Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

tortdamagesappealmotionwilldue processrespondent
tortdamagesappealwilldue process

Related Cases

Stadler v. Cross, 295 N.W.2d 552
View Case »
Wells v. Knight, Not Reported in So.3d, 2009 WL 4981903, 2009-0705 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/23/09)
View Case »
In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298, 207 P.3d 20, 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 559, 09 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5993, 2009 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7059
View Case »
Ayala v. Washington, 679 A.2d 1057
View Case »
Thompson v. Johnson, 299 Neb. 819, 910 N.W.2d 800, 354 Ed. Law Rep. 540, 2018 IER Cases 158,799
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412, 108 S.Ct. 2460, 101 L.Ed.2d 370, 56 USLW 4767, 22 Soc.Sec.Rep.Serv. 3, Unempl.Ins.Rep. (CCH) P 17,999

Facts

In 1980, Congress enacted legislation requiring that most disability determinations under Title II of the Social Security Act be reviewed at least once every three years. The continuing disability review (CDR) program led to frequent improper terminations of benefits by state agencies, prompting Congress to enact reform legislation in 1983 and 1984 to ensure benefits continued during administrative appeals. Respondents, whose benefits were improperly terminated in 1981 and 1982 but later restored, filed suit against government officials, alleging due process violations and seeking money damages for emotional distress and loss of necessities.

In 1980, Congress enacted legislation requiring that most disability determinations under Title II of the Social Security Act be reviewed at least once every three years. The continuing disability review (CDR) program led to frequent improper terminations of benefits by state agencies, prompting Congress to enact reform legislation in 1983 and 1984 to ensure benefits continued during administrative appeals.

Issue

Whether a Bivens remedy should be implied for alleged due process violations in the denial of social security disability benefits.

Whether a Bivens remedy should be implied for alleged due process violations in the denial of social security disability benefits.

Rule

A money damages remedy against federal officials for constitutional torts will not be devised by the courts where 'special factors counsel hesitation in the absence of affirmative action by Congress.'

A money damages remedy against federal officials for constitutional torts will not be devised by the courts where 'special factors counsel hesitation in the absence of affirmative action by Congress.'

Analysis

The Court determined that the elaborate remedial scheme devised by Congress for the CDR program did not include a money damages remedy against officials responsible for unconstitutional conduct. The Court emphasized that Congress had frequently addressed issues related to the CDR program and had chosen not to provide for damages, indicating a deliberate decision regarding the balance between governmental efficiency and individual rights.

The Court determined that the elaborate remedial scheme devised by Congress for the CDR program did not include a money damages remedy against officials responsible for unconstitutional conduct.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision, concluding that the improper denial of Social Security disability benefits did not give rise to a cause of action for money damages against the government officials involved.

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision, concluding that the improper denial of Social Security disability benefits did not give rise to a cause of action for money damages against the government officials involved.

Who won?

The government officials prevailed in the case because the Supreme Court found that the statutory scheme did not provide for money damages, reflecting Congress's intent to limit remedies available to claimants.

The government officials prevailed in the case because the Supreme Court found that the statutory scheme did not provide for money damages, reflecting Congress's intent to limit remedies available to claimants.

You must be