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
Ward v. Thomas
207 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. Mar. 24, 2000) ; Clearinghouse Number: 50751
Description
Second Circuit Holds That Eleventh Amendment Bars Federal Court Challenge to Amendment Reducing Benefits from Aid to Families with Dependent Children
Abstract
The Second Circuit held that the Eleventh Amendment barred a
federal court action by a subclass of Aid to Families with
Dependent Children (AFDC) beneficiaries because even though the
subclass framed its relief in prospective terms the relief was
retrospective. A 1995 Connecticut statutory amendment reduced
benefits payable under the former AFDC program to beneficiaries who
also received housing subsidies. In a suit against
defendant-appellant Commissioner of Connecticut Department of
Social Services, a class of AFDC beneficiaries alleged that the
planned reduction was enacted without timely and adequate notice.
Those claims were resolved. Here a subclass of children whose
benefits were reduced under the amendment because they lived with a
nonlegally responsible adult caretaker who received a housing
subsidy sought correction of past underpayments. The district court
would not allow commissioner to impute to the subclass the housing
subsidies received by the children’s nonlegally responsible
caretakers. The Second Circuit found Green v. Mansour, 474
U.S. 64 (1985), controlling. In Green, after Congress
amended relevant law on the calculation of benefits, AFDC
recipients had no remaining claims based on the calculation of
present or future benefits; they were left with a claim for a
declaration that the state’s past conduct violated federal
law and a claim for notice relief. The Supreme Court held that the
Eleventh Amendment barred federal courts from issuing declaratory
or notice relief: although the recipients framed their prayer for
relief in prospective terms, the effect of what they sought would
be retrospective because the state no longer was violating federal
law. Noting that the 1999 welfare act terminated the AFDC program,
the Second Circuit concluded that the Eleventh Amendment barred the
claims of this subclass for the same reasons as in Green.
