Stewart v. Butz, Civ. A. No. 7429-G.

• Decision Date: 14 March 1973
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 7429-G.
• Parties: Gloria STEWART, Individually and on behalf of her household, and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Earl L. BUTZ, Individually and in his capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky

356 F. Supp. 1345

Gloria STEWART, Individually and on behalf of her household, and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Earl L. BUTZ, Individually and in his capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture et al., Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 7429-G.

United States District Court, W. D. Kentucky, Louisville Division.

March 14, 1973.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Graham B. Cooke, William C. Evans, Kurt Berggren, Gen. Counsel, Legal Aid Society of Louisville, Louisville, Ky., for plaintiff.

Paul Tierney, Dept. of Economic Security, Frankfort, Ky., A. Duane Schwartz, Asst. U. S. Atty., Louisville, Ky., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM ORDER AND JUDGMENT

JAMES F. GORDON, Chief Judge.

This is a class action filed to adjudicate the rights of certain named plaintiff food stamp recipients under the Federal Food Stamp Act of 1964 as amended, Title 7, U.S.C. § 2011 et seq. Federal court jurisdiction is grounded upon 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Civil Rights Jurisdiction, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and 28 U.S. C. § 1343(3) and (4); Mandamus Jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1361; Interstate Commerce Jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1337; and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 702, 706. A Declaratory Judgment is sought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, the Declaratory Judgment Act, and Rule 57, F.R.Civ.P. The lawsuit now comes before the Court on the motion of the plaintiffs for a summary judgment and the motions of the defendant governments (i. e., U.S.A. and the Commonwealth of Kentucky) to dismiss the complaint. Briefs have been submitted to the Court by all parties on all pending motions and thus the issues are now joined.

The factual context of this lawsuit is simple and not in dispute. The complaint of September 29, 1972, alleges that plaintiff Gloria Stewart was denied her right to purchase food stamps during the month of May, 1972, for the stated reason that she had purchased an amount of food stamps in excess of her quota for the preceding month, April, 1972. The complaint asserts further that the aforesaid suspension of rights came without a hearing, but that when plaintiff Stewart requested a hearing on May 18, 1972, a hearing was, in fact, conducted for her on July 7, 1972. The Hearing Officer's decision, dated September 7, 1972, was to the effect that plaintiff Stewart was wrongfully denied the right to purchase her food stamps during May, 1972, but that the Hearing Officer and the Kentucky Bureau of Public Assistance were powerless under the terms of the Food Stamp Act to award her any type of retroactive benefits. As a final factual allegation, plaintiff Stewart states that she has suffered great dietary and financial harm due to the denial of the right to purchase food stamps during the aforementioned month. It is argued that the wrongful denial of food stamps to Mrs. Stewart constituted a violation of her Constitutional rights to Due Process and Equal Protection of the laws under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and that said denial was also a violation of the purpose and policy of the Food Stamp Act itself.

The relief sought in the complaint includes a preliminary and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from enforcing the regulation in dispute, FNS Instruction 732-14 and Section 549 of the Bureau of Public Assistance Food Stamp Handbook and injunctions restraining the defendants from not issuing the food stamps allegedly wrongfully withheld. The Court is further requested to order "retroactive relief" for the benefits withheld, to declare the named regulations to be unconstitutional and unlawful, and to order all other proper relief. Finally, we are asked to certify the plaintiff class as all Food Stamp recipients who, having prevailed at "fair hearings", have been denied any type of retroactive relief.

THE CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

The contentions of the parties can be briefly stated. The United States argues that, under the terms of the Act and its Regulations, the states bear the responsibility for the "timely issuance" of food stamps, and that when administrative errors by the states cause a failure in this respect the states should be required to pay for the actual benefits lost. It is argued that a "one-month cut-off of federal liability" is reasonable, and that beyond that period public policy reasons and "cooperative federalism" demand that the state pay for its "own mistakes." Federally-financed, retroactive relief, it is submitted, should not be allowed.

The Commonwealth of Kentucky argues that no action can be maintained against the state due to (1) the principle of Sovereign Immunity and (2) the Eleventh Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, which limits the power of a federal court to order the dispersal of funds from a state treasury.

As outlined above, the plaintiffs herein argue that they have a basic federal statutory right to food stamps wrongfully withheld, that a right implies a remedy, and that a denial of retroactive relief by the Federal Government is unconstitutional, contrary to the Food Stamp Act, and deprives one of Due Process and Equal Protection.

THE BASIC LEGAL ISSUES PRESENTED

The legal issues presented by these facts and contentions can be framed in the following manner:

(1) Do Food Stamp recipients have an unqualified right to receive food stamps in cases where, as here, they are not issued food stamps during a given month, due to state administrative error, but make a "timely request for re-issuance?"

(2) Assuming such an unconditional right, is there a remedy permissible under the law to enforce that right?

(3) Assuming a right and a remedy, as between the Federal and State Governments which party should be financially liable for relief?

(4) Assuming liability, what is the most appropriate remedy?

(5) Assuming liability to Mrs. Stewart, plaintiff herein, should we certify this cause as a class action and thereby extend the same relief accorded plaintiff Stewart to all persons similarly situated?

THE STATUTORY RIGHT TO FOOD STAMPS UNDER THE FOOD STAMP ACT OF 1964

The Food Stamp Act of 1964, Title 7 U.S.C. § 2011 et seq., was enacted by Congress to provide federal funds to permit low-income families to purchase a nutritionally-adequate diet. The Congress thereby created a statutory right for those low income families who meet certain minimum national standards of eligibility.¹ The old rule of law that such welfare benefits were a mere privilege or gratuity that could be withdrawn at will by government has been totally discredited. The landmark Supreme Court case of Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970) elevated welfare benefits, including food stamps, to a position of legal right and statutory entitlement, rather than mere privilege. Accord: Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365, 91 S.Ct. 1848, 29 L.Ed.2d 534 (1971)

Certainly we would agree that certain conditions and qualifications can be placed upon the statutory right to receive food stamps under the Act; provided, of course, that such conditions are adopted as reasonable Regulations that are compatible with the enabling legislation. But in the case at bar, the denial of food stamps appears to be unreasonable. Plaintiff Stewart met the basic qualifications for eligibility in November of 1971. When her right to receive stamps was suspended in May of 1972, she made a "timely request for re-issuance" well within the one-month period of non-issuance (May 18, 1972) as required by the Food Stamp Regulations. (FNS Instruction 743-2) (1969) Sec. VI C. The state agency failed to issue the stamps during the one-month period. However, after a hearing into the matter, conducted July 7, 1972, the Hearing Officer determined that the food stamps had been wrongfully withheld from Mrs. Stewart, that she had a "right" to receive said stamps, but that no "retroactive relief" was permissible from the Federal Treasury according to the Regulations. (See plaintiff's Exhibit A, page 4.) Citing FNS Instruction 732-14(D) (1972).

It is the opinion of the Court that under this statement of the facts, Mrs. Stewart has a federal statutory right to receive the food stamps wrongfully withheld from her, and that this right cannot be defeated simply by a state administrative error. To allow such a situation to exist would be clear-cut violation of Due Process of Law. Goldberg v. Kelly, supra.

THE RIGHT TO FOOD STAMPS WRONGFULLY WITHHELD IMPLIES A REMEDY TO ENFORCE THAT RIGHT

The ancient legal maxim "Ubi jus ibi remedium" (i. e., Where there is a right, there is a remedy) lies at the very heart of Anglo-Saxon and American law. Federal courts have accepted this legal principle as elementary on numerous occasions, and have exercised broad equitable powers to fashion remedies to redress deprivations of federal statutory rights. Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946); Case v. Borak, 377 U.S. 426, 84 S.Ct. 1555, 12 L.Ed.2d 423 (1964); Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, 396 U.S. 229, 90 S.Ct. 400, 24 L.Ed.2d 386 (1969). In the case at bar, we hold that inasmuch as plaintiff Stewart has a federal statutory right to the food stamps wrongfully withheld from her during May of 1972, there must be a remedy available to her to enforce that right. The most appropriate place to seek such a remedy is of course this forum.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT— NOT THE STATE—IS LIABLE FOR FOOD STAMPS WRONGFULLY WITHHELD FROM RECIPIENTS DUE TO STATE ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR: REGULATIONS WHICH CONFLICT WITH THIS LIABILITY ARE INVALID AND MUST FALL

Having determined that the plaintiff, Mrs. Stewart, has a federal statutory right to the food stamps wrongfully withheld from her during May, 1972, and that, under basic rules of law, a remedy either at law or equity must be available to her in federal court to protect that right, we must now determine, as between the Federal and State Governments, which party should be financially responsible for that remedy.

In order to make...