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
Legal Servs. of N. Cal. V. Arnett
No. 95-17358 (9th Cir. May 28, 1997) ; Clearinghouse Number: 52212
Description
Legal Services Program That Lost Older Americans Act Grant to Rival Has No Right to Enforce Act’s Provisions Under Section 1983
Abstract
The Ninth Circuit has held that plaintiff legal services provider
was not deprived of federal statutory rights under the Older
Americans Act (OAA) when defendant state agency awarded OAA funds
to a rival applicant. Plaintiff Legal Services of Northern
California (LSNC) alleged that defendant’s decision to deny
LSNC’s application for funding violated the OAA because LSNC
was "best able" to provide legal services to the elderly
and because its proposal included the provision of services to
low-income minority elders "to the maximum extent
feasible." The district court held that the OAA did not create
any enforceable federal rights in unsuccessful applicants for
grants, and LSNC appealed. Rejecting LSNC’s argument that the
scope of intended beneficiaries of the OAA includes potential
service providers who have been rejected from inclusion in the
program, the court of appeals held that Congress intended the OAA
to benefit elders in need of services. The court also rejected
LSNC’s argument that the statutory and regulatory provisions
it sought to enforce under section 1983 provide sufficient guidance
to allow judicial enforcement. The court held that OAA provisions
requiring services to the needy to the "maximum extent
feasible" by the applicant "best able to provide"
them describe obligations to be imposed on the chosen service
providers, not criteria that courts may employ to determine as a
matter of law which applicant for a grant is "best."
Finally, the court held that, because LSNC is not among the
intended beneficiaries of the OAA and because the terms it sought
to enforce are vague and amorphous, the court held that the OAA
creates no rights enforceable by LSNC under section 1983.
