Court Opinion

ID: 9498892
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 17:31:11.464854+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:59:08.404107
License: Public Domain

BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit
Judge, concurring in part, dissenting in part, and concurring in the judgment.
I concur in the Court’s analysis in sections I-V. I disagree with the analysis in part VI, where the Court concludes that federal regulations cannot confer individual rights, and I believe that this Court is still bound by our decision in Loschiavo v. City of Dearborn, 33 F.3d 548 (6th Cir.1994) (Martin, J.), holding just the opposite. I would find that the specific regulations at issue in this case, however, do not confer individual rights enforceable under Section 1983, and therefore, concur in the result in part VI.
I.
The majority’s error in part VI is its failure to distinguish between individual rights and private rights of action. See Save Our Valley v. Sound Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 946 (9th Cir.2003) (Berzon, J., dissenting in part). This error leads to the incorrect conclusion that federal regulations may never create rights enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Maj. Op. at 628. The key point is that a “right” is not the same as the ability to enforce that right in court. See Save Our Valley, 335 F.3d at 951 (Berzon, J., dissenting in part) (“Any analysis of the reach of § 1983 must therefore begin with, and not lose sight of, the unexceptional proposition that rights are entirely distinct from any private, affirmative, judicial remedy that may exist for violation or deprivation of those rights.”).
The majority reaches this conclusion by reading too much into Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 121 S.Ct. 1511, 149 L.Ed.2d 517 (2001), which was an implied right of action case. In such a case, the first inquiry is whether the statute confers a right, and second, whether “permitting a private remedy to vindicate that right is consistent with Congress’ intent in enacting the statute.” Save Our Valley, 335 F.3d at 952 (Berzon, J., dissenting in part). Failure on the part of the plaintiffs to identify either the right or the remedy is fatal.1 “Section 1983, in contrast, indisput*630ably does create a right of action.” Id. (emphasis in original). Thus, the primary question in a Section 1983 action is whether there is a federal right Id. at 953 (“So, when a cause of action that otherwise meets the requirements of § 1983 is at issue, our task is simply to determine whether the regulation in question is the type of legal prescript that Congress meant to be enforceable under § 1983.”).
The majority’s reading of Gonzaga is likewise overbroad. Gonzaga “held only that the initial inquiry in § 1983 cases and in implied right of action cases [such as Sandoval] is the same inquiry: whether the law at issue creates an individual right.” Id. at 954. Moreover, the plaintiff in Gonzaga argued that the right he sought to enforce was a statutory right, and therefore, it is no surprise that the Supreme Court stressed Congressional intent. Gonzaga, however, “neither raised nor discussed ... whether a particular type of law can create a right.” Id.
Consequently, neither Sandoval or Gonzaga — which address implied private rights of action and not the issue of whether regulations can create rights — provide a basis for a panel to overrule a prior panel decision of this Court. The majority notes that in Caswell v. City of Detroit Housing Commission, 418 F.3d 615, 619 n. 1 (6th Cir.2005), we stated that “[although a panel of this Court cannot overrule the decision of another panel, we may modify our holdings when an intervening opinion of the United States Supreme Court requires us to do so.” Based on this authority, the panel asserted that Sandoval and Gonzaga “have cabined Loschiavo’s holding.” Id. at 618. I disagree. There was nothing in Sandoval or Gonzaga that required us to overrule our previous decision in Loschiavo, as the majority and all other courts to have reviewed such questions agree, neither case was directly on point. I would continue to adhere to our decision in Loschiavo, and the D.C. Circuit’s holding in Samuels v. District of Columbia, 770 F.2d 184 (D.C.Cir.1985), because of stare decisis and also because it reaches the correct conclusion.
First, regulations have the same characteristics as statutes; they are binding on individuals and the government, and contain the same prospective form and effect as statutes. See Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 301-04, 308, 99 S.Ct. 1705, 60 L.Ed.2d 208 (1979) (holding that a regulation may have “the force and effect of law” if: (1) it enacts substantive rules affecting individual rights and obligations, and is not merely an interpretive rule or general policy statement; (2) Congress has delegated “quasi-legislative” power to the agency; and (3) the regulation is valid, i.e., the agency has followed applicable procedures such as the Administrative Procedure Act). I therefore agree with Judge Berzon, that there is “no reason why valid agency regulations cannot create individual rights and do so independently of specific Congressional intent regarding the rights created.” Id.
This Court and other courts have consistently treated legislative regulations as having the force of law. Loschiavo, 33 F.3d at 551 (noting that “federal regulations have the force of law”); Wachovia Bank v. Watters, 431 F.3d 556, 560 n. 2 (6th Cir.2005) (quoting Fid. Fed. Sav. & *631Loan Ass’n v. de la Cuesta, 458 U.S. 141, 153, 102 S.Ct. 3014, 73 L.Ed.2d 664 (1982) to the effect that “[fjederal regulations have no less pre-emptive effect than federal statutes”)2; see also United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 243, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005) (citing Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 109 S.Ct. 647, 102 L.Ed.2d 714 (1989) and noting that the Sentencing Commission “was more properly thought of as exercising some sort of legislative power” delegated to it by Congress); Save Our Valley, 335 F.3d at 955 (Berzon, J., dissenting in part) (“Regulations thus have the same form and same effect, and are based on the same types of considerations, as statutes.”). And, Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was “intended to provide a remedy, to be broadly construed, against all forms of official violation of federally protected rights.” Monell v. New York City Dept, of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 700-701, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978) (emphasis added). For these reasons, there is no difference between a regulation and a statute that would justify the majority’s conclusion in part VI that regulations cannot independently create rights.
Second, the idea that federal regulations cannot create rights “flies in the face of seventy years of administrative law jurisprudence.” Save Our Valley, 335 F.3d at 954 (Berzon, J., dissenting in part). This conclusion is overly formalistic and simply ignores the dynamic that exists between Congress and administrative agencies in the modern world. The Supreme Court has “almost never felt qualified to second-guess Congress regarding the permissible degree of policy judgment that can be left to those executing or applying the law.” Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass’n, Inc., 531 U.S. 457, 474-75, 121 S.Ct. 903, 149 L.Ed.2d 1 (2001) (quoting Mistretta, 488 U.S. at 416, 109 S.Ct. 647 (Scalia, J., dissenting)). In reality, the Supreme Court has permitted Congress tremendously broad authority to delegate legislative power to administrative agencies and these agencies do more than merely interpret that delegation. See Mistretta, 488 U.S. at 372, 109 S.Ct. 647 (noting that “our jurisprudence has been driven by a practical understanding that in our increasingly complex society, replete with ever changing and more technical problems, Congress simply cannot do its job absent an ability to delegate power under broad general directives”); Loving v. United States, 517 U.S. 748, 758, 116 S.Ct. 1737, 135 L.Ed.2d 36 (1996) (“This Court established long ago that Congress must be permitted to delegate to others at least some authority that it could exercise itself.”).
Consequently, “Congress may choose not to legislate specifically in a particular area but instead leave it to the agency to fill out the area with regulations.” Save Our Valley, 335 F.3d at 958 (Berzon, J., dissenting in part) (citing Chevron, U.S.A, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843-44, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984)). When this situation occurs, the administrative agency acts much like a legislature. Id. Regardless of whether a regulation merely defines or fleshes out an already explicit statutory right or enacts a valid regulation that creates the right within the power delegated by Congress, I see nothing that would preclude using the remedy of Section 1983 to enforce that right. The distinction the majority and other courts have drawn be*632tween regulations and statutes is, for purposes of determining whether a right exists, more illusory than real. I agree with Judge Berzon’s assessment that
just as regulations may create new obligations, not specifically intended by Congress, within the sphere properly delegated to the promulgating agency, I can see nothing in the administrative law principles governing legislative regulations that precludes promulgation of the particular form of rules that we describe as creating “rights.” Such rights-creating regulations, like other valid legislative regulations, have the force and effect of laws and are binding on individuals regulated, the courts and the agency itself.
Id. at 959 (Berzon, J., dissenting in part). For “regulations, if valid and reasonable, authoritatively construe the statute itself.” Sandoval, 532 U.S. at 284, 121 S.Ct. 1511. Furthermore, the question of whether “regulations alone” may create a federal right is itself misleading. Regulations do not exist “alone” and of their own accord. To be a valid exercise of federal executive power, the regulation must be based on some permissible interpretation of con-gressionally delegated authority. Thus, the question is whether valid regulations, having the force and effect of law, can satisfy the Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329, 117 S.Ct. 1353, 137 L.Ed.2d 569 (1997) test when the less specific statute by itself may not. It seems odd to conclude that valid regulations — -that is, regulations enacted pursuant to congressionally delegated authority — cannot function as Congress so delegated. To conclude that rights cannot be created by valid regulations implicitly (and wrongly) concludes that valid regulations are somehow not truly valid interpretations of Congress’s intent. Thus, I would conclude that regulations have the same force of law and effect as statutes and therefore, may, just as statutes may, create rights enforceable under the remedy of Section 1983.
II.
The inquiry under Blessing and Gonza-ga is equally applicable for determining whether language in a regulation creates a right. If we were to conclude that the regulations at issue in this case create a right, then they would be enforceable under Section 1983. This is contrary to the majority’s conclusion that regulations can never create a right. In this case, however, I would conclude that the regulations at issue do not create a right. Finding no right, there is nothing to enforce under Section 1983. Therefore, with respect to these regulations, I agree with the result reached by the majority.

. The Supreme Court focused on this question in Sandoval — that is, whether a private remedy to enforce the right was intended by Congress. The Court did not address the first question as to whether the regulation independently created a right. Having concluded that Congress did not intend a private remedy, the natural conclusion was that the regulations themselves could not themselves create such a remedy. Finding no private remedy, of course, does not mean that the Court found no individual right. As Judge Berzon noted in her dissenting opinion in Save Our Valley, it was "in this context that the Court wrote that: 'Language in a regulation may invoke a private right of action that Congress through statutory text created, but it may not create a right that Congress has not ... [I]t is most certainly incorrect to say that language in a regulation can conjure up a private cause of action that has not been authorized by Congress. Agencies may play the sorcerer’s ap*630prentice, but not the sorcerer himself.' ” 335 F.3d at 953 (Berzon, J., dissenting in part) (quoting Sandoval, 532 U.S. at 291, 121 S.Ct. 1511). The Court’s sorcerer analogy was not addressing whether a regulation can independently create a right. "In other words, only Congress may provide access to the federal courts, and thus only Congressional intent is relevant in determining whether to imply a right of action,” but "[t]he special separation of powers concerns underlying Sandoval do not apply in a § 1983 case.” Id.

. Additionally, agencies preempt state law by enacting regulations "necessary to ensure the achievement of the (agency’s) statutory responsibilities," regardless of whether the agency’s authorizing statute explicitly gives the agency the power to preempt conflicting state laws. Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp, 467 U.S. 691, 699-700, 104 S.Ct. 2694, 81 L.Ed.2d 580 (1984) (citation omitted).