Document: 474 U.S. 64 106 S.Ct. 423 88 L.Ed.2d 371 Johnny GREEN, et al., etc., Petitionersv.Agnes Mary MANSOUR, Director, Michigan Department of Social Services. No. 84-6270. Argued Oct. 7, 1985. Decided Dec. 3, Rehearing Denied Jan. 27, 1986. See 1111, 900. Syllabus Petitioner recipients benefits under the federal Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) program brought class actions in Federal District Court against respondent Director They claimed that respondent's policies prohibiting deduction child care costs and requiring inclusion stepparents' income for purposes calculating earned income, thereby determining eligibility amount AFDC benefits, violated applicable law. Petitioners sought an injunction, a declaratory judgment, "notice relief." While were pending, Congress amended relevant statute expressly require States deduct expenses include income. Granting motions dismiss each case, held changes law rendered moot claims prospective relief, remaining relief" related solely past violations law, such retroprospective relief was barred by Eleventh Amendment. The Appeals affirmed consolidated appeal. Held: 1. are not entitled Since there is no continuing violation enjoin, therefore valid injunction which notice could attach, cannot be justified as mere case-management device ancillary judgment awarding relief. Quern v. Jordan, 440 332, 99 1139, 59 358, distinguished. Absent these conditions, Amendment limitation on Art. III power courts prevents them from ordering because it type remedy designed prevent ongoing supreme Pp. 68-72. 2. Nor petitioners past. Where or any threat future violation, inappropriate its purpose only provide issue liability with hope would res judicata state-court proceedings, leaving state form accounting proceeding whereby damages restitution computed. This exercise judicial have much same effect award restitution, kinds prohibited 72-73. 742 F.2d 277 (CA6 1984), affirmed. REHNQUIST, J., delivered opinion Court, BURGER, C.J., WHITE, POWELL, O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, filed dissenting opinion, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, joined, post, P. 74. BRENNAN 79. 81. William Burnham, Detroit, Mich., petitioners. Louis J. Caruso, Lansing, respondent. Justice REHNQUIST Court. 1 two separate United Eastern Services, claiming calculations certain provisions Before final determination merits either case made, statutory provisions. It undisputed thereafter conformed Notwithstanding this fact, claim they both declaration prior conduct denied forms Sixth Circuit We now affirm Appeals, holding Constitution principles governing issuance judgments forbid 2 involved behalf disbursed program. 42 U.S.C. §§ 601-615. uses person's for, of, benefits. § 602. complaints alleged regulations 1983 inflating their respective members' causing reduction termination contrary 3 One putative challenged policy calculation pending changed participating up specified amount. Respondent into compliance amendment began deducting There current violates 4 other automatically including issued preliminary preventing enforcing automatic policy. But again, while matter merits, section stepparent parties stipulated should terminate effective date amendment. Here, too, has complied since time. 5 granted case. Such retrospective court determined, 6 Banas Dempsey, (1984). agreed Id., at 281-283. also sought-after nature, Edelman 415 651, 94 1347, 39 662 (1974). F.2d, 286-288. reasoned when can ancillary, even sort approved 358 (1979), escape bar. 287-288. Declaratory similarly circumstances, explained, relate 288. 7 certiorari resolve conflict Circuits over whether may order giving supra, officials decision agrees result Colbeth Wilson, 554 F.Supp. 539 (Vt.1982), aff'd, 707 57 (CA2 1983) (per curiam ), but conflicts decisions Appleyard Wallace, 754 955, 959-963 (CA11 1985); Randall Lukhard, 729 966 (CA4) (en banc), cert. denied, 469 872, 105 222, 83 152 (1984); Beltran Myers, 701 91, (CA9) curiam), 462 1134, 103 3115, 77 1369 (1983); Silva Vowell, 621 640, 650-654 (CA5 1980), all allowed though injunctive stopping Appeals. 8 confirms "the fundamental principle sovereign immunity limits grant authority III." Pennhurst State School & Hospital Halderman, 465 89, 98, 104 900, 906, 79 67 Because Amendment, sued unless consent unequivocal terms Congress, pursuant power, unequivocally expresses intent abrogate immunity. 99, S.Ct., 907. landmark Ex parte Young, 209 123, 28 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908), created exception general asserting suit challenging constitutionality official's action one State. 159-160, 453-54. theory Young unconstitutional void, id., 159, 453-54, does "impart [the official] responsibility States." 160, 454. granting 155-156, 452-53. refused extend reasoning however, Pennhurst, 102-103, 909; 337, 1143; 668, 1358. 9 Both implicate concerns, availability awarded gives life Supremacy Clause. Remedies end necessary vindicate interest assuring supremacy 102, 909. Milliken Bradley, 433 267, 97 2749, 53 745 (1977). compensatory deterrence interests insufficient overcome dictates concede might had specific amendments nevertheless seek arguing independent protected bar Young. In taking position, we think misconceive our jurisprudence Quern. 10 last chapter litigation initially gave rise supra. plaintiffs State's administration federal-state Aged, Blind, Disabled (AABD). then effect.1 permanently enjoined violate Although language broader than complement implied defendants second release remit AABD wrongfully withheld account affirmed, Jordan Weaver, 472 985 (CA7 1973), reversed, retroactive effectively money 666-669, 1357-59. 11 On remand, ordered send plaintiff informing individual members particular amount, together returnable filing appropriate agency. Court's proposed adjudication Trainor, 563 873, 875 1977) banc). At time, determined "a explanatory applicants advising administrative procedure available if desire determine eligible benefits." Ibid. 12 although retained vitality after Monell New York City Dept. 436 658, 98 2018, 56 611 (1978), see U.S., 338-345, 1144-47, did 346-349, 1148-49. explained appellate court's fell "on side line rather side." 347, "unlike notice] [this was] more properly viewed already court," 349, 1149, "simply infor[m] end, further existing procedures wish pursue." stressed objected expense providing notice, agencies arbiters payments ordered, lead action. 347-348, 13 Our review long, drawn-out convinces us neither nor conceived requested simply within previously sufficiently narrow retain character device. nothing inform diverse partially victorious concerning extent favor, cf. Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 23(d)(2), do them. suggestion itself bind way, routinely cases. 14 Measured standards Quern, request limited will some "noticed." enjoin available. Therefore, argue, Only correct assertion right "notice" 15 Judgment Act 1934, 2201, permits declare rights party sought, not. Steffel Thompson, 452, 462, 1209, 1217, 505 "is enabling Act, confers discretion absolute upon litigant." Public Service Comm'n Wycoff Co., 344 237, 241, 73 236, 239, 291 (1952). propriety issuing depend equitable considerations, Samuels Mackell, 401 66, 73, 91 764, 768, 27 688 (1971), "informed teachings experience functions power." Wycoff, 243, 240; Younger Harris, 37, 44-45, 746, 750-51, 669 (1971). 16 applying principles, number instances. Great Lakes Co. Huffman, 319 293, 63 1070, 87 1407 (1943), obtain tax injunctions collection taxes. 299, 1073. declaring criminal unavailable where enforcement statute, latter traditional equity, comity, federalism. 69-73, 766-68. deciding plaintiff's business interstate commerce potentially immune regulation. 244, 247-249, 242-43. subsequent lifted out before agency hear it. 247, 242. hand, effect, "serv[e] useful rights." 17 cases demonstrate impropriety occasion injunction. violating repealed future. Cf. 454, 1213. dispute about lawfulness actions, prohibit resolved favor situation resolving offered proceedings liability, circumstances full-fledged court, being course Samuels, partial "end run" around (1974).2 18 BRENNAN's dissent contends adjudicating question he mistaken. similar occurred varied through time judgment. contrast, present were, imply practice Thus, stand own feet jurisdiction reasons stated. 19 hold concluding type. 20 Affirmed. 21 whom STEVENS join, dissenting. 22 Last Term, my Atascadero Scanlon, 473 234, 257, 3142, 3155, 171 (1985), I length view doctrine "lacks textual anchor [in Constitution], firm historical foundation, clear rationale." Today's demonstrates absence stable analytical structure underlying produces inconsistent decisions. 23 Illinois contended identical significant respects instant case,1 offended "giving [would] inexorably payment funds it, amounts monetary award." writing rejected argument: 24 "[T]he chain causation petitioner seeks establish means unbroken; contains numerous missing links, supplied, all, court. apprises existence whatever receive . sending trigger machinery. Whether recipient decides take advantage those left completely member; plays role decision. And member rests entirely State, agencies, courts, legislature, court." 25 turns accepts argument made respect Green's states 26 Amendment." Ante, 73. What ignores combined sanctioned, yielded result.2 fails explain adequately why analyzed differently use "rests 348, 1149. By way explication, retreats position prospectively, is, retroactively, Basically what doing, admits balancing 68. If violations, finds Clause outweighs Amendment; determines cites constitutional test offered, suspect offer, satisfactory foundation 29 Furthermore, strenuously disagree balance struck protects true gives, puts "life" That rule saves moribund not, alter reality ensure paramount. From day forward, least regard welfare programs, refuse follow impunity, secure knowledge need immunize themselves accountability conform eve "prospective" During period noncompliance, save paying according criteria established law,3 needy individuals designated beneficiaries programs cheated rights. Once "require[s] protect legal consequences conduct." Atascadero, 258, 3155. Surely requires different result. 30 foregoing reveals incoherence jurisprudence. develop coherent doctrine, believe must reassess long precedents, beginning Hans Louisiana, 134 1, 504, 33 842 (1890), culminating today's decision, perpetuated erroneous interpretation As demonstrated mistaken premise. treated subject exhaustively restate conclusions here. Recent scholarship indicates Framers never intended constitutionalize immunity; consequently effort reestablish, Chisholm Georgia, Dall. 419, (1793), contained Article III. Nor, given context drafted, Amendment's technical understood instituted broad new "arising under" whenever attempts sue 258-259, 3156. Rather, records reveal, remove federal-court suits basis citizen another alien—suits abrogation state-law causes 259-260, 31 disputes between citizens source jurisdiction, construed, petitioners' suits. 32 respectfully dissent. 34 concur BLACKMUN's dissents. contribute proliferation opinions add few words why, accepted majority reaches incorrect 35 * cogently explains how today repudiates (1979). approve "mere device," ante, 71, suggest serves function litigation. explicitly posing modified contemplated Seventh constitute[s] permissible 'retroactive treasury,' " concluded "this falls 346-347, 1147-49. II 36 abandoning reached six years ago, misapplies remedies officer: "designed law," serving "compensatory interests." former concludes, outweigh implicated officer his official capacity.* "Prospective" "retrospective" labels, irrelevant analysis here imposes creates direct liabilities institutions government. poses Indeed, possible remedies, sole granted, assists vindication set thus hard weight, any, exists scale, weight vindicating 37 alien (as believe), believes), offensive notify possibility process. placed line." 38 joined 3150, join fully agree approach, difference 1140-41 sterile, decisions, serious reconsideration. Garcia San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 528, 539, 546-547, 1005, 1011, 1015, 1016 (1985). 40 reverse additional reason expressed (joined Justices STEVENS) 302, 3179, namely, waiver Michigan, "as willing funds," 304, 1379, barrier otherwise exist. too easily avoids responsibilities, allows go unimpeded unburdened who been wronged during Michigan's noncompliance embodied paragraph stated: "Illinois Categorical Assistance Manual, Section 4004, subsections thereunder, applied invalid insofar requirements [federal construed in] paragraphs 2." 71 C 70, p. (ND Ill., Mar. 15, 1972) (emphasis added). If, course, make later commenced serve parties, reason. Green asked notices sent outcome litigation, i.e., telling App. 132. Similarly, "inform[ed] [was] [could] [were] 'given gathered sitting courtroom.' Ibid., quoting 877-878 1977). And, courtroom substantive litigation—a enough distinguish observe "ancillary" three fashioned five it—Congress abolished 1974. matching pay 50 percent benefit payments, Government pays remainder. House Committee Ways Means, Background Material Data Programs Jurisdiction 98th Cong., 2d Sess., 292 (Comm.Print 1984). distinction hardly so neat implies. (1977), exemplifying duty effects de jure segregation; upheld attack attributable restore schoolchildren Detroit enjoyed absent local officials," 281, 2757-58, characterizing "prospectiv[e]" "compensatory," 290. Yet note imposed "take steps underpayment aid plan." 602(a)(22); 45 CFR 205.10(a) described duty, "part plan operates prospectively bring delayed [constitutionally administered program]." Milliken, 290, 2762 original).

Category: 1