Law Commons^™

09-20-1983 Clerk Memo, Unknown

Arizona Governing Comm. v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073 (1983)

SUMMARY: Resps move to have the costs retaxed against petrs. Petrs have filed opposition.

07-06-1983 Justice Marshall, Concurring, Thurgood Marshall

Arizona Governing Comm. v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073 (1983)

JUSTICE MARSHALL, with whom JUSTICE BRENNAN, JUSTICE WHITE, JUSTICE STEVENS, and JUSTICE O'CONNOR join as to Parts I. II, and III, concurring in the judgment in part. and with whom JUSTICE BRENNAN, JUSTICE WHITE, and JUSTICE STEVENS join as to Part IV.

07-06-1983 Justice Powell, Dissenting And Concurring, Lewis F. Powell

Arizona Governing Comm. v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073 (1983)

JUSTICE POWELL, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE BLACKMUN, and JUSTICE REHNQUIST join as to Parts I and II, dissenting in part and with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE BLACKMUN, JUSTICE REHNQUIST, and JUSTICE O'CONNOR join as to Part III, concurring in part.

07-06-1983 Per Curiam, Unknown Justice

Arizona Governing Comm. v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073 (1983)

Petitioners in this case administer a deferred compensation plan for employees of the State of Arizona. The respondent class consists of all female employees who are enrolled in the plan or will enroll in the plan in the future. Certiorari was granted to decide whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e et seq., prohibits an employer from offering its employees the option of receiving retirement benefits from one of several companies selected by the employer, all of which pay a woman lower monthly retirement benefits than a man …

07-05-1983 Correspondence From Marshall To Burger, Thurgood Marshall

Arizona Governing Comm. v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073 (1983)

Dear Chief:

This is a Per Curiam and following custom should be announced by you. I see no reason to change this procedure.

07-05-1983 Memorandum To The Conference, Warren E. Burger

Arizona Governing Comm. v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073 (1983)

My sense of the Conference was that we agreed that, in order to forestall confusion in the insurance industry, the following statement should be added to the per curiam opinion.

07-05-1983 Correspondence From Marshall To Burger, Thurgood Marshall

Arizona Governing Comm. v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073 (1983)

Dear Chief:

I have you memorandum concerning the latest suggested addition to the Per Curiam opinion.

07-01-1983 Correspondence From Powell To O'Connor, Lewis F. Powell

Arizona Governing Comm. v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073 (1983)

Dear Sandra:

I agree with your suggestion that the mandate issue on August 1.

07-01-1983 Memorandum To The Conference, Thurgood Marshall

Arizona Governing Comm. v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073 (1983)

Once more -- I apologize to each of you. On the ninth line from the bottom of the proposed Per Curiam, there appears "and IV-A". This is not correct and should be deleted. There is no "IV-A" in the first draft of my opinion.

07-01-1983 Memorandum To The Conference, Sandra Day O'Connor

Arizona Governing Comm. v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073 (1983)

With reference to the effective date of the judgment, Frank Lorson suggested the following language could be added as the last sentence of the per curiam if the Conference so desires:

06-30-1983 Clerk Memo, Alan S. Madans

Arizona Governing Comm. v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073 (1983)

I think TM's suggested per curiam is a proper way of handling this mess. There is one error, however. Seven lines from the bottom, the phrase "which is joined" should read "which are joined" since it is the referenced Parts, rather than TM's opinion, which have been joined by the listed Justices. I assume both TM and LP are making the necessary changes in their own opinions .

06-30-1983 Clerk Memo, Alan S. Madans

Arizona Governing Comm. v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073 (1983)

I agree with TM that all the held cases should be GVR'ed in light of Norris. Although it might be possible to deny 82-913 while GVR'ing 82-791, it would be better, in my view, to dispose of them jointly.

06-30-1983 Memorandum To The Conference, Warren E. Burger

Arizona Governing Comm. v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073 (1983)

It is desirable that we confer immediately after we rise Friday.

06-30-1983 Memorandum To The Conference, Thurgood Marshall

Arizona Governing Comm. v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073 (1983)

Perhaps the attached can serve as a basis for discussion tomorrow.

06-29-1983 Memorandum To The Conference, Thurgood Marshall

Arizona Governing Comm. v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073 (1983)

I have just received Sandra's opinion, "concurring in part" which does not concur in judgement. That means that I now have only three votes to join me in the judgement. At this late date, I do not have a court and so not know what to do at this stage. Any suggestions will be welcomed by me.

06-29-1983 Correspondence From Stevens To Marshall, John Paul Stevens

Arizona Governing Comm. v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073 (1983)

Dear Thurgood:

My suggestion is that we apply for group membership in "Alcoholics Affirmative".

06-29-1983 Memorandum To The Conference, Thurgood Marshall

Arizona Governing Comm. v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073 (1983)

For the reasons set forth below, I will vote to GVR all three of these cases in light of Norris.

06-28-1983 Memorandum To The Conference, Lewis F. Powell

Arizona Governing Comm. v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073 (1983)

In response to the revisions in the Court's opinion circulated today, I am making some changes in footnotes 6 and 7 of my dissent.

06-28-1963 Memorandum To The Conference, Lewis F. Powell

Arizona Governing Comm. v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073 (1983)

I will circulate - probably this afternoon - a response to Thurgood's revision of footnote 7.

06-28-1983 Memorandum To The Conference, Thurgood Marshall

Arizona Governing Comm. v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073 (1983)

In response to the revision in the footnote 7 of the dissent to include Arizona Stat, Ann. 20-448, I have revised the second and third paragraphs of the footnote 17 on pages 13 and 14 of my opinion to read as follows:

06-27-1983 Correspondence From Burger To Powell, Warren E. Burger

Arizona Governing Comm. v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073 (1983)

Dear Lewis:

I join.

06-27-1983 Clerk Memo, Alan S. Madans

Arizona Governing Comm. v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073 (1983)

I thought you might be interested in the brief article by Prof. Van Alstyne in this book. The article, written shortly after the Manhart decision, deals with the implications of that decision and supports the majority's result in Norris. TM's and SOC's clerks carne by to show me the article.

06-27-1983 Correspondence From Rehnquist To Powell, William H. Rehnquist

Arizona Governing Comm. v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073 (1983)

Dear Lewis:

Please join me in you dissenting opinion.

06-27-1983 Clerk Memo, Alan S. Madans

Arizona Governing Comm. v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073 (1983)

I just had a visit from SOC's clerk.. He told me that SOC is now on the fence in this case on the liability issue, and that there is no way she will join TM on the remedy issue even if she does join on liability. The clerk said that. SOC would be interested in hearing from you privately, perhaps with a view toward agreeing on a remedial approach if you are inclined to join TM on liability. SOC's view on the remedy is that only benefits tied in to post-Norris contributions should be affected. I told the clerk …

06-27-1983 Memorandum To The Conference, Lewis F. Powell

Arizona Governing Comm. v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073 (1983)

In response to changes in Thurgood's third draft circulated today, I have made some additions to footnote 7, p. 6-7.

06-27-1983 Correspondence From Blackmun To Powell, Harry A. Blackmun

Arizona Governing Comm. v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073 (1983)

Dear Lewis:

Please add my name to your dissenting opinion.

06-27-1983 Opinion Of The Court, Thurgood Marshall

Arizona Governing Comm. v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073 (1983)

JUSTICE MARSHALL, delivered the opinion of the Court.

06-21-1983 Clerk Memo, Alan S. Madans

Arizona Governing Comm. v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073 (1983)

I think LP has done a satisfactory job with the dissent, but I do not find ot persuasive on the liability question. LFP relies very heavily on the McCarran Ferguson Act, but the Court's decision does not regulate the business of insurance. Rather, the Court is using Title VII to regulate an employer's employment practices. The McCarran Ferguson Act has never permitted a State to authorize employment practices just because those practices involve insurance. Since the employer in Manhart was a self-insurer, LP's argument would have been much more appropriate in that case.

06-21-1983 Justice Powell, Dissenting, Lewis F. Powell

Arizona Governing Comm. v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073 (1983)

The Court holds that an employer may not offer its employees life annuities from a private insurance company that uses sex-based mortality tables. This holding will have a far-reaching effect on the operation of the insurance and pensions plans. Employers may be forced to discontinue offering life annuities, or potentially disruptive changes may be required in long-established methods of calculating insurance and pensions.

06-09-1983 Correspondence From Brennan To Marshall, William J. Brennan

Arizona Governing Comm. v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073 (1983)

Dear Thurgood,

I agree.