Document: 520 U.S. 329117 S.Ct. 1353137 L.Ed.2d 569 Linda J. BLESSING, Director, Arizona Department of Economic Security, Petitionerv.Cathy FREESTONE, etc., et al. No. 95-1441. Supreme Court the United States Argued Jan. 6, 1997. Decided April 21, Syllabus* Respondents, five mothers whose children are eligible for state child support services under Title IV-D Social Security Act, filed this 42 U.S.C. §1983 suit against petitioner, director agency, claiming, among other things, that they properly applied services; that, despite their good faith efforts to cooperate, agency never took adequate steps obtain payments them; these omissions were largely attributable staff shortages and structural defects in State's program; systemic failures violated individual rights have all mandated delivered substantial compliance with title its implementing regulations. They requested broad relief, including a declaratory judgment program's operation violates provisions creating them enforceable through action, an injunction requiring achieve throughout programmatic operations. The District granted summary but Ninth Circuit reversed. Without distinguishing numerous complex program or many those might created, latter court held respondents had right State "substantial compliance'' IV-D. It also disagreed Court's conclusion Congress foreclosed private enforcement actions by authorizing Secretary Health Human Services (Secretary) audit cut off funds programs do not substantially comply IV-D's requirements. Held: does give individuals federal force Pp. ____-____. (a) A plaintiff seeking redress must assert violation right, merely law. Golden Transit Corp. v. Los Angeles, 493 103, 106, 110 444, 448-449, 107 420. Three principal factors determine whether statutory provision creates privately right: (1) is intended beneficiary statute; (2) plaintiff's asserted interests so vague amorphous as be beyond competence judiciary enforce; (3) statute imposes binding obligation on State. See, e.g., Wilder Virginia Hospital Assn., 496 498, 509, 2510, 2517, 455. Even if demonstrates such however, there only rebuttable presumption it §1983. Dismissal proper specifically remedy, Smith Robinson, 468 992, 1005, n. 9, 1003, 104 3457, 3464, 3463-3464, 82 746, either expressly, forbidding recourse itself, impliedly, comprehensive scheme incompatible enforcement, Livadas Bradshaw, 512 107, 133, 114 2068, 2082-2083, 129 93. (b) Respondents established gives individually rights. In prior cases, has been able created because plaintiffs articulated, lower courts evaluated, well-defined claims. Wright Roanoke Redevelopment Housing Authority, 479 418, 430, 766, 773-774, 93 781. Here, identified particularity claim, engaged requisite methodical inquiry. That erred apparently holding respects. requirement, see, U.S.C.A. §609(a)(8) (Nov.1996 Supp.), rise rights; was benefit custodial parents, simply yardstick measure systemwide performance program, allowing her increase frequency audits reduce grant upon finding noncompliance. Appeals taking blanket approach determining rights: readily apparent multifaceted scheme, standard data processing, staffing, organizational requirements, fit any traditional criteria identifying Although foreclose possibility some rights, did separate out particular believed arise from complaint less than clear regard, certain sought relief more specific declaration "rights'' being forcing petitioner "substantially comply'' provisions. This defect best addressed sending case back construe first instance, order exactly what considered most concrete, form, asserting. Only manageably breaking down into allegations can proceed claim asserts right. (c) Petitioner's argument remedial sufficiently demonstrate congressional intent preclude suits rejected. Petitioner expressly curtails actions, she failed make difficult showing go forward circumstances would inconsistent Congress' carefully tailored scheme. far limited at issue Middlesex County Sewerage Authority National Sea Clammers 453 1, 101 2615, 69 435, cases which found preclusion; particular, contains no remedy-either judicial administrative-through aggrieved persons seek redress. way assures live up plans Secretary's oversight, powers funding enough liability. 68 F.3d 1141, vacated remanded. O'CONNOR, J., opinion unanimous Court. SCALIA, concurring opinion, KENNEDY, joined. C. Tim Delaney, Phoenix, AZ, Petitioner. Marsha S. Berzon, Ithaca, NY, Respondents. Patricia A. Millett, Washington, DC, amicus curiae special leave Justice O'CONNOR 1 concerns lawsuit brought receive pursuant added, 88 Stat. 2351 amended, §§651-669b Supp.). These parents sued Arizona's Rev. §1979, §1983, claiming requirements We disagree analyzed generally, hold Accordingly, we vacate remand instructions 2 * controversy interlocking set cooperative federal-state welfare programs. participates Aid Families Dependent Children (AFDC) provides subsistence benefits needy families. IV-A, §§601-617. To qualify AFDC funds, certify will operate conforms forth Supp.),1 detailed plan approved (Secretary). §602(a)(2); see §652(a)(3). Federal Government underwrites roughly two-thirds cost efforts. §655(a). But collect overdue payments; establish system paternity, locate absent help families orders. §§651, 654. 3 provide free charge recipients and, when requested, nominal fee who receiving payments. 654(4). assign fully cooperate paternity may keep collects behalf offset costs providing benefits, until recently distribute $50 each payment family. §657(b)(1). amended version replaces pass-through generous distributions once welfare. §657(a)(2) Non-AFDC request aid entitled collected passed through. §657(a)(3). family's share within two business days after receipt. §654b(c)(1). 4 structure like provides, conform guidelines. For example, create units administer plan, §654(3), disburse §654(27), staffed levels Secretary, 45 CFR §303.20 (1995). If delegates disbursement function local governments, reward efficient agencies incentive §654(22) maintain records pending well generate various reports required authorities, computer systems meet specifications. §654a. Finally, addition setting administrative framework, participating enact laws designed streamline actions. §§654(20), 666. 5 oversee enterprise, Office Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) (HHS). charged auditing States' federally plans. Audits occur least every three years, often falls below standards. §652(a)(4). IV-D, authorized penalize reducing percent. §609(a)(8). interpreted as: full offered statewide notified monthly collected, reporting, recordkeeping, accounting rules; 90 percent opening closure criteria; 75 remaining §305.20 suspend penalty implements corrective action achieves compliance,'' rescind entirely. §609(c) II 6 record enforcing obligations stellar, particularly compared States. 1992 report, Auditor General chronicled problems. 1989-1990 fiscal year, incentives cover program-1 10 fall target. General, Performance Audit (1992). pointed cost-effectiveness "minimal.'' dollar spent barely dollars-almost half nationwide average. Ibid. 1992, nearly three-quarters 275,000 still earliest stages process. yet established. further 29 percent, parent his whereabouts unknown. Id., 12. Overall, "obtains regular fewer serves.'' 9. 7 OCSE shortcomings system. several reviews 1984 1989, complied significant repeatedly penalized one grant. developed audit, prompted and-in instance one-waive one-percent reduction funding.2 8 (some whom benefits) services. Director lengthy complaint, claimed fathers children. omissions, contended, efforts: shortages, high caseloads, unmanageable backlogs, deficiencies methods recordkeeping. App. 11, 14-16. represent class residing 9 Invoking asked following relief: "Enter controlling, substantive law permitted 11 "Grant permanent (and necessary appropriate, interlocutory) injunctions prohibiting continued adherence aforesaid pattern practices affirmative measures sufficient sustain law, operations issue.'' 42. 12 immediately moved dismiss grounds, arguing primarily treated motion ruled favor Director. Relying decision Sixth Circuit, Carelli Howser, 923 F.2d 1208 (1991), enforce 13 divided panel 1141 majority used "intended beneficiaries statute,'' plaintiffs' ""vague amorphous' "beyond enforce,''' 1147 (quoting 455 (1990)). held, satisfied criteria. First, "needy children'' F.3d, 1150. Second, "plaintiffs' interest amorphous, concrete judicially enforceable'' delivers "to degree ascertainable.'' 1149-1150. stated satisfy spelled funding. acknowledged requirement remain seem ambiguous divorced context, "highly requirements'' regulations adequately extent duties. 1148. Moreover, noted "the . sets measuring example generally given percentage cases. 1149 (citing §652(g)). concluded could sue bring 14 implicitly remedy violations includes supplant remedy. 1153. Instead, gave oversight virtually indiscernible insufficient displace liability 781 (1987). expressed appropriateness injunctive left question answer instance. 1156. 15 Judge Kleinfeld dissented, placed power exclusively hands Secretary. He contended ""substantial compliance' "unambiguously confer' individual.'' 1157. At most, called try pretty hard, job, support, come harder thinks trying hard enough.'' 16 certiorari resolve disagreement appeals officials IV-D.3 III 17 Section 1983 anyone who, color deprives person "of privileges, immunities secured Constitution laws.'' safeguards conferred statutes. Maine Thiboutot, 448 100 2502, 65 555 (1980). 420 (1989). traditionally looked plaintiff. Wright, U.S., S.Ct., 773-774. assertedly protected "vague amorphous'' strain competence. 431-432, 774-775. Third, unambiguously impose words, giving couched mandatory rather precatory terms. Wilder, supra, 510-511, 2517-2518; Pennhurst School Halderman, 451 17, 1531, 1539-1540, 67 694 (1981) (discussing implied cause action). 18 Because our inquiry focuses intent, dismissal "specifically §1983.'' 746 (1984). 2083, (1994). 19 With principles mind, turn 20 argued "individual regulations.'' 41. operations.'' Attributing defects, essentially invited aspect program. 21 funded agreed sweeping terms "Title need services.'' specify purporting recognize, disagree. 22 As initial matter, court's "creates rights'' paints too brush. incumbent identify claimed, since impossible undifferentiated whole, undefined "rights.'' broken manageable analytic bites ascertain satisfies State, (asking "provision question'' plaintiff). 23 tenants public housing projects utility included rental exceed 30 income. ask legislation rather, focused analysis limiting "rent'' tenant's Similarly, health care providers reimbursement "reasonable rates'' Medicaid statute. 511-512, 2518-2519. And Suter Artist M., 503 347, 112 1360, 118 (1992), where IV-E Act asserted, again very terms: authorities undertake prevent removal homes facilitate reunification occurred.'' 352, 1364 (footnote omitted). 134, 2083-2084, discerned Labor Relations employees complete collective-bargaining process agree arbitration clause.'' See id., 27, 27 (explaining founded NLRA cognizable depend stems abridgment "protected interest''). unspecified 24 engage tell, seemed think require therefore constitute Far entitlement services, Thus, look aggregate provided needs satisfied. complies (such obligations) reviewed during period. §305.20(a)(3)(iii) aim considerably targets long steadily improving. §652(g). clear, then, even 25 ultimately unmet. noncompliance, percent; cannot, own authority, command take individuals. short, trigger maximum such, compliance, begin with, provisions, standard, guide structuring obligations. indirectly. lays processing Among sort information standardized elements specified Secretary; transmit electronically monitor family eligibility financial assistance; reporting requirements; electronic transfer purposes income withholding interstate collections. §654a Supp.); §307.10 Obviously, standards individualized improve overall efficiency 26 same reasoning applies staffing inadequate. (Complaint ¶39) (alleging delays "extraordinary inordinately caseloads backlogs''). requires unit "which meets regulation prescribe.'' §654(3). regulations, turn, level organization "sufficient staff'' fulfill functions. mandates not, thing, link between increased tenuous notion meant Arizonan "sufficient'' level. Furthermore, neither nor guidance how large "sufficient.'' Cf. Suter, 360, 1368 (finding efforts'' unenforceable " [n]o efforts' measured''). certainly "strain competence.'' 132, 2083. regard. respondent Madrid alleged managed ex-husband pass payment, purportedly pre-1996 ¶48). §657 portion money Arizona, explicitly complaint. 28 event, B open pause consider petitioner's final warranted "a "sufficiently §1983.''' 521, 2523 20, 2626-2627, 435 (1981)). "would scheme.'' 449 (citation internal quotation marks twice §1983: Clammers, "unusually elaborate provisions'' Water Pollution Control disposal Environmental Protection Agency panoply options, noncompliance orders, civil suits, criminal penalties. 13, 2622-2623. emphasized initiate 14, 2623, 2626-2627. "hard believe preserve remedies, citizen-suit provisions.'' 2626. Likewise, Smith, review Education Handicapped invoke "carefully tailored'' procedures followed review. 1009, 3467. reasoned possibly wanted skip straight "render[ed] superfluous procedural protections outlined statute.'' 1011, 3468. 31 stressed ability cannot defeated [t]he availability mechanisms protect interests.'' 448. rejected Urban Development's "generalized powers'' annual contributions contracts, demonstrated intention using Act. 428, 773. reached much reject withhold 2523-2524. though both accompanied grievance individuals, available. 427-428, 772-773; 523, 2524-2525. 32 Smith. Unlike oversight. basis. without enumerated before trim closely resemble Wright. counsel suggested oral "has contract party performance,'' Tr. Oral Arg. 49, briefs. assuming authority performance, arsenal compare especially if, 49-50, actor standing performance. therefore, close door 1151-1156. IV 33 vacated, remanded proceedings consistent opinion. 34 ordered. 35 KENNEDY joins, concurring. 36 I test 423, 770, (1987), (1990), permit 2351, (Supp.1997), challenging failure makes unnecessary reach ever authorizes spending agreement-such IV-D-to suit. 37 explained (1981), agreement "in nature contract,'' 1540: promises exchange funds. arrangement made (A pay money, C), receives others (C) third-party beneficiary. Until relatively recent times, regarded stranger contract, it; say, above, broke promise C, W. Story, Treatise Law Contracts 549-550 (4th ed. 1856). appears time enacted. Brief Council Governments Amici Curiae 10-11, sources). so, respondents' situation compel "righ[t] laws'' While course true newly enacted automatically embraced follow new (or, old laws) secure determined according modern notions understanding Allowing commitments vast expansion. 38 contracts above raised. am prepared consideration third-party-beneficiary lie. join because, ruling Wright/Wilder test, leaves open. syllabus constitutes part Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 321, 337, 282, 287, 50 L.Ed. 499. After rendered decision, Personal Responsibility Work Opportunity Reconciliation 1996, Pub.L. 104-193, 2105. Except otherwise noted, refer system, principally OCSE, Division Report AZ-85-PR, Program Results Program, October 1984-September 30, 1985 (June 25, 1987); AZ-86-PR/PM, Results/Performance Measurements Audit, 1985-September 1986 1989); AZ-90-AA, Comprehensive Annual (Sept. 1991) (covering calendar year 1989). eventually achieved category deficient audits, although always timely manner. Letter Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Assistant Families, Dept. HHS, Moore-Cannon, (Mar. 2, 1992) (reducing period July 1988, December 31, due implement Parent Locator Service conformity plan). Compare Wehunt Ledbetter, 875 1558 (C.A.11 1989) (holding especial families, §1983), cert. denied, 494 1027, 1472, 108 609 (1990) (C.A.6 Service's forecloses remedy) Albiston Comm'r Servs., 258 (C.A.1 1993) prompt child-support IV-D) Howe Ellenbecker, 1258 (C.A.8 511 1373, 128 49 Petitioners arguments briefs merits. contend Eleventh Amendment strips jurisdiction over Next, us overrule (1980), decline address questions raised decided below, presented petition certiorari. Rule 14.1(a).

Category: 8