Case Name: MAINE et al. v. THIBOUTOT et vir.
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1980-06-25
Citations: 448 U.S. 1
Docket Number: No. 79-838
Parties: MAINE et al. v. THIBOUTOT et vir.
Judges: BreNNAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stewart, White, Marshall, Blackmun, and Stevens, JJ., joined. Powell, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Burger, C. J., and Rehnquist, J., joined, post, p. 11.
Reporter: United States Reports
Volume: 448
Pages: 1–37

Head Matter:
MAINE et al. v. THIBOUTOT et vir.
No. 79-838.
Argued April 22, 1980
Decided June 25, 1980
BreNNAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stewart, White, Marshall, Blackmun, and Stevens, JJ., joined. Powell, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Burger, C. J., and Rehnquist, J., joined, post, p. 11.
James Eastman Smith, Assistant Attorney General of Maine, argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs was Richard S. Cohen, Attorney General.
Robert Edmond Mittel argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Susan Calkins and Hugh Calkins
A brief of amici curiae urging reversal was filed by Edward G. Biester, Jr., Attorney General, and Robert E. Kelly and Allen C. Warshaw, Deputy Attorneys General, for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, joined by officials for their respective States as follows: Francis X. Bettotti, Attorney General of Massachusetts, and Garrick F. Cole, Assistant Attorney General; John J. Degnan, Attorney General of New Jersey, and Andrea Silkowitz, Deputy Attorney General; Thomas D. Rath, Attorney General of New Hampshire; M. Jerome Diamond, Attorney General of Vermont, and Benson Scotch, Assistant Attorney General; Dennis J. Roberts II, Attorney General of Rhode Island, AUen P. Rubine, Deputy Attorney General, and John S. Foley and Eileen G. Cooney, Special Assistant Attorneys General; and Richard S. Gebelein, Attorney General of Delaware, and Regina M. Small, State Solicitor.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed by Bruce J. Ennis for the American Civil Liberties Union et al.; and by Carol Goodman for the Volunteer Lawyers Project of the Boston Bar Association et al.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The case presents two related questions arising under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 and 1988. Respondents brought this suit in the Maine Superior Court alleging that petitioners, the State of Maine and its Commissioner of Human Services, violated § 1983 by depriving respondents of welfare benefits to which they were entitled under the federal Social Security Act, specifically 42 U. S. C. §602 (a) (7). The petitioners present two issues: (1) whether § 1983 encompasses claims based on purely statutory violations of federal law, and (2) if so, whether attorney's fees under § 1988 may be awarded to the prevailing party in such an action.
I
Respondents, Lionel and Joline Thiboutot, are married and have eight children, three of whom are Lionel's by a previous marriage. The Maine Department of Human Services notified Lionel that, in computing the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits to which he was entitled for the three children exclusively his, it would no longer make allowance for the money spent to support the other five children, even though Lionel is legally obligated to support them. Respondents, challenging the State's interpretation of 42 U. S. C, §602 (a)(7), exhausted their state administrative remedies and then sought judicial review of the administrative action in the State Superior Court. By amended complaint, respondents also claimed relief under § 1983 for themselves and others similarly situated. The Superior Court's judgment enjoined petitioners from enforcing the challenged rule and ordered them to adopt new regulations, to notify class members of the new regulations, and to pay the correct amounts retroactively to respondents and prospectively to eligible class members. The court, however, denied respondents' motion for attorney's fees. The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 405 A. 2d 230 (1979), concluded that re spondents had no entitlement to attorney's fees under state law, but were eligible for attorney's fees pursuant to the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976, 90 Stat. 2641, 42 U. S. C. § 1988. We granted certiorari. 444 TJ. S. 1042 (1980). We affirm.
II
Section 1983 provides:
"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress." (Emphasis added.)
The question before us is whether the phrase "and laws," as used in § 1983, means what it says, or whether it should be limited to some subset of laws. Given that Congress attached no modifiers to the phrase, the plain language of the statute undoubtedly embraces respondents' claim that petitioners violated the Social Security Act.
Even were the language ambiguous, however, any doubt as to its meaning has been resolved by our several cases suggesting, explicitly or implicitly, that the § 1983 remedy broadly encompasses violations of federal statutory as well as constitutional law. Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U. S. 397 (1970), for example, "held that suits in federal court under § 1983 are proper to secure compliance with the provisions of the Social Security Act on the part of participating States." Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651, 675 (1974). Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U. S. 658, 700-701 (1978), as support for its conclusion that municipalities are "persons" under § 1983, reasoned that "there can be no doubt that § 1 of the Civil Rights Act [of 1871] was intended to provide a remedy, to be broadly construed, against all forms of official violation of federally protected rights." Similarly, Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U. S. 622, 649 (1980), in holding that the common-law immunity for discretionary functions provided no basis for according municipalities a good-faith immunity under § 1983, noted that a court "looks only to whether the municipality has conformed to the requirements of the Federal Constitution and statutes." Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U. S. 225, 240, n. 30 (1972), and Lynch v. Household Finance Corp., 405 U. S. 538, 543, n. 7 (1972), noted that § 1983's predecessor "was enlarged to provide protection for rights, privileges, or immunities secured by federal law." Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U. S. 808, 829-830 (1966), observed that under § 1983 state "officers may be made to respond in damages not only for violations of rights conferred by federal equal civil rights laws, but for violations of other federal constitutional and statutory rights as well." The availability of this alternative sanction helped support the holding that 28 U. S. C. § 1443 (1) did not permit removal to federal court of a state prosecution in which the defense was that the state law conflicted with the defendants' federal rights. As a final example, Mr. Justice Stone, writing in Hague v. CIO, 307 U. S. 496, 525-526 (1939), expressed the opinion that § 1983 was the product of an "extension] to include rights, privileges and immunities secured by the laws of the United States as well as by the Constitution."
While some might dismiss as dictum the foregoing statements, numerous and specific as they are, our analysis in several § 1983 cases involving Social Security Act (SSA) claims has relied on the availability of a § 1983 cause of action for statutory claims. Constitutional claims were also raised in these cases, providing a jurisdictional base, but the statutory claims were allowed to go forward, and were decided on the merits, under the court's pendent jurisdiction. In each of the following cases § 1983 was necessarily the exclusive statutory cause of action because, as the Court held in Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S., at 673-674; id., at 690 (Marshall, J., dissenting), the SSA affords no private right of action against a State. Miller v. Youakim, 440 U. S. 125, 132, and n. 13 (1979) (state foster care program inconsistent with SSA); Quern v. Mandley, 436 U. S. 725, 729, and n. 3 (1978) (state emergency assistance program consistent with SSA); Van Lare v. Hurley, 421 U. S. 338 (1975) (state shelter allowance provisions inconsistent with SSA); Townsend v. Swank, 404 U. S. 282 (1971) (state prohibition against AFDC aid for college students inconsistent with SSA); King v. Smith, 392 U. S. 309, 311 (1968) (state cohabitation prohibition inconsistent with SSA). Cf. Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U. S. 528, 532-533, 543 (1974) (District Court had jurisdiction to decide whether state recoupment provisions consistent with SSA) ; Carter v. Stanton, 405 U. S. 669, 670 (1972) (District Court had jurisdiction to decide whether state absent-spouse rule consistent with SSA).
In the face of the plain language of § 1983 and our consistent treatment of that provision, petitioners nevertheless persist in suggesting that the phrase "and laws" should be read as limited to civil rights or equal protection laws. Petitioners suggest that when § 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13, which accorded jurisdiction and a remedy for deprivations of rights secured by "the Constitution of the United States," was divided by the 1874 statutory revision into a remedial section, Rev. Stat. § 1979, and jurisdictional sections, Rev. Stat. §563 (12) and 629 (16), Congress intended that the same change made in § 629 (16) be made as to each of the new sections as well. Section 629 (16), the jurisdictional provision for the circuit courts and the model for the current jurisdictional provision, 28 U. S. C. § 1343 (3), applied to deprivations of rights secured by "the Constitution of the United States, or of any right secured by any law providing for equal rights." On the other hand, the remedial provision, the predecessor of § 1983, was expanded to apply to deprivations of rights secured by "the Constitution and laws," and § 563 (12), the provision granting jurisdiction to the district courts, to deprivations of rights secured by "the Constitution of the United States, or of any right secured by any law of the United States."
We need not repeat at length the detailed debate over the meaning of the scanty legislative history concerning the addition of the phrase "and laws." See Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Organization, 441 U. S. 600 (1979); id., at 623 (Powell, J., concurring); id., at 646 (White, J., concurring in judgment); id., at 672 (Stewart, J., dissenting). One conclusion which emerges clearly is that the legislative history does not permit a definitive answer. Id., at 610-611; id., at 674 (Stewart, J., dissenting). There is no express explanation offered for the insertion of the phrase "and laws." On the one hand, a principal purpose of the added language was to "ensure that federal legislation providing specifically for equality of rights would be brought within the ambit of the civil action authorized by that statute." Id., at 637 (Powell, J., concurring). On the other hand, there are no indications that that was the only purpose, and Congress' attention was specifically directed to this new language. Representative Lawrence, in a speech to the House of Representatives that began by observing that the revisers had very often changed the meaning of existing statutes, 2 Cong. Rec. 825 (1874), referred to the civil rights statutes as "possibly [showing] ver bal modifications bordering on legislation," id., at 827. He went on to read to Congress the original and revised versions. In short, Congress was aware of what it was doing, and the legislative history does not demonstrate that the plain language was not intended. Petitioners' arguments amount to the claim that had Congress been more careful, and had it fully thought out the relationship among the various sections, it might have acted differently. That argument, however, can best be addressed to Congress, which, it is important to note, has remained quiet in the face of our many pronouncements on the scope of § 1983. Cf. TV A v. Hill, 437 U. S. 153 (1978).
Ill
Petitioners next argue that, even if this claim is within § 1983, Congress did not intend statutory claims to be covered by the Civil Eights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976, which added the following sentence to 42 U. S. C. § 1988 (emphasis added):
"In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections 1981, 1982, 1988, 1985, and 1986 of this title, title IX of Public Law 92-318 [20 U. S. C. 1681 et seq.] or in any civil action or proceeding, by or on behalf of the United States of America, to enforce, or charging a violation of, a provision of the United States Internal Revenue Code, or title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U. S. C. 2000d et seq.], the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs."
Once again, given our holding in Part II, supra, the plain language provides an answer. The statute states that fees are available in any § 1983 action. Since we hold that this statutory action is properly brought under § 1983, and since § 1988 makes no exception for statutory § 1983 actions, § 1988 plainly applies to this suit.
The legislative history is entirely consistent with the plain language. As was true with § 1983, a major purpose of the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act was to benefit those claiming deprivations of constitutional and civil rights. Principal sponsors of the measure in both the House and the Senate, however, explicitly stated during the floor debates that the statute would make fees available more broadly. Represent ative Drinan explained that the Act would apply to § 1983 and that § 1983 "authorizes suits against State and local officials based upon Federal statutory as well as constitutional rights. For example Blue against Craig, 505 F. 2d 830 (4th Cir. 1974)." 122 Cong. Rec. 35122 (1976). Senator Kennedy also included an SSA case as an example of the cases "enforcing] the rights promised by Congress or the Constitution" which the Act would embrace. Id., at 33314. In short, there can be no question that Congress passed the Fees Act anticipating that it would apply to statutory § 1983 claims.
Several States, participating as amici curiae, argue that even if § 1988 applies to § 1983 claims alleging deprivations of statutory rights, it does not apply in state courts. There is no merit to this argument. As we have said above, Mar tinez v. California, 444 U. S. 277 (1980), held that § 1983 actions may be brought in state courts. Representative Drinan described the purpose of the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act as "authorizing] the award of a reasonable attorney's fee in actions brought in State or Federal courts." 122 Cong. Rec. 35122 (1976). And Congress viewed the fees authorized by § 1988 as "an integral part of the remedies necessary to obtain" compliance with § 1983. S. Rep. No, 94-1011, p. 5 (1976). It follows from this history and from the Supremacy Clause that the fee provision is part of the § 1983 remedy whether the action is brought in federal or state court.
Affirmed.
Petitioners also argue that jurisdiction to hear. § 1983 claims rests exclusively with the federal courts. Any doubt that state courts may also entertain such actions was dispelled by Martinez v. California, 444 U. S. 277, 283-284, n. 7 (1980). There, while reserving the question whether state courts are obligated to entertain § 1983 actions, we held that Congress has not barred them from doing so.
The State did not appeal the judgment against it.
The Supreme Judicial Court remanded to allow the Superior Court to exercise its discretion under § 1988 to determine the appropriate disposition of the fee request.
Where the plain language, supported by consistent judicial interpretation, is as strong as it is here, ordinarily "it is not necessary to look beyond the words of the statute." TV A v. Hill, 437 U. S. 153, 184, n. 29 (1978).
In his concurring opinion in Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Organization, 441 U. S. 600 (1979), Me. Justice Powell's argument proceeds on the basis of the flawed premise that Congress did not intend to change the meaning of existing laws when it revised the statutes in 1874. He assumed that Congress had instructed the revisers not to make changes, and that the revisers had obeyed those instructions. In fact, the second section of the statute creating the Revision Commission, 14 Stat. 75, mandated that the commissioners "mak[e] such alterations as may be necessary to reconcile the contradictions, supply the omissions, and amend the imperfections of the original text." Furthermore, it is clear that Congress understood this mandate to authorize the Commission to do more than merely "copy and arrange in proper order, and classify in heads the actual text of statutes in force." 2 Cong. Rec. 825 (1874). We have already decided that the "customary stout assertions of the codifiers that they had merely clarified and reorganized without changing substance" cannot be taken at face value. United States v. Price, 383 U. S. 787, 803 (1966) (holding that the revisers significantly broadened the forerunner of 18 U. S. C. §242).
There is no inherent illogic in construing § 1983 more broadly than § 1343 (3) was construed in Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Organization, supra. It would only mean that there are statutory rights which Congress has decided cannot be enforced in the federal courts unless 28 U. S. C. §1331 (a)'s $10,000 jurisdictional amount is satisfied.
The States appearing as amid suggest that Hutto v. Finney, 437 U. S. 678 (1978), left open the issue whether Congress, exercising its power under §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, could set aside the States' Eleventh Amendment immunity in statutory as opposed to constitutional cases. Hutto, however, concluded alternatively that the Eleventh Amendment did not bar attorney's fee awards in federal courts because the fee awards are part of costs, which "have traditionally been awarded without regard for the State's Eleventh Amendment immunity." Id., at 695. No Eleventh Amendment question is present, of course, where an action is brought in a state court since the Amendment, by its terms, restrains only "[t]he Judicial power of the United States."
In Blue v. Craig, the plaintiffs claimed that North Carolina's Medicaid plan was inconsistent with the SSA.
"In a case now pending, officials accepted Social Security Act funds for years for certain medical screening programs when in fact they had no such programs in most of the State. Bond v. Stanton, 528 F. 2d 688 (7th Cir. 1976)." 122 Cong. Rec. 33314 (1976). In the same list of examples, Senator Kennedy included La Raza Unida v. Volpe, 57 F. R. D. 94 (ND Cal. 1972), in which plaintiffs demonstrated violations of "the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 and various sections of 23 U. S. C. dealing with housing displacement and relocation." Id., at 95.
The Committee Reports are in accord. The Senate Report recognized that actions under § 1983 covered by the Act would include suits "redressing violations of the Federal Constitution or laws." S. Rep. No. 94-1011, p. 4 (1976). The House Report, after suggesting that a party prevailing on a claim which could not support a fee award should be entitled to a determination on an attached claim covered by § 1988 in order to determine eligibility for fees, recognizes that a special problem is presented because "[i]n some instances . . . the claim with fees may involve a constitutional question. . . ." H. R. Rep. No. 94-1558, p. 4, n. 7 (1976). The negative pregnant is that in other instances the claim with fees need not involve a constitutional question.
The state courts which have addressed this issue have reached that same result. 405 A. 2d 230, 239 (Me. 1979) (case below); Ramirez v. County of Hudson, 169 N. J. Super. 455, 404 A. 2d 1271 (1979); Tobeluk v. Lind, 589 P. 2d 873 (Alaska 1979); Young v. Toia, 66 App. Div. 2d 377, 413 N. Y. S. 2d 530 (1979); Lange v. Nature Conservancy, Inc., 24 Wash. App. 416, 422, 601 P. 2d 963, 967 (1979); Board of Trustees v. Holso, 584 P. 2d 1009 (Wyo. 1978); Thorpe v. Durango School District, 41 Colo. App. 473, 591 P. 2d 1329 (1978), cert. granted by Colorado Supreme Court (1979).
If fees were not available in state courts, federalism concerns would be raised because most plaintiffs would have no choice but to bring their complaints concerning state actions to federal courts. Moreover, given that there is a class of cases stating causes of action under § 1983 but not cognizable in federal court absent the $10,000 jurisdictional amount of §1331 (a), see n. 6, supra, some plaintiffs would be forced to go to state courts, but contrary to congressional intent, would still face financial disincentives to asserting their claimed deprivations of federal rights.