Document: 419 U.S. 379 95 S.Ct. 533 42 L.Ed.2d 521 Jack A. FUSARI, Commissioner of Labor the State Connecticut, Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, Appellant,v.Larry STEINBERG et al. No. 73—848. Argued Oct. 15 and 16, 1974. Decided Jan. 14, 1975. Syllabus The judgment a three-judge District Court holding that Connecticut 'seated interview' procedures for assessing continuing eligibility unemployment compensation benefits violated due process is vacated, case remanded reconsideration in light intervening changes law. Pp. 385—389. D.C., 364 F.Supp. 922, vacated remanded. Donald E. Wasik, Hartford, Conn., appellant. John M. Creane, Bridgeport, appellees. Mr. Justice POWELL delivered opinion Court. 1 This comes to us on appeal from determination violate Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment. 922 (Conn. 1973). Our independent examination law reveals significantly revised its system following Court's decision. Some amendments are designed ameliorate problems court identified. In these circumstances, we think it inappropriate decide issues tendered by parties. We therefore vacate decision remand 2 * paid trust fund maintained employer contributions. Appellant Fusari, Administrator administers fund. Under statute, claimant first must file an initiating claim establish his general entitlement receive state benefits. Conn.Gen.Stat.Rev. §§ 31—230 31—235 (1973). Thereafter, report local office biweekly demonstrate continued preceding two-week period. submit forms swearing availability work reasonable efforts obtain employment during period question. He also form listing persons whom he has applied two weeks. 3 Upon receipt forms, paying official may make routine inquiries. If no serious question arises, immediate payment made. If, however, or responses questions raise suspicion possible disqualification, directed with factfinding examiner more thorough inquiry into factors might render him ineligible Although bears burden establishing eligibility, Northrup v. 148 Conn. 475, 480, 172 A.2d 390, 393 (1961); Waskiewicz Egan, Conn.Supp. 286, 287 (1947), doubtful cases be decided favor. § 31—274(c). 4 An examiner's favorable results concludes ineligible, Within few days receives written statement indicating reasons disqualification notifying right appeal. Benefits normally withheld pending resolution administrative appeal.1 State's policy, sometimes honored breach, pendency does not affect claimant's subsequent periods.2 5 arises class action challenging legality used determining benefits.3 Appellees asserted federal statutory requirement reasonably assure 'when due,' U.S.C. 503,4 seated-interview were constitutionally defective failing provide pretermination hearing satisfying standards Goldberg Kelly, 397 254, 90 1011, 25 (1970). At appellees' request, was convened hear matter.5 6 findings fact some indication actual operation system. reveal reversal rate appealed denials significant, ranging 19.4% 26.1% periods surveyed.6 found significant delay required obtaining review determination: 89.9% 461 intrastate appeals7 filed month December 1972 than 100 resolve. average exceeded 126 days. Moreover, determined figures probably typical delays encountered other time periods.8 7 expressed reservations whether satisfied due' It felt foreclosed so ruling this issue, summary affirmance Torres New York Dept. Labor, 405 949, 92 1185, 31 228 (1972). concluded distinguishable constitutional held 'because (a) property interest been denied (b) at inadequate (c) reviewable de novo until unreasonable length time.' F.Supp., 937—938. After suggesting number alterations adequate level, enjoined appellant denying under then-existing without providing sufficient prior hearing. Id., 938. appellant's stayed injunction subsequently noted probable jurisdiction. 415 912, 94 1406, 39 466 (1974). II 8 Following our notation jurisdiction, Legislature enacted major revisions which claims determined. Conn.Pub. Act 74—339 (1974).9 Section 31—241, one sections consideration appeal, amended require examiners only consider evidence presented person writing provided purpose.10 amending 31—241. legislature completely altered structure adminisrative review, substituting two-tiered Employment Security Appeals Division Commission. 74—339, supra, 1—12. 9 statute provides creation staff referees examiners' decisions novo. 15. Referees appointed Board Review, 9,11 three members Governor. 3. further referee section 'shall consist such as board deems necessary prompt processing appeals hearings performance duties imposed—by act.' 9. referees' taken Review thereafter courts. 21, 31—242 31—248, new added 1974 amendments. 10 legislative history indicates anticipated would have impact speed fairness contested claims. Legislators repeatedly characterized 'true reform' important consequence. See Conn.S.Proc. 2578, 2624, 2629 (May 7, 1974). Particular emphasis placed need improve treatment appeals. recognized Connecticut's torpid markedly inferior those States. 2621; Conn.H.Proc. 5133 5135, 5152 2, Revision appellate remedy problem. words member House: 'The bill . sets up unique cut down (appellate) backlog.' 5152. III 11 became effective July 1, 1974, 36 (1974), alter character considered precise significance amendment 31—241 unclear, court's concern absence confrontation, 935, diminished base their submitted writing. Perhaps greater importance revision Both distinguishing failed satisfy minimal requirements procedural process, substantial reliance 12 presently existing law, effect rendered.12 Diffenderfer Central Baptist Church, 404 412, 414, 574, 575, 30 567 (1972); Hall Beals, 396 45, 48, 200, 301, 24 214 (1969); United States Alabama, 362 602, 604, 80 924, 926, 982 (1960). unable meaningfully assess present record. 13 affected deprivation benefits.13 basic thrust requirement14 timeliness. California Human Resources Java, 402 121, 130—133, 91 1347, 1353—1354, 28 666 (1971). While can determine record previous often deliver timely manner,15 speculate how operate. And, assuming satisfied, prove equally difficult process. 14 Identification dictates requires both governmental function involved private interests action. Cafeteria Workers McElroy, 367 886, 895, 81 1743, 1748, 1230 263—266, 1018—1019, As Boddie 401 371, 780, 113 (1970), '(T) formality requisites (a process) vary, depending upon nature proceedings.' context, wrongful factor interests. Cf. Arnett Kennedy, 416 134, 168—169, 1633, 1651—1652, 40 (1974) (opinion Powell, J.); id., 190, 192, 1662, 1663 (White, J., concurring part dissenting part). Prompt opportunity correction errors made initial determinations. Thus, rapidity sufficiency entire record, course, promptness adequacy unable, therefore, merits. 16 ordered. 17 Vacated 18 Chief BURGER, concurring. 19 I join Court; useful mention points bear discussion. First, notes, ante, 387 n. 12, all parties inform after entered changed agree failure 'difficult understand.' Ibid. disconcerting learn relevant developments come Bench arguments. 20 Even oral argument informed although briefs passed. appears least expedite thereby treat claimants fairly, see 380, 386, thus meeting part, least, basis attack All had obligation changed; cryptic reference change brief 122 pages long notes once, end footnote. Brief 65 52. point appellees contending between seated interview withhold aggravates defects they contend exist itself. There quote 378, 786, (1971), where said: (Brief 64; appellees'.) Given well 'subsequent proceedings,' should explicitly advised occurred. actually gives impression negligible. 21 rely counsel fully duty any development conceivably outcome. 22 Second, wholeheartedly reasoned discussion tension (1972), aff'g 333 431 (SDNY 1971), 388—389 15, go beyond explicit what implicit holdings. E.g., Gibson Berryhill, 411 564, 576, 93 1689, 1691, 488 (1973); Edelman Jordan, 651, 671, 1359, 662 When summarily affirm, opinion, affirm but necessarily reasoning reached.* unexplicated settles parties, read renunciation doctrines previously announced opinions full argument. Indeed, fuller issue plenary hesitated discard rule line affirmances appear established. 1359; Sniadach Family Finance Corp., 395 337, 343—344, 89 1820, 1823, 23 349 (1969) (Harlan, concurring); 350, S.Ct., 1827 (Black, dissenting); Reynolds Sims, 377 533, 614, 84 1362, 1408, 506 (1964) dissenting). Prior amendments, could authorize if 'good cause' shown. frequency authorizations. One accordance Administrator's determination, regardless filing removes specific authority award cause shown.' cannot intended deprive power adverse eligibility. stipulation facts because pending. App. 39a. occurrence. Each named plaintiffs valid received peroid time. she insufficient employment. defined future benefit recipients whose subject termination excepting terminate exhaustion entitlement. 927—928. conditions imposed assistance. Federal Government plays cooperative role implementation programs, bearing costs administration programs requirements. On laws practices 303 Social 49 Stat. 626, amended, 503, Secretary certify amount considers proper efficient fiscal year 502(a). addition imposing restrictions funds, establishes safeguards claimants. 503(a)(1) (a)(3). provides: '(a) shall certification unless finds State, approved Tax includes provision for— '(1) Such methods (including January 1940, relating establishment maintenance personnel merit basis, except exercise respect selection, tenure office, individual employed methods) calculated insure when due; '(3) Opportunity fair hearing, before impartial tribunal, individuals denied.' (Emphasis added.) brought pursuant 1983 2201 2202. Jurisdiction alleged 1343. jurisdiction rests 1253. During 1971 June 1972, there 6,534 denials, reversed. October remained approximately 26%, fell three-month March 1973. 936—937, 28. director Waterbury testified fallen 18.8% May 215a. A complete assessment obtained attempting overall error finding point. reciprocal agreements States, enabling who moved wage credits earned elsewhere. interstate transfer information reciprocating consume 1973, procedure slowest Nation. Statistics calendar Commission 5.3% within same 15.5% 45 resolved 75 31.4% cases. Insurance Table 17B—Appeals Decisions Programs, Time Lapse Between Date Filing Appeal Decisions, January—December Dept Manpower Administration (March—April available suggests Department instrumental encouraging reform. 5132, 5151 That silent additional encouragement. Court, telephoned employers validity 925. eliminate practice. system, Commissioners 31—238. debates indicate served part-time basis. 2630; revising legislators desire insulate influences partisan politics. 2629; 5153—5154. civil service. clearly commitment will 2628, 5142, 5147. existence act largely unassisted counsel. led believe substantially intact. find understand ruled precluded requirement. did cross-appeal ruling, maintains observed Raines, 17, 27 519, 526, 524 (1960), 1252 brings 'whole case' alternative grounds support even though specifically cross-appeal. principle governs feel compelled re-examine dispositive considering issue. Rosado Wyman, 397, 402, 1207, 1212, 442 (1970); Harmon Brucker, 355 579, 581, 78 433, 434, 503 (1958). 4, supra. interpreted 'due' administratively deemed payable. 930. plausible reading evolution Torres, endorse. definition leave little vitality Java nullify congressional intention requiring U.S., 1353—1354. By broadest, heightened disposition Java. narrower interpretation appropriate. Any embodies notions timeliness, accuracy, feasibility inevitably generate fact-specific applications. instance many factual distinctions relied distinguish apply For example, resolving considerably 321 432, 439 1971). And observed, apparently accuracy challenged adequately assured delivery due.' Steinberg, 936. do undertake identify combination justify Having once summarily, decline again. undertaking analysis empowered case. quick use district define judgment. Note, Supreme 1953 Term, 68 Harv.L.Rev. 96, 102 (1955); Summary Disposition Appeals: Significance Limited Discretion Theory Precedent, 52 B.U.L.Rev. 373, 409 Another common response three-judge-court judgments confusion mean. Currie, Three-Judge Constitutional Litigation, 32 U.Chi.L.Rev. 74 365 (1964); Shanks, Book Harv. L.Rev. 256, 257—258, Impact Practice Jurisdiction, Rutgers 952, 962 (1974); B.U.L.Rev., 407—415.

Category: 8