Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Alexander v. Britt
No. 95-2412 (4th Cir. filed Oct. 2, 1995) ; Clearinghouse Number: 13475
Description
District Court's Refusal to Terminate Four-Year-Old Consent Order in Class Action Challenging Untimely Processing of Aid Applications Is Affirmed
Abstract
Affirming, the Fourth Circuit has refused to terminate the consent
order in this class action challenging defendant state
officials’ administration of the AFDC and Medicaid programs
in North Carolina. Under the 1992 consent decree, defendants agreed
to bring all local social service departments into compliance with
the federal requirements for timely processing of AFDC and Medicaid
applications. The consent order’s requirements were phased in
beginning in August 1992, and under a “sunset
provision” the parties agreed that the district court would
retain jurisdiction until August 1998. In August 1994, defendants
moved to modify the consent order; they asserted that
"unforeseen factual conditions resulting in unanticipated
consequences" had made implementation and compliance with the
order "onerous and unworkable." In March 1995, pending a
ruling on their motion to modify, defendants’ second motion
to terminate was denied by the district court. The court of appeals
held that defendants did not meet the standard articulated in Board
of Education of Oklahoma City Public Schools v. Dowell, 498 U.S.
237 (1991), because they had not complied with the consent decree
for a reasonable period of time; the consent decree had been in
full effect for only a little more than a year when defendants
moved to terminate it. Moreover, the parties' agreement to the
six-year sunset provision merited consideration because the parties
were the most knowledgeable about how much time was reasonable to
determine whether the decree had had its desired effect.
Additional Information
Files
No files available.
