Edelman v. Jordan
415 U.S. 651 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution bars federal courts from ordering a state to pay retroactive monetary relief from the state treasury for past violations of federal law. A state's participation in a federal-state cooperative program does not, by itself, constitute a waiver of this sovereign immunity.
Facts:
- The federal government provided funding to states for the Aid to the Aged, Blind, or Disabled (AABD) program under the Social Security Act.
- Federal regulations issued by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) required participating states to make eligibility determinations and begin assistance payments within specified time limits (30-45 days).
- Illinois participated in the AABD program but operated under its own regulations, which often resulted in processing times that exceeded the federal deadlines.
- Illinois's rules also provided that benefits would commence only in the month an application was approved, not for prior months of eligibility as required by federal law.
- John Jordan applied for AABD disability benefits in Illinois.
- Illinois officials failed to act on Jordan's application for nearly four months, well beyond the federally mandated time limit.
- Due to these delays and non-compliant rules, Jordan and a class of other eligible applicants were deprived of benefits for periods during which they were entitled to receive them.
Procedural Posture:
- John Jordan filed a class action complaint against Illinois public aid officials in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
- The District Court declared the Illinois regulations invalid and granted a permanent injunction ordering future compliance with federal timelines.
- The District Court also ordered the state officials to remit all AABD benefits wrongfully withheld from the plaintiff class.
- The state officials, with Edelman as the current Director, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment in its entirety, rejecting the state's argument that the Eleventh Amendment barred the retroactive award.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Edelman's petition for a writ of certiorari.
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 the Eleventh Amendment bar a federal court from ordering state officials to release and remit welfare benefits that they wrongfully withheld in the past?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Rehnquist
Yes. The Eleventh Amendment bars federal courts from ordering state officials to pay retroactive benefits from the state treasury. While Ex parte Young permits federal courts to grant prospective injunctive relief against state officials to compel future compliance with federal law, it does not authorize awards of retroactive monetary relief. A retroactive award is not an 'ancillary' effect of an injunction but is in practical effect indistinguishable from an award of damages against the State itself, which must be paid from public funds. The Court rejected the argument that the relief was 'equitable restitution,' stating that the label does not change the fact that it is a compensatory award for a past breach of a legal duty. Furthermore, a state's mere participation in a federal program is not sufficient to establish that it has constructively waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity; a waiver must be stated by the most express language or by overwhelming implications, which are not present in the Social Security Act.
Dissenting - Justice Douglas
No. The Court's prior summary affirmances in similar welfare cases established that retroactive payments were permissible and not barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The distinction between prospective and retroactive relief is immaterial, as virtually all welfare decisions from federal courts have a financial impact on the state treasury. By choosing to participate in the federal-state welfare program, especially against a background of case law allowing such awards, Illinois effectively waived its immunity from suit for both injunctive relief and compensatory awards that remedy its defaults.
Dissenting - Justice Brennan
No. The Eleventh Amendment only bars suits against a state by citizens of another state; for suits by a state's own citizens, the relevant doctrine is non-constitutional sovereign immunity. States surrendered this immunity 'in the plan of the Convention' when they granted Congress enumerated powers, such as the power to create the AABD program under the Social Security Act. Therefore, Illinois possesses no immunity to waive or assert in this case.
Dissenting - Justice Marshall
No. The Social Security Act creates a voluntary 'scheme of cooperative federalism' in which states, in exchange for federal funds, agree to comply with federal law. By voluntarily participating, Illinois consented to be sued in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to enforce the program's obligations. This consent includes subjecting itself to the full range of traditional judicial remedies, including retroactive payments, which are essential to ensure state compliance and provide complete relief for wrongfully withheld statutory entitlements. Without the remedy of retroactive payments, states have an incentive to defy federal law.
Analysis:
Edelman v. Jordan significantly clarified and limited the doctrine of Ex parte Young by establishing a clear distinction between prospective and retroactive relief against state officials. The decision holds that while federal courts can order states to conform their future conduct to federal law (prospective relief), they cannot award monetary compensation for past violations if the funds would come from the state treasury (retroactive relief). This ruling rejected the theory of 'constructive waiver,' requiring an explicit waiver or clear congressional abrogation for a state to be sued for damages in federal court. The case has had a lasting impact, shaping modern civil rights and public benefits litigation by restricting the remedies available to individuals wronged by state actions.
