Document: 503 U.S. 347 112 S.Ct. 1360 118 L.Ed.2d 1 Sue SUTER, et al., Petitionersv.ARTIST M. al. No. 90-1488. Argued Dec. 2, 1991. Decided March 25, 1992. Syllabus The Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 provides that a State will be reimbursed by the Federal Government for certain expenses it incurs in administering foster care adoption services, if submits plan approval Secretary Health Human Services. Among its requisite features, an approved must provide "shall effect all" State's political subdivisions "be mandatory upon them," 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(3), "reasonable efforts made" to prevent removal children from their homes facilitate reunification families where has occurred, 671(a)(15). Respondents, child beneficiaries Act, sought declaratory injunctive relief, alleging petitioners, Director Guardianship Administrator Illinois agency responsible investigating charges abuse neglect providing services abused neglected families, had failed make reasonable preserve reunite contravention District Court denied petitioners' motion dismiss, holding, inter alia, contained implied cause action suit could also brought under 1983. court entered injunction against Appeals affirmed. That relied on Wilder v. Virginia Hospital Assn., 496 498, 110 2510, 455 hold efforts" clause enforced through 1983 action, applied standard Cort Ash, 422 66, 95 2080, 45 26 find created right entitling respondents bring directly Act. Held: 1. Section 671(a)(15) does not confer private enforceable action. Pp. 355-364. (a) is available enforce violation federal statute Congress foreclosed enforcement enactment itself "where did create rights, privileges, or immunities within meaning 1983." Wright Roanoke Redevelopment Housing Authority, 479 418, 423, 107 766, 770, 93 781. such rights unambiguously when intends impose conditions grant moneys. Pennhurst School Halderman, 451 1, 17, 101 1531, 1539, 67 694. Thus, statutory provisions analyzed detail, light entire legislative enactment, determine whether language question 355-357. (b) Act's requirement. only insofar as requires have containing listed features; undisputed at prevention made. Respondents err basing argument, part, 671(a)(3)'s "in effect" language, which directed requirement apply all intended otherwise modify word "plan." Unlike Medicaid legislation Wilder, supra —which actually required States adopt adequate reimbursement rates health providers which, along with regulations, set forth some detail factors considered determining methods calculating rates—here, no further guidance how are measured, and, broad limits, lets decide comply directive. Since other sections mechanisms clause, absence remedy dead letter. regulations specific notice failure do anything than submit features condition receipt funds. And history indicates left great deal discretion meet 358-363. 2. enforcement. demonstrate available. See Cort, supra; Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. Lewis, 444 11, 15-16, 100 242, 245, 62 146. 363-364. 917 F.2d 980, (CA7 1990), reversed. REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered opinion Court, WHITE, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, JJ., joined. BLACKMUN, J., filed dissenting opinion, STEVENS, Christina Tchen, Chicago, Ill., petitioners. John G. Roberts, Jr., Washington, D.C., amicus curiae, supporting Michael Dsida, respondents. [Amicus curiae information intentionally omitted] THE CHIEF JUSTICE Court. This case raises individuals provision (Adoption Act), 94 Stat. 500, §§ 620-628, 670-679a, either 1983.1 Seventh Circuit held this section well. We behalf 2 establishes program incurred services. percentage assistance payments satisfies requirements 672-674, 675(4)(A) (1988 ed. Supp. I). 3 To participate program, Services Secretary. 670, 671. 671 lists 16 qualifications state plans contain order gain Secretary's approval. As relevant here, provides: 4 "(a) Requisite 5 "In eligible shall which— 6 . 7 "(3) State, administered them, them; 8 9 "(15) effective October 1983, that, each case, made (A) prior placement care, eliminate need his home, (B) possible return home. ." (15). 10 Petitioners Suter Gary T. Morgan, Administrator, respectively, Department Children Family (DCFS). DCFS for, among things, families. authorized law, see Ill.Rev.Stat., ch. 37, ¶ 802-1, et. seq. (1989), temporary custody after hearing Juvenile Alternatively, may remain home protective supervisory parents. Artist Johnson, 982-983 1990). Once jurisdiction over custody, child's order, provided family means individual caseworker whom assigned. App. 35-39. 11 class-action seeking relief Act.2 They alleged occurred.3 respondents, because promptly assign caseworkers placed reassign cases were leave DCFS. 6-8. without objection certified two separate classes including who wards judicial order.4 726 F.Supp. 690, 691 (ND Ill.1989). dismiss F.Supp., 696, 697. 12 then requiring petitioners three working days time first heard date any relinquishes responsibility particular case. Pet. Cert. 56a. day deadline was found "realistically reflec[t] institutional capabilities DCFS," id., 55a, based part assertion assigning frame "would overly burdensome." Id., 54a. partial remand Appeals, additional factual findings regarding nature delays progress reforms preliminary entered. 28-50. 13 980 Relying heavily Court's decision (1990), F.2d, 987-989.5 court, applying established (1975), 989-991. granted certiorari, now reverse.6 500 ----, 111 2008, 114 97 (1991). 14 In Maine Thiboutot, 448 2502, 65 555 (1980), we violations statutes well constitutional violations. subsequently recognized 781 (1987). 15 694 (1981), Developmentally Disabled Bill Rights 1975, 6000 seq., (1976 III) statute, before us today, enacted pursuant spending power.7 Pennhurst, noted power fix terms disburses money States. U.S., S.Ct., citing Oklahoma CSC, 330 127, 544, 91 L.Ed. 794 (1947); Rosado Wyman, 397 397, 90 1207, 25 442 (1970). stated Pennhurst: "The legitimacy Congress' legislate thus rests voluntarily knowingly accepts 'contract.' There can, course, knowing acceptance unaware unable ascertain what expected it. Accordingly, moneys, so unambiguously." supra, 1540 (citations footnote omitted). 17 concluded unambiguous spoke "intended hortatory, mandatory." 24, 1543. 18 Wright, Brooke Amendment existing housing imposed ceiling rent might charged low-income tenants living public projects. issued Urban Development turn defined include " 'a amount [use of] utilities,' term would measured. 420-421, n. 3, 769, 3. sue Authority utility claimed these provisions. 503, 2514, Boren according 'State finds, makes assurances satisfactory Secretary,' 'reasonable adequate' costs 'efficiently economically operated facilities.' Again, right, reimbursement, challenge failing standards specified Amendment. 19 both "reasonable" occupied prominent place critical regulation, similarly involved here. But this, obviously, end matter. opinions took pains analyze "enforceable 769. caution '[s]ection speaks "rights, immunities," law.' 509, 2517 quoting Golden Transit Corp. Los Angeles, 493 103, 444, 420 (1989). 20 Did Congress, enacting being removed once reunify family? inquiry. 21 quoted above, obtain "provides courts below, terms. However, shed examine exactly Here, 671(a) clear; Secretary." Therefore States, but goes far ensure contains features.8 22 dispute fact Tr. Oral Arg. 29-30.9 argue, however, allows them plan. argument based, least 671(a)(3) effect." states "provid[e] them." think "plan."10 23 underlying participating medical describing program. rates, obligation providers. rates. 519, 2522, 17. 24 present maintain appears quite different context. No directive one given whose obviously vary circumstances How directive, was, up State. Other authority reduce finding longer complies "there substantial failure" administration complying own 671(b). secure respect involuntarily "the result determination continuation [in home] contrary welfare (effective 1983) type described title been made." 672(a)(1). While comprehensive mechanism manifest intent foreclose remedies 1983,11 they show plaintiffs letter.12 promulgated evidence view places funds Secretary.13 "include description offered family." CFR 1356.21(d)(4) Another entitled "requirements submittal", specify "which preplacement preventive need." 1357.15(e)(1).14 What significant specific, Secretary, Government. contend "[n]either [petitioners] nor amici refute enforceable." Brief 33. extent relevant, our examination leads conclude concerned indicated them.15 27 Careful context beneficiaries. plausibly read rather generalized duty individuals, manner previously discussed. 28 Having federally conclusion enforcement, 989, disposed quickly. Under familiar test burden Act.16 most important inquiry here plaintiffs. 146 (1979) ("[W]hat ultimately determined asserted"). discussed intend clause. 29 neither confers creates behalf. 30 judgment therefore 31 Reversed. 32 Justice STEVENS joins, dissenting. 33 Act) funding welfare, programs upon, express commitment make, removing efforts," family. holds today plaintiff itself. 34 my view, plainly inconsistent just Terms ago functionally identical reimbursements More troubling still, reaches even stating, much less applying, principles precedents used I cannot acquiesce unexplained disregard law. dissent. 35 * A. 36 "deprivation immunities, secured Constitution laws" United statutes, Constitution. general exceptions rule. First, lie 'create 1983.' 508, (quoting (1987)). Second, unavailable "Congress itself." 2517. 37 scope exception—whether right"—the developed repeatedly three-part test. asked (1) issue 'was intend[ed] benefit putative plaintiff.' 106, 448, (1989)). If so, unless (2) "reflects merely 'congressional preference' kind conduct binding governmental unit," 19, 1541, (1981)), (3) plaintiff's interest 'vague amorphous' 'beyond competence judiciary enforce.' 431-432, 774-775). Dennis Higgins, --- ---- - 865, 969 (1991) ). little difficulty concluding mention—much apply—this firmly analytic framework. B 38 above test, right. file Most like undertake "reasonableness" With rate reimbursed, 39 "a 40 41 "provide payment [of services] use (determined accordance .) efficiently facilities conformity applicable laws, quality safety assure access inpatient hospital quality." 1396a(a)(13)(A) (emphasis supplied). "was benefit" 510, 2518. second satisfied. amendment, held, simply "congressional preference" rates; rather, imposes "binding obligation" establish 512, concluding, emphasized scheme. observed "cast precatory terms," stating "must reimbursement. Ibid. text expressly compliance amendment withhold noncomplying rejected advanced defendant officials adequate, 512-515, ----. Rather, concluded, profess done so. 43 Finally, providers' adequate" "too vague amorphous" acknowledged "substantial discretion" choosing various 2523; 505-508, A calculate adequate," "may affect reviews" state's plan, judicially unenforceable. 2522. C 44 These principles, require clause1 Each elements obvious, clearly unnecessary temporarily Further, Moreover, [the State's] there plan." holding Indeed, petitioner point. 17; Reply 2; Amicus Curiae 13-14. 46 third element State-Wilder-Dennis satisfied: argue too "vague enforced. Aware apparently similar categorically different. 47 According Amendment's reasonableness "objective benchmark" Reasonable provides, those "an facilit[y]' while same ensuring access' participants." 2523 1396a(a)(13)(A)). claim benchmark, can ascertained "monetary calculations easily prevailing market." 21. By contrast, observe, "no market efforts' keep calculated quantified." misunderstand sense "benchmark" "objective." define defines referring hypothetical facility—one operates "efficiently economically," "compli[es] standards," "ensur[es] Whether criteria purely empirical simple calculations." specification words refers clause: facility, told, "ensure[s] undefined. Contrary suggestions, then, "objective" mechanically measurable. demonstrates asserted "calculated 48 disagreement child-welfare community concerning appropriate strategies. Furthermore, contend, choice strategy necessarily depend facts court-enforced homogenize very situations else fragment into plurality "rights" For reasons, juvenile courts, experts matters. 49 Here again, comparison instructive. lack consensus reimbursable best promote efficient operation facilities. 506-507, chose leaves considerable autonomy selecting adequate." 506-508, 515, result, "content" rates—the method chosen rate—varies although judges hardly expert cost majority dissent amorphous "beyond enforce." 519-520, 524, (REHNQUIST, dissenting). flexibility "reasonable," 50 reviews render unenforceable court. range certainly outside ever Act." 520, 2523. 51 "range" "efforts" removals beneficial reunifications "reasonable." It reviewing strategies owe deference mean, deemed "unreasonable." inherently 52 Petitioners' assumes outer limits cognizable: Any deviation imply, go beyond bounds competence. absolutely nothing indicate (inquiry "well Judiciary") innumerable cases, routinely clauses statutes. See, e.g., R. Co. System Fed'n 40, 300 57 592, 81 789 (1937) (enforcing "every effort" Railway Labor noting "whether taken omitted [is an] everyday subjec[t] framing enforcing decrees"). shown exceptional respect. II 53 explain why settled enforceability reasons offer support conclusion—that right—were raised Wilder. 54 acknowledges "mandatory terms." Ante, 358. adopts, narrow understanding "mandatory." 671(a), "[i]n Secretary," receive 671(a)(1) (16). enjoy procedural 671(a)—the prepare plan—not substantive live commitments approved, violated 55 reasoning should sound familiar: (citing 1396c).2 substantially too, plans.3 sure, consistent 527-528, flatly contradicts 56 attempts fend off ways, persuasive. seeks distinguish asserting gave health-care reimbursement—"relied rates." 359 17). continues, implementing interpreted. Even assuming accurate call "detailed,"4 misread referred relative specificity enjoyed rates—we already 514-515, ----—but reinforce enforcement." inquired more paper factors. 58 emphasizes: "Other [Adoption] 671(a)(15)." 360. Such "mechanisms" cut noncompliance reimburse removed. 59 forgotten since (1970), congressional cutting prevented conditions. 420, 422-423, 1222, 1223. reasoned "cutoff" supports puts "on notice" choosing. 514, contention determinations availability forum deprive forum. Monroe Pape, 365 167, 183, 473, 482, 492 (1961). reliance therefore, 60 acknowledgement, departed yet another way. existence exception applies—whether, is, 'Congress itself.' applies, point alternative "by [§ 1983] 520-521, said "lightly" intended. 423-424, Smith Robinson, 468 992, 1012, 104 3457, 3468, 82 746 (1984)). instances, remedial scheme room 1983," (1984) ("carefully tailored" mixed system beginning local administrative review culminating review); Middlesex County Sewerage National Sea Clammers 453 2615, 69 435 (1981) (enforcement authorizing EPA civil suits, criminal penalties, citizen-suit provisions). 61 demanding satisfied ante, 360-361 11. Instead, circumvents altogether: cutoff "express provision" scheme" leaving 2523, nevertheless precludes inverted presumption affirmatively withdrawn remedy." 9, 2517, 106-107, 448-449, 770). III sum, failed, explanation, framework consistently applicable; resurrecting arguments decisively years Wilder; contravened precedent suggesting "enforcement mechanisms" At changed rules game offering minimal justification, acknowledge doing extraordinary "interpret[ing]" 358 8. Readers misled hollow assurance. And, all, dealing children. affirm Appeals.5 part: "Every person who, color ordinance, custom, usage, Territory Columbia, subjects causes subjected, citizen thereof deprivation laws liable party injured equity, proper proceeding redress." Count complaint Due Process Clause 26. count dismissed appealed. 982, Although administers Illinois, Cook County. 6. Specifically, following Court: "Class A: neglect, dependency petitions County, Division ('Juvenile Court'), [DCFS] supervision period time. B: DCFS' time." B" due process claim, supra. Fourth Circuit, L.J. ex rel. Darr Massinga, 838 (CA4 1988), cert. denied, 488 1018, 109 816, 102 805 988. Several addressed 123 (finding 1983); Lynch Dukakis, 719 504 (CA1 (same); Norman 739 1182 Ill.1990) B.H. 715 1387, 1401 Ill.1989) 1983). Subsequent oral notified entry consent decree Suter, 88-C 5599 Ill.), suggest merits, indeed instant moot. merit respondents' contentions, bearing decides today. suit, alleges statewide deficiencies operations class "all persons somewhere parents." 1389. agreed she somehow precluded arguing suit. Term parties agree exceed Rufo Inmates Suffolk Jail, 502 748, 762, 116 867 (1992). Paragraph admission legal issue. addition, definition, Consent Decree &Par; 8, 16(a), pp. 12, 20. agreement embodied position asserts namely next moot." B.H., agrees obligations, example number handled caseworker, none obligations subsumes affirmed Cf. Johnson Chicago Board Education, 457 52, 2223, 72 668 (1982) (per curiam short, situation cited remanded proceedings events subsequent filing petition certiorari affected J. Aron & Mississippi Shipping Co., 361 115, 80 212, 148 (1959) ) decree. Kremens Bartley, 431 119, 1709, 184 (1977), change claims named members. unlike American Foreign Service Assn. Garfinkel, 490 153, 1693, 139 (1989) "[e]vents occurring ruling it," 158, 1696, decided below. Article I, cl. power, Power States." add new "prerequisite 1983", 22, 6, "prerequisites" counsels interpreted relies internal Services, Office Administration Children, Youth Families, Children's Bureau, Plan Title IV-E Social Security Foster Care Assistance, 2-13 (1988). ordered, good necessity minor her home." 802-10(2) that: documentation representatives probation department consider testimony efforts." 671(a)(9) shall: "provide[ ] reason believe institution resides paid whole subchapter unsuitable abuse, exploitation child, attention law agency. subsection feature afford anymore (1984); Association, (1981). shows knew precise aside submission to. example, 672(e) "[n]o part" 180 child. worded buttresses Compare 430-432, 773-775, (1987) (statute 30% income rent, conjunction utilities" included rental figure, utilities). 1357.15(e)(2) list proposal: "Twenty-four hour emergency caretaker, homemaker services; care; crisis counseling; shelters; procedures arrangements financial assistance; respite brief period, preventing children's home; identifies necessary home-based self-help groups, unmarried parents, of, mental health, drug alcohol counseling, vocational counseling rehabilitation; post services." Report Senate Committee Finance describes received homes, "deemphasize care," reimbursing developing "tracking" placing cap maintenance payments, "specifically permitting expenditures families." S.Rep. 96-336 p. (1979). confidence ability competency discharge duties 672(a) ("The committee aware allegations become mere pro forma exercise shuffling funding. occur unwilling accept proposition judiciaries lightly treat protection children."). House Ways Means recognizes array situations. appropriateness having immediate child." H.R.Rep. 96-136, Remarks floor intentions. 125 Cong.Rec. 22113 (remarks Rep. Brodhead) ("What bill get enact series past tendency becomes expensive care. Through bill, want free bit you incentive together"); 29939 Sen. Cranston, sponsor ("This reinforced 672] explicit made, addition child"). are: "First, especial enacted, favor plaintiff? indication intent, implicit, deny one? Third, purposes imply finally, traditionally relegated area basically concern inappropriate infer solely law?" 78, 2088 (internal quotation marks omitted; emphasis original). which—. [and] (15) 671(a). "If finds [required plan,] notify [the] 1396c. "[I]n [an approved] ., reduced determines appropriate. sharp contrast between regulation provision: former, say, factors, latter laundry provide." 1357.15(e) (1991)). emphasize HHS's remark during rulemaking retain 34-35. Neither difference dramatic. difference, reach question, affirmative pursue arising

Category: 8