Pennhurst State School and Hospital et al. v. Halderman et al.
451 U.S. 1 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
If Congress intends to impose a condition on the grant of federal funds to states under its Spending Clause power, it must do so unambiguously so that states can knowingly accept the terms.
Facts:
- The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania owned and operated Pennhurst State School and Hospital, a large institution for the care of the mentally retarded.
- Pennhurst housed approximately 1,200 residents, a majority of whom were severely or profoundly retarded, and many were also physically handicapped.
- About half of the residents were committed to Pennhurst by court order, and the other half by a parent or guardian.
- Terri Lee Halderman, a resident of Pennhurst, alleged that conditions at the facility were unsanitary, inhumane, and dangerous.
- A federal court made undisputed findings of fact that conditions at Pennhurst were dangerous, with residents often physically abused or drugged by staff.
- The court also found that the facility provided inadequate 'habilitation' (education and training) and that the skills of some residents had deteriorated while at Pennhurst.
- Pennsylvania had elected to participate in the Developmentally Disabled Assistance and Bill of Rights Act program, receiving federal funds under the Act.
- Pennhurst itself did not directly receive federal funds from Pennsylvania's allotment under the Act, although it received federal Medicaid funds.
Procedural Posture:
- Terri Lee Halderman, a resident of Pennhurst, sued Pennhurst and various Commonwealth of Pennsylvania officials in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
- The United States and the Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens (PARC), among others, intervened as plaintiffs.
- After a 32-day trial, the District Court found that conditions at Pennhurst violated the Constitution, federal statutes, and state law.
- The District Court issued a remedial order requiring Pennhurst to eventually be closed and for 'community living arrangements' to be provided for its residents.
- The Commonwealth officials (petitioners) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, affirmed the substance of the District Court's order but based its decision on the Developmentally Disabled Assistance and Bill of Rights Act, holding that the Act created an implied private cause of action to enforce a right to treatment in the least restrictive environment.
- The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
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 Section 6010 of the Developmentally Disabled Assistance and Bill of Rights Act, a section setting forth congressional 'findings' regarding the rights of the disabled, create judicially enforceable substantive rights to 'appropriate treatment' in the 'least restrictive environment'?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Rehnquist
No. Section 6010 of the Developmentally Disabled Assistance and Bill of Rights Act does not create any judicially enforceable substantive rights or obligations on participating states. The section is a general statement of federal policy and congressional preference, not a binding condition for the receipt of federal funds. Legislation enacted under the Spending Clause is akin to a contract, and for a state to be bound by its terms, it must knowingly and voluntarily accept them. Therefore, if Congress intends to impose an obligation as a condition of receiving federal money, it must do so unambiguously. Section 6010 lacks such clear conditional language, especially when compared to other sections of the Act that explicitly state certain requirements are a 'condition' of receiving assistance. The legislative history further shows that Congress rejected a more detailed and mandatory version of the 'bill of rights' in favor of the current, more general 'findings' language, indicating an intent to encourage rather than mandate.
Dissenting - Justice White
Yes. Section 6010 was intended by Congress to establish substantive requirements that participating states must meet in providing care to the developmentally disabled. The language of the Act plainly states that disabled persons have a 'right' to appropriate treatment and that the state and federal governments have an 'obligation' to ensure public funds are not used for substandard institutions. Other provisions of the Act, such as § 6063, require a state's plan to contain 'assurances' that the rights described in § 6010 will be protected. This directly links the 'bill of rights' to the conditions for receiving funds. The legislative history, including the Conference Report, confirms that the rights outlined were meant to be 'protected and assured by the Congress and the courts.' To treat § 6010 as merely wishful thinking with no real effect misconstrues the important purposes Congress intended it to serve.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Blackmun
No. While § 6010 alone may not create enforceable rights, it is not meaningless. A reasonable interpretation would recognize the direct link between the rights described in § 6010 and the requirement in § 6063 that a state, as a condition of funding, must submit a plan with 'assurances' that those rights will be protected. Private parties, as the intended beneficiaries of the Act, should have the power to enforce these modest legal assurances, even in a legislative scheme involving federal supervision. To hold otherwise would ascribe no meaning to a congressional enactment and could allow a state to insulate substandard institutions from federal requirements simply by how it allocates its funds.
Analysis:
This decision established the 'clear statement rule' for Spending Clause legislation, significantly impacting federal-state grant programs. The Court clarified that for Congress to impose binding, affirmative obligations on states as a condition of receiving federal funds, it must do so unambiguously in the text of the statute. This ruling limits the ability of courts and private litigants to infer enforceable rights from broad, aspirational policy statements or 'findings' within federal funding statutes. Consequently, future claims based on such statutes must identify specific, clearly articulated conditional language to be successful, reinforcing a contractual view of federalism in the context of federal grants.
