|
|
Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 (1977)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 (1977)
Califano v. Sanders No. 75-1443 Argued January 11-12, 1977 Decided February 23, 1977 430 U.S. 99
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
Syllabus
1. Section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), providing generally for judicial review of actions of federal administrative agencies by persons aggrieved by such actions, does not afford an implied grant to district courts of subject matter jurisdiction to review a decision of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare not to reopen a previously adjudicated claim for social security benefits. An interpretation in favor of jurisdiction is suggested by neither the text nor history of the APA, and would effectively override Congress’ recent decision to expand jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) by eliminating the amount in controversy requirement as a prerequisite to maintaining federal question actions against federal agencies or officers or employees thereof, while retaining § 205(h) of the Social Security Act as a limitation of such jurisdiction. Pp. 104-107.
2. Nor does § 205(g) of the Social Security Act, which provides that any individual, after any "final decision of the Secretary made after a hearing" to which he was a party, irrespective of the amount in controversy, may obtain a review of such decision by civil action commenced within 60 days, authorize judicial review of the Secretary’s decision, absent a constitutional challenge. A petition to reopen a prior final decision may be denied without a § 205(b) hearing, whereas judicial review under § 205(g) is limited to a final decision "made after a hearing"; moreover, to allow judicial review would frustrate the congressional purpose, evidenced in § 205(g), to impose a 60-day limitation upon review of the Secretary’s final decision. Pp. 107-109.
522 F.2d 1167, reversed.
BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which WHITE, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN POWELL, and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined. STEWART, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which BURGER, C.J., joined, post, p. 109. STEVENS, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 (1977) in 430 U.S. 99 430 U.S. 100. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=4PI2RFSMLW9X29V.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 (1977), in 430 U.S. 99, page 430 U.S. 100. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=4PI2RFSMLW9X29V.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 (1977). cited in 1977, 430 U.S. 99, pp.430 U.S. 100. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=4PI2RFSMLW9X29V.
|