explaining that “respondent’s various arguments are rooted in their insistent and vigorous contention that they simply have not been adequately recompensed for their injuries,” but deciding that “Congress ... has addressed the problems created by state agencies’ wrongful termination of disability benefits,” and regardless whether Congress’ response “was the best response, Congress is the body charged with making the inevitable compromises required in the design of a massive and complex welfare benefits program”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that “respondent’s various arguments are rooted in their insistent and vigorous contention that they simply have not been adequately recompensed for their injuries,” but deciding that “Congress ... has addressed the problems created by state agencies’ wrongful termination of disability benefits,” and regardless whether Congress’ response “was the best response, Congress is the body charged with making the inevitable compromises required in the design of a massive and complex welfare benefits program”
- recognizing that although “suffering months of delay in receiving the income on which one has depended for the very necessities of life cannot be fully remedied by the belated restoration of back benefits” the fact that Congress had made compromises involved in administering a vast and complex government program meant that there was no basis for judicial intervention (internal quotation marks omitted)
- holding that the Social Security Act does not contain a “remedy in damages for emotional distress or for other hardships suffered” from mishandling of claim, and refusing to create Bivens remedy precludes a cause of action for money damages for unconstitutional conduct that led to the wrongful denial of benefits
- determining that the Social. Security Act “makes no provision for remedies in money damages against officials responsible for unconstitutional conduct that leads to the wrongful denial of benefits” and finding that the legislative scheme evinced Congress’s provision of “adequate. remedial mechanisms”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by No. 01-8037, 300 F.3d 1208 (2002)
Chilicky is distinguishable because it involved a challenge to the method in which various officials implemented the Social Security Benefits Program for disabled individuals.
The opinion
*430 Justice Stevens,
concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
Respondents have asserted that their claims arise under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In my opinion the Court should not reach the issue whether these claims may be brought directly under the Constitution without first deciding whether the Solicitor General is correct in his submission that Congress has enacted a statute that expressly requires dismissal of the complaint. See, e. g., Schweiker v. Hogan, 457 U. S. 569, 585 (1982). I agree with the explanation in Part III-A of Justice Brennan’s opinion of why 42 U. S. C. § 405 (h) does not preclude a Bivens remedy in this case. Accordingly, I join all of the Court’s opinion except footnote 3.