Legal Document

430 U.S. 99 97 Supreme Court Reporter 980 51 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 192 Joseph Atlantic CALIFANO, Jr., Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, Petitioner,v.Mister SANDERS. Number 75-1443. Argued Jan. 11, 12, 1977. Decided Feb. 23, Syllabus 1. Section 10 the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), providing generally for judicial review actions federal administrative agencies by persons aggrieved such actions, does not afford an implied grant to district courts subject-matter jurisdiction a decision Welfare reopen previously adjudicated claim social security benefits. An interpretation in favor is suggested neither text nor history APA, would effectively override Congress' recent expand under 28 Code KF62 § 1331(a) eliminating amount-in-controversy requirement as prerequisite maintaining federal-question against or officers employees thereof, while retaining 205(h) Social Security limitation jurisdiction. Pp. 104-107. 2. Nor 205(g) Act, which provides that any individual after "final made hearing" he was party, irrespective amount controversy, may obtain civil action commenced within 60 days, authorize Secretary's decision, absent constitutional challenge. A petition prior final be denied without 205(b) hearing, whereas limited "made hearing"; moreover, allow frustrate congressional purpose, evidenced 205(g), impose 60-day upon decision. 107-109. 522 Federal Reporter, 2nd 1167, reversed. Maurice Rosenberg, New York City, petitioner. William Kowalski, Scherville, Ind., respondent. Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered opinion Court. 1 The questions are (1) whether 5 §§ 701-706,1 independent benefits (2), if not, Act2 authorizes 2 * Title II disability claimant who demonstrates suffers physical mental meaning arose expiration his insured status. 42 416(i), 423. process begun when files with Administration. 20 Regulations 404.905-404.907 (1976). If administratively denied, regulations permit reconsideration six-month period. 404.909-404.915. Should request prove unsuccessful, may, ask evidentiary hearing before law judge, 405(b) (1970 ed., Supp. V), discretionary appeal from adverse determination judge lies Appeals Council. 404.945-404.947 Finally 405(g), "any (the claimant) party . ." 3 thus create orderly mechanism, court Secretary, assist original processing more than 7,600,000 claims filed annually See Administration, Year Review Administration Programs 1975, Page 54 By regulation, however, scheme additional consideration claim. This form reopening agency specified time limits date initial 12 months matter right four years "upon finding good cause," exists new material evidence provided specific errors discovered. 404.957(a), (b), 404.958 Moreover, "(a)t time" purpose correcting clerical on face relevant evidence. 404.957(c)(8). 4 On January 30, 1964, respondent payments insurance benefits, alleging inability work because epilepsy blackout spells. proceeded through several steps procedures. Law Judge found ineligible ground had demonstrated sufficient severity. Council, June 1966, sustained this did pursue 205(g). Almost seven later, March 5, 1973, second same bases eligibility. His again processed channels regulations. viewed application barred res judicata, see 404.937 (1976), but also treated requiring "whether entitled have reopened App. 33-34. Concluding respondent's "merely rep(e)titio(u)s cumulative," id., at 35, no evidence, ibid., dismissed 6 Respondent thereupon District Northern Indiana, challenging reopen, resting 405(g). complaint stated its unpublished memorandum "this consider subject suit." Pet. Certiorari 13a-14a. Seventh Circuit Sanders versus Weinberger, 1167 (1975). agreed refusal proceeding abuse discretion authorized Act. Id., 1169. held, 205(h)3 limit those methods "expressly authorize(d)" itself. Therefore, concluded "contains jurisdiction, regard controversy", afforded complaint. F.2d, We granted certiorari, sub nom. Mathews Sanders, 426 905, 96 2225, 48 829 reverse. 7 (1, 2) acknowledged construction APA contrary conclusion reached other Courts Appeals. conflict understandable. None codified statutory sections constitute phrased like usual proceed courts. hand, statute undoubtedly evinces intention understanding should widely available challenge officials. Consequently, courts4 commentators5 sharply divided over read provide distinct basis actions. Three decisions arguably assumed, little discussion, Citizens Preserve Overton Park Volpe, 401 402, 410, 91 814, 820, 136 (1971); Abbott Laboratories Gardner, 387 136, 141, 87 1507, 1511, 18 681 (1967); Rusk Cort, 369 367, 372, 82 787, 790, 809 (1962). However, Congress enacted since our certiorari case now persuades us better view interpreted 8 October 21, 1976, Public 94-574, 90 Statutes-at-Large 2721, amends eliminate controversy maintenance (§ 1331) brought States, officer employee thereof official capacity." obvious effect modification, only preclusion-of-review statutes created retained Congress, confer action, regardless own force serve jurisdictional predicate. conclude amendment largely undercuts rationale interpreting provision. 9 As noted previously, actual nowhere contains explicit courts.6 Furthermore, even advocates acknowledge there concluding enacting actually conceived terms. See, e. g., Byse & Fiocca, supra, n. 328. Thus, argument rests exclusively broad policy that, given shortcomings mandamus warranted rational affording officials acting pursuant law, notwithstanding absence requisite amount. 330-331; Jaffe, 165. do find compelling light apparent 1976 restructure afresh scope In amending 1331, obviously has expressly acted fill void pre-existing requirement. qualified, retention preclusive arise Read together, expansion coupled 205(h), apparently expresses desired contours action. reading instance modify enactment overriding 1331 preservation 205(h). Squarely faced question first time, entry into area counsels designed solely interstitial gap particularly so speaks reading, redefining appears envisioned playing stopgap role.7 11 permitting B (3) contends above, itself, specifically construed All considered contention rejected it.8 agree cannot alleged abuses refusing pertinent part provides: 13 "Any individual, sixty days .." (Emphasis supplied.) 14 provision clearly particular type hearing". But 205(b), V); Cappadora Celebrezze, 356 1, (CA2 1966); Ortego 516 1005, 1007 (CA5 1975). Indeed, opportunity convened determine propriety simply filing being plainly 404.951 denying choice forestall repetitive belated litigation stale eligibility claims. Our duty, course, respect choice. 15 (4) argues, Weinberger Salfi, 422 749, 95 2457, 45 (1975), Eldridge, 424 319, 893, 47 agree. It true both cases deny discontinue hearing. instances, claimants challenged grounds. Constitutional unsuited resolution procedures and, therefore, access essential questions. precluded 761, 2464, Salfi Eldridge closed forum adjudication colorable Thus merely adhered well-established principle issue, availability presumed, we will take "extraordinary" step foreclosing unless intent manifested " 'clear convincing' U.S., 762, S.Ct., 2465; Johnson Robison, 415 361, 366-67, 94 1160, 1165-66, 39 389 (1974). 16 one rare instances where denial seeks establish satisfies Act's standards case. 17 Reversed. STEVENS took 19 STEWART, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins, concurring judgment. N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions seek arrive conclusion, somewhat shorter route. 21 405(h), states full: 22 "The findings shall binding all individuals were parties No fact reviewed person, tribunal, governmental except herein provided. et seq. ) recover arising subchapter." 23 clear "findin(g) Secretary." inescapable, it, "be provided" is, review. Although literal language unfailing guide enactment, can reason why sentence mean exactly what it says reviewable all. 24 Court's 522, supports held two sentences "prevent save (2)05(g)." 757, 2463. principally concerned assertion plaintiffs there, relied 701-706. Brief Appellants 13, Appellees 42, 7, O.T. 1974, 74-214. Yet ruled could "(o)ther sources (were) foreclosed (2)05(h)." 764, 2466.* 25 general confers For does, unequivocally others position whatever And today explains, ante, 107-109, latter Sanders. 26 Accordingly, concur provisions 10, 701-704, following: "§ 701. Application; definitions. "(a) chapter applies, according extent "(1) preclude review; "(2) committed law." 702. Right "A person suffering legal wrong adversely affected statute, thereof." 703. Form venue proceeding. special or, inadequacy applicable including declaratory judgments writs prohibitory mandatory injunction habeas corpus, competent Except prior, adequate, exclusive criminal proceedings enforcement." (Sections 702 703 amended respects discussed infra, 105-107, insofar modifies 1331.) 704. Actions reviewable. "Agency adequate remedy preliminary, procedural, intermediate ruling directly otherwise required purposes section been presented determined order, reconsiderations, requires rule meanwhile inoperative, superior authority." 49 620, added amended, part: mailing him notice further allow. require exhaustion procedures, foreclose route 2463, First, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, Columbia Circuits Bradley 483 410 (CA1 1973); Deering Milliken, Incorporated Johnston, 295 856 (CA4 1961); 1005 1975); (CA7 1975) (case below); Brandt Hickel, 427 53 (CA9 1970); Brennan Udall, 379 803 (CA10 1967); Pickus Board Parole, 165 U.S.App.D.C. 284, 507 1107 Third, Sixth, Eighth disagree. Zimmerman 326 (CA3 Bramblett Desobry, 490 405 (CA6 1974); Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council Minnesota Tribe, 370 529 (CA8 1967). Second views unsettled. South Windsor Convalescent Home, Mathews, 541 910 Compare, 1361 Mandamus Venue 1962 "Nonstatutory" Judicial Action, 81 Harv.L.Rev. 308 (1967), K. Davis, Treatise 23.02 (Supp.1976), L. Control Action (1965) (all advocating jurisdiction), Cramton, Nonstatutory Action: Need Statutory Reform Sovereign Immunity, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Parties Defendant, 68 Mich.L.Rev. (1970), C. Wright, Miller, E. Cooper, Practice Procedure: Jurisdiction 3568 (1975) (rejecting jurisdiction). makes wronged "is suggests intended foundation, "in statute" jurisdiction." Both these clauses seem look outside authority. best, ambiguous separate argues modification supplementary contemplated remain seems true, legislative believed deletion warranted. Senate Judiciary Committee: "An anomaly prevents certain seeking 'nonstatutory' 'Federal question' These 'arise under' Constitution statutes, committee believes they appropriate matters exercise power monetary involved." S.Rep.No. 94-996, (1976) (emphasis supplied); H.R.Rep.No. 94-1656, (1976); U.S.Code Cong. Admin.News 6121. 4-5 Davis Richardson, 460 772, 775 1972); 1007-1008; Maddox 464 617, 621 Stuckey 488 904, 909 Neighbors 511 80, 1974). treatment remedies, way inconsistent precluding That place confines procedural established bars attempts circumvent having fulfilled requirement, some prescribe must taken.

Classification Label: 8