Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Organization
441 U.S. 600 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Federal district court jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343 does not encompass claims that a state welfare regulation is invalid because it conflicts with the Social Security Act. The Social Security Act is not a statute providing for 'equal rights' or 'civil rights' within the meaning of § 1343.
Facts:
- In New Jersey, Julia Gonzalez received monthly AFDC and Social Security disability benefits.
- After cashing her benefit checks, Gonzalez was robbed of the cash.
- She applied for emergency assistance from the Hudson County Welfare Board to cover her rent and utility bills.
- The Board denied her request because she did not meet the state regulation's requirement of being in a 'state of homelessness.'
- In Texas, state regulations reduced the level of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) payments for recipients who shared living quarters with a non-dependent relative.
- This reduction in benefits occurred even if the recipient's level of actual need remained unchanged.
- A class of AFDC recipients affected by this rule challenged the Texas regulations.
Procedural Posture:
- In the first case, Julia Gonzalez sued New Jersey welfare officials in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, which found jurisdiction and granted summary judgment to the officials on the merits.
- Gonzalez, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which held that the district court lacked jurisdiction and should have dismissed the complaint.
- In the second case, AFDC recipients sued Texas officials in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, which upheld the state regulations.
- The recipients, as appellants, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which found jurisdiction under § 1343 and reversed the district court on the merits.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the conflict between the Third and Fifth Circuits on the jurisdictional question.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a federal district court have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343 to hear a claim that a state welfare regulation is invalid because it conflicts with the federal Social Security Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stevens
No. Federal district court jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343 does not extend to claims that state welfare laws are invalid because they conflict with the Social Security Act. To fall within § 1343 jurisdiction, a claim must either be based on the Constitution or an Act of Congress providing for 'equal rights' or 'civil rights.' A simple statutory conflict, resting on the Supremacy Clause, is not a constitutional claim in this context, as that interpretation would render the specific language about 'equal rights' statutes superfluous. Furthermore, while 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a remedy for violations of federal laws, it is a procedural statute that does not create substantive rights and therefore is not itself an act 'providing for equal rights.' Finally, the Social Security Act is a social welfare statute concerned with economic benefits, not a statute 'couched in terms of equality' like the historic civil rights acts, and thus does not qualify as a statute providing for 'equal rights' or 'civil rights.'
Dissenting - Justice Stewart
Yes. Federal district courts have jurisdiction under § 1343(3). The remedial statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is an 'Act of Congress providing for equal rights' within the meaning of the jurisdictional statute, § 1343(3). Section 1983, by its plain language, creates a cause of action for the deprivation of rights secured by the 'Constitution and laws,' which includes the Social Security Act. The majority's decision creates an anomaly where a cause of action exists under § 1983 but cannot be heard in federal court under its jurisdictional counterpart, § 1343(3), despite their common origin. This cramped reading deprives plaintiffs of a federal forum without justification.
Concurring - Justice Powell
No. The District Court lacked jurisdiction. This concurrence agrees with the Court's judgment but argues that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 itself does not provide a cause of action for violations of the Social Security Act. A detailed historical analysis of the 1874 revision of federal statutes reveals that when Congress added the words 'and laws' to the predecessor of § 1983, it was intended only as a shorthand reference to federal laws providing for equal rights, not all federal statutes. Therefore, § 1983 is coextensive with § 1343(3), and since the Social Security Act is not an equal rights law, there is no cause of action under § 1983 in the first place, making the jurisdictional question moot.
Concurring - Justice White
No. The District Court lacked jurisdiction under § 1343(3). This concurrence agrees with the judgment but on different grounds, arguing that § 1983 and § 1343(3) are not coextensive. The plain language of § 1983 ('and laws') is broad and creates a cause of action for the violation of any federal statute, including the Social Security Act. However, the plain language of § 1343(3) ('any Act of Congress providing for equal rights') is narrow and provides jurisdiction only for claims under equal rights statutes. Therefore, while a valid § 1983 cause of action exists for this claim, there is no jurisdiction under § 1343(3), and the case could only be brought in federal court if it met the amount-in-controversy requirement for general federal-question jurisdiction.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrowed federal court access for plaintiffs alleging that state administrative practices violate federal social welfare statutes. It established that the jurisdictional grant in § 1343 is narrower than the cause of action provided by § 1983, creating a 'jurisdictional gap.' Consequently, statutory-based welfare claims without a substantial constitutional component could not use § 1343 to enter federal court, forcing them into state courts or requiring they meet the (then-existing) amount-in-controversy requirement for general federal-question jurisdiction. The case is a landmark in federal courts jurisprudence, illustrating a restrictive interpretation of civil rights jurisdiction and highlighting the distinct analyses required for a cause of action versus subject-matter jurisdiction.
