Source: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/430-u-s-99-606857258
Timestamp: 2020-08-13 09:13:40
Document Index: 203938751

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

430 U.S. 99 (1977), 75-1443, Califano v. Sanders - Federal Cases - Case Law - VLEX 606857258
430 U.S. 99 (1977), 75-1443, Califano v. Sanders
Docket Nº: No. 75-1443
Citation: 430 U.S. 99, 97 S.Ct. 980, 51 L.Ed.2d 192
Party Name: Califano v. Sanders
97 S.Ct. 980, 51 L.Ed.2d 192
1. Section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), providing generally for judicial review of actions of federal administrative agencies by persons aggrieved by such actions, does not afford an implied grant to district courts of subject matter jurisdiction to review a decision of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare not to reopen a previously adjudicated claim for social security benefits. An interpretation in favor of jurisdiction is suggested by neither the text nor history of the APA, and would effectively override Congress' recent decision to expand jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) by eliminating the amount in controversy requirement as a prerequisite to maintaining federal question actions against federal agencies or officers or employees thereof, while retaining § 205(h) of the Social Security Act as a limitation of such jurisdiction. Pp. 104-107.
2. Nor does § 205(g) of the Social Security Act, which provides that any individual, after any "final decision of the Secretary made after a hearing" to which he was a party, irrespective of the amount in controversy, may obtain a review of such decision by civil action commenced within 60 days, authorize judicial review of the Secretary's decision, absent a constitutional challenge. A petition to reopen a prior final decision may be denied without a § 205(b) hearing, whereas judicial review under § 205(g) is limited to a final decision "made after a hearing"; moreover, to allow judicial review would frustrate the congressional purpose, evidenced in § 205(g), to impose a 60-day limitation upon review of the Secretary's final decision. Pp. 107-109.
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. 109. STEVENS, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
[97 S.Ct. 982] MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
The questions for decision are (1) whether § 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706,1 is an
independent grant to district courts of subject matter jurisdiction to review a decision of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare not to reopen a previously adjudicated claim for social security benefits and (2), if not, whether § 205(g) of the Social Security Act2 authorizes judicial review of the Secretary's decision.
The Act and regulations thus create an orderly administrative mechanism, with district court review of the final decision of the Secretary, to assist in the original processing of the more than 7,600,000 claims filed annually with the Administration. See Social Security Administration, The Year in Review -- The Administration of Social Security Programs 1975, p. 54 (1976). By regulation, however, the administrative scheme provides for additional consideration of [97 S.Ct. 983] the claim. This is in the form of regulations for reopening of the agency determination within specified time limits after the date of initial determination: 12 months as a matter of right and four years "upon a finding of good cause," which exists if new material evidence is provided or specific errors are discovered. 20 CFR §§ 404.957(a), (b), 404.958 (1976). Moreover, the regulations permit reopening "[a]t any time" for the purpose of correcting clerical errors or errors on the face of relevant evidence. § 404.957(c)(8).
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)3 did not limit judicial review to those methods "expressly authorize[d]" by the Social Security Act itself. Therefore, the Court of Appeals concluded
that § 10 other Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which "contains an independent grant...
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Savannah River Maritime Commission, 060313 SCALC, 12-ALJ-30-0255-CC