Edelman v. Jordan
Encyclopedia
Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974), was a United States Supreme Court
case that held that, because of the sovereign immunity
recognized in the Eleventh Amendment
, a federal court
could not order a State
to pay back funds unconstitutionally withheld from parties to whom they were due.
, John Jordan, in a class action suit, sued Illinois officials who administered federal-state of Aid to the Aged, Blind, or Disabled (AABD). Jordan alleged that the program monies had been administered in a way that violated both federal laws and the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, Jordan claimed that the Illinois administrators were applying their own guidelines which ignored federally mandated time limits, thereby not getting aid to applicants fast enough. The federal law required that applicants who qualify receive aid within 30 or 45 days, depending on their condition, but the Illinois agency was taking up to four months to disburse aid - and when such aid was distributed, it was not paid retroactively to the time when the state should have started paying it according to the federal guidelines.
Jordan sought relief including a positive injunction to require the State to award him and others in his position the aid that they had missed because of the lateness in processing the applications. The United States District Court
found the Illinois guidelines to be inconsistent with the federal statute, and ordered Illinois to follow the federal guidelines, and to release to the aid applicants all funds "wrongfully withheld". The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
affirmed, and the case was taken to the Supreme Court, with agency director Joel Edelmen named as the party representing the state of Illinois.
, the Eleventh Amendment had been held to recognize the sovereign immunity of states from suits by their citizens. However, the 1908 case of Ex parte Young
had allowed an exception, that citizens could seek injunctive relief against state officials to stop them from carrying out unconstitutional state policies.
In this case, the Supreme Court would have to examine whether a federal court
can require a state to restore money wrongfully withheld from citizens by the state, if the order to restore the funds is in the form of an injunction requiring the state to stop its wrongful possession of those funds.
concluded that private litigants could not avoid the bar of state sovereign immunity by manipulating the doctrine of Ex parte Young
. No case examining state sovereign immunity had held that states could be required to repay funds that had wrongfully been withheld. In almost all those cases that had permitted retrospective recovery against the States, the State had not raised the issue of state sovereign immunity; the Court additionally overruled any cases in which the State had raised the issue and lost.
The Court distinguished the payment that had been ordered in this case from expenses that a State might incidentally incur after an injunction is issued in order to comply; the costs of post-judgment compliance are ancillary, whereas the costs of making up for pre-judgment non-compliance were more like an award of damages to the plaintiff. Noting that there were no precedents squarely on point, the Court expressed disapproval of those precedents that hinted at allowing restoration of funds previously withheld.
The Court also brushed aside an alternative theory raised by the Court of Appeals, that Illinois had waived its immunity by participating in this federal program. Previous cases finding such a waiver had involved express language in the Congressional statute conditioning program funds on such a waiver - but in this statute, there was no such language. The Court refused to find that participation in the program constituted "constructive consent", instead declaring that consent to waive immunity from suit would only be found "by the most express language or by such overwhelming implications from the text as will leave no room for any other reasonable construction."
The majority also rejected Justice Marshall
's suggestion that plaintiffs could recover under the civil rights
statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, noting that nothing in that statute suggested that Congress had intended to abrogate state sovereign immunity through its passage. Finally, the Court found that it was not improper to consider the state sovereign immunity issue even though the state had not raised it in the trial court, because the state sovereign immunity is a jurisdiction
al bar, which may be raised at any time.
, Justice Brennan
, and Justice Marshall
each dissented from the opinion of the Court.
s to recover for civil rights violations, also abrogated the immunity of the states, permitting a recovery from the state treasury where the rights of a citizen have been violated by an official of the state.
sovereign immunity, which Brennan asserts was surrendered by the states at the time they agreed to join into the United States.
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
case that held that, because of the sovereign immunity
Sovereign immunity
Sovereign immunity, or crown immunity, is a legal doctrine by which the sovereign or state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution....
recognized in the Eleventh Amendment
Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was passed by the Congress on March 4, 1794, and was ratified on February 7, 1795, deals with each state's sovereign immunity. This amendment was adopted in order to overrule the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Chisholm v...
, a federal court
United States federal courts
The United States federal courts make up the judiciary branch of federal government of the United States organized under the United States Constitution and laws of the federal government.-Categories:...
could not order a State
U.S. state
A U.S. state is any one of the 50 federated states of the United States of America that share sovereignty with the federal government. Because of this shared sovereignty, an American is a citizen both of the federal entity and of his or her state of domicile. Four states use the official title of...
to pay back funds unconstitutionally withheld from parties to whom they were due.
Facts
The PlaintiffPlaintiff
A plaintiff , also known as a claimant or complainant, is the term used in some jurisdictions for the party who initiates a lawsuit before a court...
, John Jordan, in a class action suit, sued Illinois officials who administered federal-state of Aid to the Aged, Blind, or Disabled (AABD). Jordan alleged that the program monies had been administered in a way that violated both federal laws and the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, Jordan claimed that the Illinois administrators were applying their own guidelines which ignored federally mandated time limits, thereby not getting aid to applicants fast enough. The federal law required that applicants who qualify receive aid within 30 or 45 days, depending on their condition, but the Illinois agency was taking up to four months to disburse aid - and when such aid was distributed, it was not paid retroactively to the time when the state should have started paying it according to the federal guidelines.
Jordan sought relief including a positive injunction to require the State to award him and others in his position the aid that they had missed because of the lateness in processing the applications. The United States District Court
United States district court
The United States district courts are the general trial courts of the United States federal court system. Both civil and criminal cases are filed in the district court, which is a court of law, equity, and admiralty. There is a United States bankruptcy court associated with each United States...
found the Illinois guidelines to be inconsistent with the federal statute, and ordered Illinois to follow the federal guidelines, and to release to the aid applicants all funds "wrongfully withheld". The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the courts in the following districts:* Central District of Illinois* Northern District of Illinois...
affirmed, and the case was taken to the Supreme Court, with agency director Joel Edelmen named as the party representing the state of Illinois.
Issue
Since the 1890 decision in Hans v. LouisianaHans v. Louisiana
Hans v. Louisiana, , was a decision of the United States Supreme Court determining that the Eleventh Amendment prohibits the citizen of a U.S. state to sue that state in a federal court.-Facts:The plaintiff, Hans, was a citizen of the state of Louisiana...
, the Eleventh Amendment had been held to recognize the sovereign immunity of states from suits by their citizens. However, the 1908 case of Ex parte Young
Ex parte Young
Ex parte Young, , is a United States Supreme Court case that allows suits in federal courts against officials acting on behalf of states of the union to proceed despite the State's Sovereign immunity, when the State acted unconstitutionally.-Facts:...
had allowed an exception, that citizens could seek injunctive relief against state officials to stop them from carrying out unconstitutional state policies.
In this case, the Supreme Court would have to examine whether a federal court
United States federal courts
The United States federal courts make up the judiciary branch of federal government of the United States organized under the United States Constitution and laws of the federal government.-Categories:...
can require a state to restore money wrongfully withheld from citizens by the state, if the order to restore the funds is in the form of an injunction requiring the state to stop its wrongful possession of those funds.
Result
The Court, in an opinion by then-Justice RehnquistWilliam Rehnquist
William Hubbs Rehnquist was an American lawyer, jurist, and political figure who served as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States and later as the 16th Chief Justice of the United States...
concluded that private litigants could not avoid the bar of state sovereign immunity by manipulating the doctrine of Ex parte Young
Ex parte Young
Ex parte Young, , is a United States Supreme Court case that allows suits in federal courts against officials acting on behalf of states of the union to proceed despite the State's Sovereign immunity, when the State acted unconstitutionally.-Facts:...
. No case examining state sovereign immunity had held that states could be required to repay funds that had wrongfully been withheld. In almost all those cases that had permitted retrospective recovery against the States, the State had not raised the issue of state sovereign immunity; the Court additionally overruled any cases in which the State had raised the issue and lost.
The Court distinguished the payment that had been ordered in this case from expenses that a State might incidentally incur after an injunction is issued in order to comply; the costs of post-judgment compliance are ancillary, whereas the costs of making up for pre-judgment non-compliance were more like an award of damages to the plaintiff. Noting that there were no precedents squarely on point, the Court expressed disapproval of those precedents that hinted at allowing restoration of funds previously withheld.
The Court also brushed aside an alternative theory raised by the Court of Appeals, that Illinois had waived its immunity by participating in this federal program. Previous cases finding such a waiver had involved express language in the Congressional statute conditioning program funds on such a waiver - but in this statute, there was no such language. The Court refused to find that participation in the program constituted "constructive consent", instead declaring that consent to waive immunity from suit would only be found "by the most express language or by such overwhelming implications from the text as will leave no room for any other reasonable construction."
The majority also rejected Justice Marshall
Thurgood Marshall
Thurgood Marshall was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, serving from October 1967 until October 1991...
's suggestion that plaintiffs could recover under the civil rights
Civil rights
Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals' freedom from unwarranted infringement by governments and private organizations, and ensure one's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression.Civil rights include...
statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, noting that nothing in that statute suggested that Congress had intended to abrogate state sovereign immunity through its passage. Finally, the Court found that it was not improper to consider the state sovereign immunity issue even though the state had not raised it in the trial court, because the state sovereign immunity is a jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction is the practical authority granted to a formally constituted legal body or to a political leader to deal with and make pronouncements on legal matters and, by implication, to administer justice within a defined area of responsibility...
al bar, which may be raised at any time.
Dissents
Justice DouglasWilliam O. Douglas
William Orville Douglas was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. With a term lasting 36 years and 209 days, he is the longest-serving justice in the history of the Supreme Court...
, Justice Brennan
William J. Brennan, Jr.
William Joseph Brennan, Jr. was an American jurist who served as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court from 1956 to 1990...
, and Justice Marshall
Thurgood Marshall
Thurgood Marshall was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, serving from October 1967 until October 1991...
each dissented from the opinion of the Court.
Dissent of Justice Douglas
Justice Douglas asserted that there should be no distinction made between prospective relief and retrospective relief, as the drain on the state's treasury is the same in either case. He also strongly contended that Illinois had waived its immunity by entering the federal program, because the Court had recently found other states to have waived immunity by joining similar programs. Therefore, Douglas reasoned that Illinois had to have been aware of the possibility that entering the program would waive its own immunity, and its decision to participate in light of that danger showed a willingness to be held liable.Dissent of Justice Marshall
Justice Marshall argued that 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which permits parties to sue state actorState actor
In United States law, a state actor is a person who is acting on behalf of a governmental body, and is therefore subject to regulation under the United States Bill of Rights, including the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which prohibit the federal and state governments from violating...
s to recover for civil rights violations, also abrogated the immunity of the states, permitting a recovery from the state treasury where the rights of a citizen have been violated by an official of the state.
Dissent of Justice Brennan
Justice Brennan's opinion did not reach any of the questions on the limitations of sovereign immunity, or waiver thereof, that were considered by both the Court and the other dissents. Instead, Brennan argued that the Eleventh Amendment does not immunize states from being sued by their citizens at all. His position is that there is no question of what the purported immunity covers, or whether it can be waived, because there is no immunity. He notes that the Eleventh Amendment, by its language, only bars suits against a state by citizens of other states. This leaves common lawCommon law
Common law is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive branch action...
sovereign immunity, which Brennan asserts was surrendered by the states at the time they agreed to join into the United States.