Document: 448 U.S. 122 100 S.Ct. 2570 65 L.Ed.2d 653 Edward W. MAHER, etc., Petitioner,v.Virginia GAGNE, etc. No. 78-1888. Argued Jan. 9, 1980. Decided June 25, Syllabus Respondent is a recipient of benefits under Connecticut's federally funded Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. She brought this action in Federal District Court 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that AFDC regulations denied her credit for substantial portions actual work-related expenses, thus reducing the level benefits, and such violated Social Security Act Equal Protection Due Process Clauses Fourteenth Amendment. Ultimately, case was settled entered consent decree provided increase standard allowances expenses gave recipients right prove their were excess standard. The then awarded respondent's counsel fee pursuant Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards 1976, 1988, which provides any enforce inter alia, court, its discretion, may allow prevailing party, other than United States, reasonable attorney's as part costs. court held respondent entitled fees because, addition statutory claim, she had alleged constitutional claims sufficiently support federal jurisdiction. Appeals affirmed. Held : 1. Under 1988 district courts' authority award not limited cases 1983 invoked remedy violation or statute providing protection civil equal rights. As holds Maine v. Thiboutot, 1, 2502, 555, applies all types actions, including actions based solely on violations. Thus, even if claim could be characterized arising out violation, would preclude 1988. P. 128-129. 2. fact prevailed through settlement rather litigation does from claiming "prevailing party" within meaning And petitioner's contention did gain sufficient relief considered party without merit view Court's contrary finding, upheld by Appeals. 129-130. 3. barred Eleventh Amendment awarding against State. violations both courts below jurisdiction, issues remained until entered. these circumstances, foreclosed Hutto Finney, 437 678, 98 2565, 57 522. In Hutto, rejected argument general language insufficient remove an barrier, noting "this has never viewed barring awards, suits between States individual litigants." Id., at 695, S.Ct., 2576. Moreover, otherwise present barrier State, Congress clearly acted power 5 removing barrier. 5, pass legislation appropriate Amendment's guarantees, plaintiff prevails wholly statutory, non-civil-rights pendent one are favorably adjudication falls category "appropriate" legislation. Pp. 130-133. 594 F.2d 336, Edmund C. Walsh, Asst. Atty. Gen., Hartford, Conn., petitioner. Joan E. Pilver, respondent. Mr. Justice STEVENS delivered opinion Court. 1 recover costs.1 question presented petition whether assessed state officials after been entry decree, determination plaintiff's rights have violated. 2 Petitioner responsible administration (AFDC), public assistance program.2 working benefits. regulations, amount depends, part, net earnings, defined wages minus certain expenses. 1975 filed complaint Connecticut expenses,3 Her 402(a)(7) Act, 602(a)(7),4 Constitution.5 further authorized 19836 jurisdiction 28 1343.7 3 A few months commenced, while discovery underway, petitioner amended authorize deduction After interval almost year half, still being routinely disallowed. Thereafter, negotiated that, among things, standard.8 parties informally agreed submitted decree. 4 Following adversary hearing, $3,012.19. 455 F.Supp. 1344 (1978). "in every particular," won "substantially originally sought complaint" 1347. also him absence judicial Relying basic policy deciding unnecessarily, reasoning Hagans Lavine, 415 528, 94 1372, 39 577. affirmed, 336 (CA2 1979), holding intended kind situation it do so.9 We granted certiorari consider questions. 444 824, 44, 62 30. 6 * Petitioner's first intend type action, but contention, relies our Chapman Houston Welfare Organization, 441 600, 99 1905, 60 508, there no 1343 over outside categories therefore Act. Characterizing argues fees. 7 Even characterization correct,10 his rejected. decided day, we hold BRENNAN's Thiboutot demonstrates, neither nor legislative history basis importing distinctions made purposes into possesses claim.11 8 find suggestion weaken Nothing conditions full Senate Report expressly stated "for fees, when they vindicate judgment formally obtaining relief." S.Rep. 94-1011, p. (1976), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News pp. 5908, 5912. 9 Nor can accept party. finding familiarity progress pleading, discovery, negotiation stages. That Appeals, see reason validity. See Graver Mfg. Co. Linde Co., 271, 275, 69 535, 537, 93 672. II 10 second regardless Congress' intent, State involving purely claim.12 empower only insofar exercising substantive conferred contends statutes themselves enacted Amendment.13 11 case, need reach claim. For, characterization, allege due process rights, 1342, Although correct trial judge entire dispute decision 12 Attorney General Arkansas overcome State's immunity Amendment, "[t]he litigants."14 acting guarantees person who actually decided. agree enforcement allowing adjudication.15 pointed out, "furthers Congressional goal encouraging undermining longstanding avoiding unnecessary important issues." F.2d, 342. It means enforcing Amendment.16 13 14 So ordered. 15 POWELL, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST join, concurring judgment, Part opinion. 16 Respondent's parties, ruled "substantial" 577 (1974). 17 situation, Second Circuit found, require merits claims. I conclusion. Consequently, opinion, apply today's ruling 555. ante, plaintiffs win bring whatever. For reasons given my dissenting believe seriously misconceives congressional purpose behind 1983. however, included "remained decree." Ante, 131. Since plain intent "prevailing" 132-133, n.15, occasion look agreement evaluate cause action. 18 contrast, resolves narrow ground 522 (1978), since qualify States' Enforcement Clause authorizes awards circumstances. should deemed qualified explicit evidence intent. supra, 704, 2581 (POWELL, J., part). Nevertheless, binding precedent note reserved "whether claim." 130. 90 Stat. 2641, provides: "In proceeding provision sections 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981 Revised Statutes, title IX Public Law 92-318, proceeding, behalf America, enforce, charging of, Internal Revenue Code, VI 1964, costs." This codified 1988; codification 1979 Statutes renumbered refer Title Code. predecessor office, Nicholas Norton, Commissioner Connecticut. position changed "Commissioner Income Maintenance." shall simply "petitioner." Department Services Manual enumerated deducted; amounts allowed lunches automobile transportation 50 cents per day mile respectively. App. 66. 13.9 meal amounted $1.65 day. 8. requires take consideration "any reasonably attributable earning . income." Shea Vialpando, 416 251, 1746, 40 120, participating place arbitrary limits claimed recipients. use standardized sake administrative convenience, must give opportunity demonstrate exceed alleged: "28. Defendants' practice constitute invidious discrimination persons whose set forth Index 332.31 violate Constitution forbidding class represents ever controverting presumption exceeding food reasonable. "32. that: "a) establish irrebutable [sic] lunch unreasonable operate deny fair rebut it. "b) contained developed statistically averaging, reflect current prices." 9-10. "Every person, who, color statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, usage, Territory, subjects causes subjected, citizen thereof deprivation privileges, immunities secured laws, liable injured law, suit equity, proper redress." §§ 1343(3) (4) provide follows: "The original law commenced person: "(3) To redress deprivation, custom usage right, privilege citizens States; "(4) damages secure equitable vote." customary, purport adjudicate Rather, explicitly "[n]othing Consent Decree admission fault either action." 76. two grounds. First, because ancillary imposition prospective Edelman Jordan, 651, 1347, 662. Second, apply, assessment Amendment: contends, override sovereign extends On view, cannot validly meritorious disagree. think long arises same operative facts. Such furthers issues. understand Supreme decisions, implementing overrides see, e. g., Fitzpatrick Bitzer, 427 445, 453, 456, 96 2666, 2670, 2671, 49 614; Katzenbach Morgan, 384 641, 648-650, 86 1717, 1722-1723, 828 (1966). authorization attorneys' standards above way achieve competing goals described above." (Emphasis original.) 342-343. ignores found circumstances reached opposite result Thiboutot. infra. jurisdictional issue Chapman, 1343, specifically alleges "providing rights" "civil rights." Inasmuch create all, merely statutes, fall Therefore, automatically whenever files claim; rather, underlying allegedly determine statute. Section contain like 1343. "[i]n [§ 1983]." reference "to enforce" somewhat imprecise light itself makes perfectly clear remedy. U.S., 9-10, 2506-2507. Judicial construed extend prosecuted Citizens another Subjects Foreign State." before involved n.7, 2506, n.7. legislation, provisions article." Referring General, said: "[H]e indications enough. enact express making wishes abrogate immunity. points sometimes refused impose retroactive liability extraordinarily mandate. Employees Missouri Health Dept., 411 279, 1614, 36 251; But concern prelitigation conduct incurred seeking relief. imposes 'as costs.' Costs traditionally regard costs goes back 1849 Iowa, How. 660, 681, L.Ed. 861; North Dakota Minnesota, 263 583, 44 208, 68 461 (collecting cases). litigants. Fairmont Creamery 275 70, 48 97, 72 168, challenged costs, squarely Far requiring abrogation immunity, relied mandate entirely silent liability. make supported 'the inherent orderly justice litigant.' 74, 99. court's interest orderly, expeditious proceedings 'justifies [it] treating just litigant imposing upon it' called for. 77, 100. "Just treat assesses so amend definition taxable litigants, stating intends absurd litigants filing fee, new item, expert witness' added 695-697, 2575-2577 (footnotes omitted). where involved, Committee Judiciary House Representatives accompanying H.R. 15460, bill substantially identical finally enacted, stated: "To extent joins 15460 attorney plaintiff, non-fee Morales Haines, 486 880 (7th Cir. 1973). some instances, involve reluctant resolve non-constitutional dispositive. cases, meets 'substantiality' test, supra; Mine Workers Gibbs, 383 715, 1130, 218 (1966), though declines enter 'common nucleus fact.' 725, 1138." H.R.Rep. 94-1558, 4, n.7 (1976). seeks distinguish Finney violation. However, noted dissent, 717-718, 2588, predicated Eighth applicable itself. prisoners' arguably more analogous asserted here 614.

Category: 5