Schweiker v. Chilicky
487 U.S. 412, 101 L. Ed. 2d 370, 1988 U.S. LEXIS 2872 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A cause of action for money damages against federal officials for constitutional violations is not available where Congress has provided what it considers adequate remedial mechanisms, even if those mechanisms do not provide complete relief for the harm suffered. The existence of a comprehensive statutory scheme constitutes a 'special factor counselling hesitation' that precludes the creation of a judicial remedy.
Facts:
- Spencer Harris, Dora Adelerte, and James Chilicky were recipients of Social Security disability benefits.
- In 1981 and 1982, the federal government initiated a 'continuing disability review' (CDR) program to reevaluate the eligibility of beneficiaries.
- Pursuant to this program, the disability benefits for Harris, Adelerte, and Chilicky were terminated.
- All three individuals were wholly dependent on their benefits and, as a result of the termination, suffered severe financial hardship, including the loss of food, shelter, and medical care.
- Chilicky was recovering from open-heart surgery at the time his benefits were terminated.
- Harris and Adelerte successfully appealed through the administrative process and eventually had their benefits fully restored with retroactive payments.
- Chilicky did not pursue the full administrative appeal but filed a new application for benefits a year and a half later, which was granted with partial retroactive benefits.
Procedural Posture:
- Respondents (Chilicky, Harris, and Adelerte) filed a lawsuit against petitioners (federal and state officials) in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.
- The complaint sought money damages for emotional distress and other hardships, alleging that petitioners' policies violated their due process rights.
- The District Court dismissed the lawsuit on the ground that the officials were protected by qualified immunity.
- Respondents appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, pursuing only their claims for money damages against the officials in their individual capacities.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of certain claims but reversed the dismissal of others, holding that a cause of action for damages could exist for the alleged due process violations and remanded the case for further proceedings.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted the petitioners' 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 improper denial of Social Security disability benefits, allegedly resulting from due process violations by government officials, give rise to a cause of action for money damages against those officials when Congress has created an elaborate remedial scheme that does not provide for such damages?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O'Connor
No. A cause of action for money damages against government officials is not available for the wrongful termination of Social Security benefits when Congress has provided a comprehensive remedial scheme. The Court found that 'special factors counselling hesitation' preclude the creation of a Bivens remedy in this context. The Social Security Act provides an elaborate, multi-step administrative process for reviewing and adjudicating claims, culminating in judicial review. Although this scheme does not provide for consequential damages for emotional distress or other hardships, Congress has given frequent and intense attention to the problems in the system, including enacting multiple reforms. This detailed legislative action indicates that Congress's failure to provide a damages remedy was not inadvertent, and the Court must defer to its judgment in balancing the rights of individuals against governmental efficiency in the complex social welfare system.
Dissenting - Justice Brennan
Yes. A cause of action for money damages should be available because the existing administrative remedies are wholly inadequate. The dissent argued that the statutory scheme, which only provides for retroactive payment of benefits, 'fails miserably to compensate' individuals for the severe trauma and hardship of being illegally stripped of their means of subsistence. Unlike the schemes in Bush v. Lucas and Chappell v. Wallace, the Social Security process is not designed to remedy constitutional wrongs but only to determine eligibility for benefits. The dissent contended that Congress's silence on a damages remedy, particularly during the crisis atmosphere of the 1984 reforms, should not be interpreted as a deliberate choice to preclude one, and that the grievous harm caused by unconstitutional conduct by government officials militates in favor of, not against, a judicial remedy.
Concurring - Justice Stevens
No. While joining the Court's judgment, the concurrence disagreed with the majority's decision to avoid ruling on whether the Social Security Act itself statutorily precluded the lawsuit. Justice Stevens agreed with the dissent's analysis that 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) does not bar a Bivens remedy. However, he ultimately concurred in the judgment, joining the majority's opinion except for its footnote on § 405(h), thereby accepting the 'special factors' analysis as the basis for denying the remedy.
Analysis:
Schweiker v. Chilicky significantly narrowed the availability of Bivens actions, extending the 'special factors' analysis from Bush v. Lucas beyond the federal employment context to any large-scale statutory benefit program. The decision establishes that where Congress has created a detailed and comprehensive remedial scheme, courts will presume that the omission of a damages remedy was a deliberate policy choice, even if the provided remedies are incomplete. This ruling makes it exceptionally difficult to bring a Bivens claim for the deprivation of statutory entitlements, reinforcing judicial deference to Congress in crafting remedies and effectively closing the door on many constitutional tort claims against federal officials.
Unlock the full brief for Schweiker v. Chilicky