Source: http://www.chanrobles.com/usa/us_supremecourt/430/99/case.php
Timestamp: 2019-12-12 11:55:45
Document Index: 578155121

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 10', '§ 701', '§ 416', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 405', '§ 404', '§ 205', '§ 405', '§ 205', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 1331', '§ 205', '§ 1331', '§ 205', '§ 1331', '§ 205', '§ 205', '§ 205', '§ 205', '§ 205', '§ 205', '§ 1331', '§ 10', '§ 701']

CALIFANO V. SANDERS, 430 U. S. 99 (1977) - US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON-LINE
US Supreme Court Decisions On-Line> Volume 430 > CALIFANO V. SANDERS, 430 U. S. 99 (1977)
Subscribe to Cases that cite 430 U. S. 99
BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which WHITE, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN POWELL, and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined. STEWART, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which BURGER, C.J.,joined, post, p. 430 U. S. 109. STEVENS, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
The questions for decision are (1) whether § 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706, [Footnote 1] is an chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Title II of the Social Security Act provides disability benefits for a claimant who demonstrates that he suffers a physical or mental disability within the meaning of the Act, and that the disability arose prior to the expiration of his insured status. 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i), 423. The administrative process is begun when he files a claim with the Social Security Administration. 20 CFR §§ 404.905-404.907 (1976). If the claim is administratively denied, regulations permit administrative reconsideration within a six-month period. §§ 404.909-404.915. Should a request for reconsideration prove unsuccessful, the claimant may, within 60 days, ask for an evidentiary hearing before an administrative law judge, 42 U.S.C. § 405(b) (1970 ed., Supp. V), and a discretionary appeal from an adverse determination of the law judge lies to the Appeals Council. 20 CFR §§ 404.945-404.947 chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Almost seven years later, on March 5, 1973, respondent filed a second claim alleging the same bases for eligibility. His claim was again processed through administrative channels under the Secretary's regulations. The Administrative Law chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Respondent thereupon filed this action in the District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, challenging the Secretary's decision not to reopen, and resting jurisdiction on § 205(g), 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground stated in its unpublished memorandum that "this court is without jurisdiction to consider the subject matter of this suit." Pet. for Cert. 13a-14a. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed. Sanders v. Weinberger, 522 F.2d 1167 (1975). The Court of Appeals agreed that jurisdiction to review a refusal to reopen a claim proceeding on the ground of abuse of discretion was not authorized by the Social Security Act. Id. at 1169. The court held, however, that § 205(h) [Footnote 3] did not limit judicial review to those methods "expressly authorize[d]" by the Social Security Act itself. Therefore, the Court of Appeals concluded chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
that § 10 other Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which "contains an independent grant of subject matter jurisdiction, without regard to the amount in controversy," afforded the District Court jurisdiction of respondent's complaint. 522 F.2d 1169. We granted certiorari sub nom. Mathews v. Sanders, 426 U.S. 905 (1976). We reverse.
The Court of Appeals acknowledged that its construction of § 10 of the APA as an independent grant of subject matter jurisdiction is contrary to the conclusion reached by several other Courts of Appeals. 522 F.2d 1169. This conflict is understandable. None of the codified statutory sections that constitute § 10 is phrased like the usual grant of jurisdiction to proceed in the federal courts. On the other hand, the statute undoubtedly evinces Congress' intention and understanding that judicial review should be widely available to challenge the actions of federal administrative officials. Consequently, courts [Footnote 4] and commentators [Footnote 5] have sharply divided chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
As noted previously, the actual text of § 10 of the APA nowhere contains an explicit grant of jurisdiction to challenge chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
In amending § 1331, Congress obviously has expressly acted to fill the jurisdictional void created by the preexisting amount-in-controversy requirement. This new jurisdictional grant was qualified, however, by the retention of § 205(h) as preclusive of actions such as this that arise under the Social Security Act. Read together, the expansion of § 1331, coupled with the retention of § 205(h), apparently expresses Congress' view of the desired contours of federal question jurisdiction over agency action. A broad reading of the APA in this instance would serve no purpose other than to modify Congress' new jurisdictional enactment by overriding its decision to limit § 1331 through the preservation of § 205(h). Squarely faced with the question of APA jurisdiction for the chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Respondent contends that, notwithstanding the above, the Social Security Act itself, specifically § 205(g), should be construed to authorize judicial review of a final decision of the Secretary not to reopen a claim of benefits. All Courts of Appeals that have considered this contention have rejected it. [Footnote 8] We also agree that § 205(g) cannot be read to authorize chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Respondent argues, however, that Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U. S. 749 (1975), and Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319 (1976), have rejected this interpretation of § 205(g). We do not agree. It is true that both cases authorized judicial chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
See Cappadora v. Celebrezze, 356 F.2d 1, 4-5 (CA2 1966); Davis v. Richardson, 460 F.2d 772, 775 (CA3 1972); Ortego v. Weinberger, 516 F.2d 1007-1008; Maddox v. Richardson, 464 F.2d 617, 621 (CA6 1972); Stuckey v. Weinberger, 488 F.2d 904, 909 (CA9 1973); Neighbors v. Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, 511 F.2d 80, 81 (CA10 1974).
I agree with the Court that Sanders cannot seek judicial review of the Secretary's refusal to reopen a final decision chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
The Court's decision in Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U. S. 749, supports this reading of § 205(h). Salfi held that the first two sentences of § 205(h) "prevent review of decisions of the Secretary save as provided in the Act, which provision is made in § [2]05(g)." 422 U.S. at 422 U. S. 757. Although Salfi was principally concerned with an assertion of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the plaintiffs there, like Sanders, also relied upon § 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706. See Brief for Appellants 17 n. 13, Brief for Appellees chanroblesvirtualawlibrary