and individual rights means that adjudication of such claims would necessarily entail less respect for the House than would judicial consideration of challenges based on constitutional provisions more obviously tied to civil liberties.

Furthermore, and more fundamentally, the Government’s claim that compliance with the Origination Clause is irrelevant to ensuring individual rights is in error. This Court has repeatedly emphasized that “ The Constitution diffuses power the better to secure liberty.’” Morrison, supra, at 694 (quoting Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579, 635 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring)). See also Morrison, supra, at 697 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“The Framers of the Federal Constitution . . . viewed the principle of separation of powers as the absolutely central guarantee of á just Government”). Recognizing this, the Court has repeatedly adjudicated separation-of-powers claims brought by people acting in their individual capacities. See, e. g., Mistretta, supra (adjudicating claim that United States Sentencing Commission violates separation of powers on direct appeal by an individual defendant who had been sentenced pursuant to guidelines created by the Commission).

What the Court has said of the allocation of powers among branches is no less true of such allocations within the Legislative Branch. See, e. g., Chadha, supra, at 948-951 (bicameral National Legislature essential to protect liberty); The Federalist No. 63 (defending bicameral Congress on ground that each House will keep the other in check). The Constitution allocates different powers and responsibilities to the House and Senate. Compare, e. g., U. S. Const., Art. II, §2, cl. 2 (giving Senate “Advice and Consent” power over treaties and appointment of ambassadors, judges, and other officers of the United States), with Art. I, §7, cl. 1 (stating that “[a]ll Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives”). The authors of the Constitution divided such functions between the two Houses based in part on their perceptions of the differing characteristics of the entities. See The Federalist No. 58 (defending the decision to give the origination power to the House on the ground that the Chamber that is more accountable to the people should have the primary role in raising revenue); The Federalist No. 64 (justifying advice and consent function of the Senate on the ground that representatives with longer terms would better serve complex national goals). At base, though, the Framers’ purpose was to protect individual rights. As James Madison said in defense of that Clause: “This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.” The Federalist No. 58, p. 859 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). Provisions for the separation of powers within the Legislative Branch are thus not different in kind from provisions concerning relations between the branches; both sets of provisions safeguard liberty.

The Government also suggests that a second Baker factor justifies our finding that this case is nonjusticiable: The Court could not fashion “judicially manageable standards” for determining either whether a bill is “for raising Revenue” or where a bill “originates.” We do not agree. The Government concedes, as it must, that the “general nature of the inquiry, which involves the analysis of statutes and legislative materials, is one that is familiar to the courts and often central to the judicial function.” Brief for United States 9. To be sure, the courts must develop standards for making the revenue and origination determinations, but the Government suggests no reason that developing such standards will be more difficult in this context than in any other. Surely a judicial system capable of determining when punishment is “cruel and unusual,” when bail is “[ejxcessive,” when searches are “unreasonable,” and when congressional action is “necessary and proper” for executing an enumerated power is capable of making the more prosaic judgments demanded by adjudication of Origination Clause challenges.

In short, this case has none of the characteristics that Baker v. Carr identified as essential to a finding that a case raises a political question. It is therefore justiciable.

B

Although Justice Stevens agrees with the Government that this Court should not entertain Origination Clause challenges, he relies, on a novel theory that the Government does not advance. He notes that the Constitution is silent as to the consequences of a violation of the Origination Clause, but that it provides by implication that any bill that passes both Houses and is signed by the President becomes a law. See Art. I, § 7, cl. 2; post, at 401-403, and n. 1. From this Justice Stevens infers the proposition that “some bills may become law even if they are improperly originated.” Post, at 403.

We cannot agree with Justice Stevens’ approach. The better reading of § 7 gives effect to all of its Clauses in determining what procedures the Legislative and Executive Branches must follow to enact a law. In the case of “Bills for raising Revenue,” §7 requires that they originate in the House before they can be properly passed by the two Houses and presented to the President. The Origination Clause is no less a requirement than the rest of the section because “it does not specify what consequences follow from an improper origination,” post, at 402. None of the Constitution’s commands explicitly sets out a remedy for its violation. Nevertheless, the principle that the courts will strike down a law when Congress has passed it in violation of such a command has been well settled for almost two centuries. See, e. g., Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 176-180 (1803). That principle applies whether or not the constitutional provision expressly describes the effects that follow from its violation.

Even were we to accept Justice Stevens’ contrary view — that § 7 provides that a bill becomes a “law” even if it is improperly originated — we would not agree with his conclusion that no remedy is available for a violation of the Origination Clause. Rather, the logical consequence of his view is that the Origination Clause would most appropriately be treated as a constitutional requirement separate from the provisions of § 7 that govern when a bill becomes a “law.” Of course, saying that a bill becomes a “law” within the meaning of the second Clause does not answer the question whether that “law” is constitutional. To survive this Court’s scrutiny, the “law” must comply with all relevant constitutional limits. A law passed in violation of the Origination Clause would thus be no more immune from judicial scrutiny because it was passed by both Houses and signed by the President than would be a law passed in violation of the First Amendment.

Ill

Both parties agree that “revenue bills are those that levy taxes in the strict sense of the word, and are not bills for other purposes which may incidentally create revenue.” Twin City Bank v. Nebeker, 167 U. S. 196, 202 (1897) (citing 1 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution § 880, pp. 610-611 (3d ed. 1858)). The Court has interpreted this general rule to mean that a statute that creates a particular governmental program and that raises revenue to support that program, as opposed to a statute that raises revenue to support Government generally, is not a “Bil[l] for raising Revenue” within the meaning of the Origination Clause. For example, the Court in Nebeker rejected an Origination Clause challenge to what the statute denominated a “tax” on the circulating notes of banking associations. Despite its label, “[t]he tax was a means for effectually accomplishing the great object of giving to the people a currency .... There was no purpose by the act or by any of its provisions to raise revenue to be applied in meeting the expenses or obligations of the Government.” Nebeker, supra, at 203. The Court reiterated the point in Millard v. Roberts, 202 U. S. 429 (1906), where it upheld a statute that levied property taxes in the District of Columbia to support railroad projects. The Court rejected an Origination Clause claim, concluding that “[wjhatever taxes are imposed are but means to the purposes provided by the act.” Id., at 437.

This case falls squarely within the holdings in Nebeker and Millard. The Victims of Crime Act of 1984 established a Crime Victims Fund, 98 Stat. 2170, 42 U. S. C. § 10601(a) (1982 ed., Supp. II), as a federal source of funds for programs that compensate. and assist crime victims. See § 10601(d) (allocating moneys among programs); § 10602 (delineating eligible compensation programs); §10603 (delineating eligible assistance programs). The scheme established by the Act includes various mechanisms to provide money for the Fund, including the simultaneously enacted special assessment provision at issue in this case. § 10601(b)(2). Congress also specified, however, that if the total income to the Fund from all sources exceeded $100 million in any one year, the excess would be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury. § 10601(c)(1). Although nothing in the text or the legislative history of the statute explicitly indicates whether Congress expected that the $100 million cap would ever be exceeded, in fact it never was. The Government reports that the first and only excess occurred in fiscal year 1989, when the cap stood at $125 million and receipts were between $133 million and $134 million, Brief for United States 21, n. 21, a claim respondent does not dispute, Brief for Respondent 19, n. 16.

Moreover, only a small percentage of any excess paid into the General Treasury can be attributed to the special assessments. The legislative history of the special assessment provision indicates that Congress anticipated that “substantial amounts [would] not result” from that source of funds. S. Rep. No. 98-497, p. 13 (1984). Reality has accorded with Congress’ prediction. See U. S. Dept, of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime, Office of Justice Programs, Victims of Crime Act of 1984: A Report to Congress by the Attorney General 12 (1988) (§ 3013 revenues accounted for four percent of all deposits into the Fund received by United States Attorneys’ Offices for fiscal year 1987). Four percent of a minimal and infrequent excess over the statutory cap is properly considered “incidental].”

As in Nebeker and Millard, then, the special assessment provision was passed as part of a particular program to provide money for that program — the Crime Victims Fund. Although any excess was to go to the Treasury, there is no evidence that Congress contemplated the possibility of a substantial excess, nor did such an excess in fact materialize. Any revenue for the general Treasury that § 3013 creates is thus “incidental]” to that provision’s primary purpose. This conclusion is reinforced, not undermined, by the Senate Report that respondent claims establishes that § 3013 is a “Bil[l] for raising Revenue.” That Report reads: “The purpose of imposing nominal assessment fees is to generate needed income to offset the cost of the [Crime Victims Fund]. Although substantial amounts will not result, these additional amounts will be helpful in financing the program and will constitute new income for the Federal government.” S. Rep. No. 98-497, supra, at 13-14 (emphasis added). Respondent’s reliance on the emphasized portion of the quoted passage avails him nothing. Read in its entirety, the passage clearly evidences Congress’ intent that § 3013 provide funds primarily to support the Crime Victims Fund.

Respondent next contends that even if §3013 is directed entirely to providing support for the Crime Victims Fund, it still does not fall within the ambit of Nebeker or Millard. Respondent accurately notes that the § 3013 assessments are not collected for the benefit of the payors, those convicted of federal crimes. He then contends, citing Nebeker and Millard, that any bill that provides for the collection of funds is a revenue bill unless it is designed to benefit the persons from whom the funds are collected. Respondent misreads Nebeker and Millard. In neither of those cases did the Court state that a bill must benefit the payor to avoid classification as a revenue bill. Indeed, had the Court adopted such a caveat, the Court in Nebeker would have found the statute to be unconstitutional. There, the Court expressly identified the “people” generally, rather than the banking associations required to pay the tax, as the beneficiaries of the system of currency at issue. 167 U. S., at 203. It nevertheless found that the bill was not a revenue bill, stating that a bill creating a discrete governmental program and providing sources for its financial support is not a revenue bill simply because it creates revenue, a holding that was reaffirmed by Millard. See supra, at 397-398. Thus, the beneficiaries of the bill are not relevant.

Section 3013 is not a “Bil[l] for raising Revenue.” We therefore need not consider whether the Origination Clause would require its invalidation if it were a revenue bill. Nebeker, 167 U. S., at 203 (holding consideration of origination question “unnecessary” in light of finding that bill was not a revenue bill).

IV

We hold that this case does not raise a political question and is justiciable. Because the bill at issue here was not one for raising revenue, it could not have been passed in violation of the Origination Clause. The contrary judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

So ordered.

Justice Stevens,

with whom Justice O’Connor joins, concurring in the judgment.

In my opinion, a bill that originated unconstitutionally may nevertheless become an enforceable law if passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President. I therefore believe that it is not necessary to decide whether 18 U. S. C. §3013 was passed in violation of the Origination Clause.

I

The Origination Clause appears in Article I, §7, of the Constitution, which describes the procedures that the two Houses of Congress and the President shall follow when enacting laws. The Origination Clause is the first of three Clauses in that section. The Clause provides that “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives,” but it does not specify what consequences follow from an improper origination.

The immediately following Clause, however, does speak to consequences. The second Clause of § 7 says, among other things, that “Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a Law, be presented to the President of the United States.” An improperly originated bill passed by both Houses would seem to be within a class comprising “Every” bill passed by both Houses, and it therefore seems reasonable to assume that such an improperly originated bill is among those that “shall... be presented to the President.” The Clause further states that if the President returns to Congress a bill presented to him, and if two-thirds of each House thereafter approves the bill, “it shall become a Law.” No exception to this categorical statement is made for bills improperly originated.

The second Clause of § 7 later provides that “any Bill” not acted upon by the President within 10 days “shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it.” In this instance, one express exception is made: If Congress adjourns before the 10-day period expires, the bill “shall not be a Law.” Again, no exception is made for bills improperly originated.

It is fairly inferred from this language that some bills may become law even if they are improperly originated. It does not, however, necessarily follow that the bill now at issue became law even if improperly originated. That bill is not governed by the provisions just discussed, because it was signed by the President and hence did not become law by virtue of either Presidential inaction or the override of a veto. The language in §7 dealing with bills signed by the President speaks in terms of necessary, rather than sufficient, conditions: The Clause states only that bills must be presented to the President and that if “he approves he shall sign it.” The Clause does not say that any bill signed by the President becomes law, although it does later say that a bill not acted upon becomes law “in like Manner as if he had signed it.” In my view, the sufficiency of the procedural conditions in the second Clause is reasonably supplied by implication. I accordingly interpret §7 to provide that even an improperly originated bill becomes law if it meets the procedural requirements specified later in that section.

I — < ! — <

My reading of the text of § 7 is supported by examination of the Constitution’s purposes. I agree with the Court that the purpose of the Origination Clause is to give the most “‘immediate representatives of the people’” — Members of the House, directly elected and subject to ouster every two years — an “effectual weapon” for securing the interests of their constituents. Ante, at 395, quoting The Federalist No. 58, p. 359 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). For four reasons, I believe that examination of this purpose supports the view that the binding force of an otherwise lawfully enacted bill is not vitiated by an Origination Clause violation.

First, the House is in an excellent position to defend its origination power. A bill that originates in the Senate, whether or not it raises revenue, cannot become law without the assent'of the House. The House is free to rely upon the Origination Clause to justify its position in a debate with the Senate, regardless of whether constitutional concerns alone drive the House’s position. See Bessette & Tulis, The Constitution, Politics, and the Presidency 8-16, in The Presidency in the Constitutional Order (J. Bessette & J. Tulis, eds., 1981) (discussing ways, aside from judicial enforcement, in which the Constitution shapes political behavior). The Senate may expect that an improperly originated bill will confront a coalition in the House, composed of those who oppose the bill on substantive grounds and those who would favor it on substantive grounds but regard the procedural error as too important to ignore. Taxes rarely go unnoticed at the ballot box, and there is every reason to anticipate that Representatives subject to reelection every two years will jealously guard their power over revenue-raising measures.

Second, the House has greater freedom than does the Judiciary to construe the Origination Clause wisely. The House may, for example, choose to interpret “Bills for raising Revenue” by invoking a test that turns largely upon the substantive economic impact of the measure on society as a whole, or may determine the House of origination by identifying the legislators who were most responsible for the content of the final version of the bill. If employed by the House, rather than the Judiciary, inquiries so searching obviously create no tension between enforcement of the Origination Clause and the democratic principle of the legislative process — a principle which the Clause itself is designed to serve. The House may also examine evidence, including informal private disclosures, unavailable (or incomprehensible) to the Judiciary.

Third, the House is better able than this Court to judge the prejudice resulting from an Origination Clause violation, and so better able than this Court to judge what corrective action, if any, should be taken. The nature of such a power may be comprehended by analogy to our own recognition that a constitutional defect in courtroom procedure does not necessarily vitiate the outcome of that procedure. See Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18 (1967). I see no reason to believe that a defect in statehouse procedure cannot also be harmless: A tax originated in the Senate may nevertheless reflect the views of the people as interpreted by the House, whether because of a coincidence in the judgment of the two branches or because the House directly influenced the Senate’s labor. The House’s assent to an improperly originated bill is unlikely to be given if its Members believe that the procedural defect harmed the bill’s substance. Yet, it would be difficult to imagine how this Court could reasonably assess the prejudice resulting from any particular Origination Clause violation. On my interpretation of § 7, the Constitution confides this responsibility to the House of Representatives instead. One consequence of this interpretation is that an expansive construction of the Clause by the House need not impose spurious formalities, since spurious violations may be ignored.

Fourth, the violation complained of by respondent is unlike those constitutional problems which we have in the past recognized as appropriate for judicial supervision. This case is not one involving the constitutionality of statutes alleged to effect prospective alterations in the constitutional distribution of power. See INS v. Chadha, 462 U. S. 919 (1983); Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U. S. 714 (1986); Morrison v. Olson, 487 U. S. 654 (1988). No defect in the representative process threatens to impede a democratic solution to the problem at issue. See Powell v. McCormack, 395 U. S. 486 (1969); Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533 (1964). No claim is made that this statute deals with subjects outside the sweep of congressional power, see Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U. S. 528 (1985), or that the statute abrogates the substantive and procedural guarantees of the Bill of Rights, see, e. g., Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1 (1976). Nor, finally, does respondent contend that the Constitution has been violated because action has been taken in derogation of structural bulwarks designed either to safeguard groups specially in need of judicial protection, or to tame the majoritarian tendencies of American politics more generally. See Chadha, supra; Powell, supra; United States v. Carolene Products, 304 U. S. 144, 152, n. 4 (1938); Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U. S. 88 (1976). Indeed, this case presents perhaps the weakest imaginable justification for judicial invalidation of a statute: Respondent contends that the Judiciary must intervene in order to protect a power of the most majoritarian body in the Federal Government, even though that body has an absolute veto over any effort to usurp that power. The democratic structure of the Constitution ensures that the majority rarely if ever needs such help from the Judiciary.

These considerations reinforce my construction of the text of § 7 and lead me to conclude that the statute before us is law regardless of whether it was improperly originated. As a practical matter, this reading of the Constitution precludes judicial review of alleged violations of the Origination Clause. It is up to the House of Representatives to enforce that provision by refusing its consent to any revenue bills that originate in the Senate. The Court’s holding, however, may itself be not too far removed from such a consequence: The Court’s essential distinction between revenues allocated to particular programs and those allocated to the General Treasury, ante, at 397-398, tends to convert the Origination Clause into a formal accounting requirement, so long as the House consents.

In all events, I think that both a literal and a practical interpretation of the Origination Clause is consistent with the conclusion that a revenue bill becomes a law whenever it is passed by both Houses of Congress and duly signed by the President. Accordingly, I concur in the Court’s judgment.

Justice Scalia,

concurring in the judgment.

Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark, 143 U. S. 649 (1892), held that federal courts will not inquire into whether the enrolled bill was the bill actually passed by Congress:

“The signing by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and by the President of the Senate, in open session, of an enrolled bill, is an official attestation by the two houses of such bill as one that has passed Congress. It is a declaration by the two houses, through their presiding officers, to the President, that a bill, thus attested, has received, in due form, the sanction of the legislative branch of the government, and that it is delivered to him in obedience to the constitutional requirement that all bills which pass Congress shall be presented to him. And when a bill, thus attested, receives his approval, and is deposited in the public archives, its authentication as a bill that has passed Congress should be deemed complete and unimpeachable. . . . The respect due to coequal and independent departments requires the judicial department to act upon that assurance, and to accept, as having passed Congress, all bills authenticated in the manner stated: leaving the courts to determine, when the question properly arises, whether the act, so authenticated, is in conformity with the Constitution.” Id., at 672.

This salutary principle is also supported by the uncertainty and instability that would result if every person were “'required to hunt through the journals of a legislature to determine whether a statute, properly certified by the speaker of the house and the president of the senate, • and approved by the governor, is a statute or not.’” Id., at 677 (quoting Weeks v. Smith, 81 Me. 538, 547, 18 A. 325, 327 (1889)).

The same principle, if not the very same holding, leads me to conclude that federal courts should not undertake an independent investigation into the origination of the statute at issue here. The enrolled bill which, when signed by the President, became the Victims of Crime Act of 1984, 98 Stat. 2170, bore the indication “H. J. Res. 648.” The designation “H. J. Res.” (a standard abbreviation for “House Joint Resolution”) attests that the legislation originated in the House. Such an attestation is not explicitly required by the Constitution, but is reasonably necessary to the operation of Art. I, § 7, cl. 2, which requires the President, if he desires to veto a bill, to “return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated.” The President can hardly be expected to search the legislative journals (if they have even been printed by the time his veto must be cast) in order to determine where to direct his veto message. Indeed, it can be said that the attestation is reasonably necessary to the operation of Art. I, § 7, cl. 1 (the Revenue-Origination Clause), itself. The President, after all, is bound not to sign an improperly originated revenue bill by the same oath that binds us not to apply it, so he must have a ready means of knowing whence it came.

The enrolled bill’s indication of its House of origin establishes that fact as officially and authoritatively as it establishes the fact that its recited text was adopted by both Houses. With respect to either fact a court’s holding, based on its own investigation, that the representation made to the President is incorrect would, as Marshall Field said, manifest a lack of respect due a coordinate branch and produce uncertainty as to the state of the law. I cannot imagine this Court’s entertaining a claim that purportedly vetoed legislation took effect because, although the President returned it to the House of origination indicated on the enrolled bill, that was not the real house of origination. It should similarly accept the congressional representation in the present case. We should no more gainsay Congress’ official assertion of the origin of a bill than we would gainsay its official assertion that the bill was passed by the requisite quorum, see Art. I, § 5, cl. 1; or any more than Congress or the President would gainsay the official assertion of this Court that a judgment was duly considered and approved by our majority vote. Mutual regard between the coordinate branches, and the interest of certainty, both demand that official representations regarding such matters of internal process be accepted at face value.

This disposition does not place forever beyond our reach the only issue in this area that seems to me appropriate for judicial rather than congressional resolution: what sort of bills constitute “Bills for raising Revenue,” Art. I, §7, cl. 1. Whenever Congress wishes to preserve the possibility of a judicial determination on this point, all it need do is originate the bill that contains the arguably revenue-raising measure in the Senate, indicating such origination on the enrolled bill, as by the caption “S. J. Res.” This Court may thereby have the last word on what constitutes a bill for raising revenue, and Congress the last word on where a particular bill has originated — which seems to me as it should be.

For these reasons, I concur in the judgment of the Court.

       The Ninth Circuit’s ruling that § 3013 was passed in violation of the Origination Clause is inconsistent with the holdings of the other six Courts of Appeals that have considered the issue. See United States v. Griffin, 884 F. 2d 655, 656-657 (CA2 1989) (§ 3013 not a “Bil[l] for raising Revenue”); United States v. Simpson, 885 F. 2d 36, 40 (CA3 1989) (same); United States v. Herrada, 887 F. 2d 524, 527 (CA5 1989) (same); United States v. Ashburn, 884 F. 2d 901, 903 (CA6 1989) (same); United States v.
        Tholl, 895 F. 2d 1178, 1181-1182 (CA7 1990) (same); United States v. King, 891 F. 2d 780, 782 (CA10 1989) (same).

       This Court has reserved the question whether “there is judicial power after an act of Congress has been duly promulgated to inquire in which House it originated.” Rainey v. United States, 232 U. S. 310, 317 (1914). The Court has, however, resolved an Origination Clause claim without suggesting that the claim might be nonjusticiable. Millard v. Roberts, 202 U. S. 429, 436-437 (1906).
      No Court of Appeals has held that an Origination Clause challenge to § 3013 raises a political question. The Ninth Circuit in this case rejected the claim that the issue raises a political question, 863 F. 2d 654, 656-657 (1988), and the Third Circuit has reached the same conclusion, Simpson, supra, at 38-39. Three Circuits have addressed the merits of an Origination Clause claim without mentioning the political question doctrine, Griffin, supra; Ashbum, supra; King, supra; and two Circuits have refused to decide whether the issue raises a political question, Herrada, supra, at 525, and n. 1; Tholl, supra, at 1181-1182, n. 7. But cf. Texas Assn. of Concerned Taxpayers, Inc. v. United States, 772 F. 2d 163 (CA5 1985) (holding that an Origination Clause challenge to the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, 96 Stat. 324, presented a nonjusticiable political question).

       The Government does not argue that all of the factors enunciated in Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 217 (1962), suggest that this case raises a political question. The Government concedes that no provision of the Constitution demonstrably commits to the House of Representatives the determination of where a bill originated. Brief for United States 9. Moreover, the Government does not suggest that answering the origination question requires any sort of “initial policy determination” that courts ought not make or that the question presents an “unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made.” Nor does it suggest that there is any more danger of “multifarious pronouncements” in this context than in any other in which a court determines the constitutionality of a federal law. Baker v. Carr, supra, at 217.

       Justice Scalia apparently would revisit Poivell. He contends that Congress’ resolution of the constitutional question in passing the bill bars this Court from independently considering that question. The only case he cites for his argument is Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark, 143 U. S. 649 (1892). But Field does not support his argument. That case concerned “the nature of the evidence” the Court would consider in determining whether a bill had actually passed Congress. Id., at 670. Appellants had argued that the constitutional Clause providing that “[e]ach House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings” implied that whether a bill had passed must be determined by an examination of the journals. See ibid, (quoting Art. I, § 5) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court rejected that interpretation of the Journal Clause, holding that the Constitution left it to Congress to determine how a bill is to be authenticated as having passed. Id., at 670-671. In the absence of any constitutional requirement binding Congress, we stated that “[t]he respect due to coequal and independent departments” demands that the courts accept as passed all bills authenticated in the manner provided by Congress. Id., at 672. Where, as here, a constitutional provision is implicated, Field does not apply.

       In an attempt to resurrect in another guise an argument that we have rejected, see supra, at 392-394, Justice Stevens seeks to differentiate the Origination Clause from such other constitutional provisions by suggesting that the House would more effectively ensure compliance with the Clause than would this Court. Post, at 403-406. Yet he apparently concedes that this case is justiciable despite his argument that the House is a better forum than the Judiciary for the resolution of Origination Clause disputes. The reasoning does not become persuasive merely because it is used for a different purpose, and we continue to reject it.

       The statute has since been amended to provide a cap of $125 million through fiscal year 1991. 102 Stat. 4419, 42 U. S. C. § 10601(c)(l)(B)(i). The amendment also provides that the Judicial Branch will receive the first $2.2 million of excess collections to cover the costs of assessing and collecting criminal fines. § 10601(c)(1)(A). After fiscal year 1991, the cap will be $150 million through fiscal year 1994. § 10601(c)(l)(B)(ii).

       A different case might be presented if the program funded were entirely unrelated to the persons paying for the program. Here, § 3013 targets people convicted of federal crimes, a group to which some part of the expenses associated with compensating and assisting victims of crime can fairly be attributed. Whether a bill would be “for raising Revenue” where the connection between payor and program was more attenuated is not now before us.

       The first two paragraphs of § 7 provide in full:
      “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
      “Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.”

       The Court properly observes that the House has an interest in upholding “the entire Constitution, not just those provisions that protect its institutional prerogatives.” Ante, at 392-393 (emphasis in original). I agree. It is, however, true that even if the House should mistake its constitutional interest generally, it is unlikely to mistake its more particular interest in being powerful: That specific interest is instrumental to any broader conception the House might have of its duties and interests.
      Nevertheless, the Court is again correct to say that the possibility of legislative enforcement does not supply a prudential, nonconstitutional justification for abstaining from constitutional interpretation. Ibid. My point is rather that this possibility is relevant to the substantive task of interpreting § 7 itself.

       Respondent observes that the House “has not assumed that it is the final arbiter of the Origination Clause,” but has instead “looked to court decisions for guidance in determining whether to return bills to the Senate.” Brief for Respondent 11. Although respect for our power of judicial review is a constitutional necessity in the ordinary case, it is not clear that the House’s deference is either necessary or wise with respect to this issue. Indeed, a decision by this Court to pass upon Origination Clause questions may be an unfortunate inducement to the House to forbear from an independent inquiry into the interpretive issues posed by the Clause.

       This observation bears upon the plausibility of an interpretation of the Origination Clause that effectively insulates origination problems from judicial review. See Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 384-385 (1821).

       1 agree with the Court that the Origination Clause is intended to “safeguard liberty.” Ante, at 395. Indeed, this must be true, in a general sense, of almost every constitutional provision, since the Constitution aims to “secure the Blessings of Liberty.” U. S. Const., Preamble. Of course, the Constitution aims as well to create a Government able to “promote the general Welfare,” but liberty and welfare should ultimately coincide.
      I also believe, however, that some constitutional provisions are designed to protect liberty in a more specific sense: They protect the rights of individuals as against the majority. Other provisions give the majority sufficient power to act effectively, within limits. In this sense, the First Amendment secures liberty in a way that the Origination Clause does not.

       The President obviously might choose to enforce the provision by vetoing an improperly originated bill. It seems clear that the President has the power to do so; it is less clear whether the President has any constitutional duty to police the internal processes of the Congress, or whether he has instead a constitutional duty to defer to Congress on such matters. These issues must be determined by the President; they are not ones we need resolve. It is noteworthy, however, that Article I, § 7, does supply a textual basis for inferring that the President has some constitutional responsibility with respect to matters of origination: Upon vetoing a bill, the President must return it to the House “in which it shall have originated.” That phrase is manifestly ambiguous in the case of an improperly originated bill.

       The Court’s interpretation of the Clause does not appear to prevent the House from interpreting the Clause more aggressively, although the Court does effectively deny the House the power to “deem harmless” a violation of the Clause.