Hagans v. Lavine
- Decided
- March 25, 1974
- Docket
- 72-6476
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,844 timesSuperseded by statute (verified)Possible negative treatment: superseded by statute (2 of 2 verified; none is a verified overruling) · Ralls Corporation v. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States
What later courts said
- holding that district court properly dismissed the case sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where the Plaintiff’s Complaint lacked an arguable basis in law — Taylor v. University Hospitals of Cleveland Inc. OH. (2021)
- holding that “the federal courts are without power to entertain claims otherwise within their jurisdiction if they are so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit” — Landmark Credit Union v. Doberstein (2010)
- holding that there is no private right of action under 18 U.S.C. § 241 — Elad v. Truist Bank (2024)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Me. Justice White delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioners, recipients of public assistance under the cooperative federal-state Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) program,[1] brought this action in the District Court for themselves and their infant children and as representatives of other similarly situated AFDC recipients. Their suit challenged a provision of [*531] the New York Code of Rules and Regulations permitting the State to recoup prior unscheduled payments for rent from subsequent grants under the AFDC program.[2] They alleged that the recoupment regulation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and contravened the pertinent provisions of the Social Security Act governing AFDC and the regulations promulgated thereunder by the administering federal agency, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW).[3] The action sought injunctive and declaratory [*532] relief pursuant to 42 U. S. C. § 1983 and 28 U. S. C. § 2201, and jurisdiction was invoked under 28 U. S. C. §§ 1343 (3) and (4). The District Court found that the equal protection claim was substantial and provided a basis for pendent jurisdiction to adjudicate the so-called “statutory” claim — the alleged conflict between state and federal law. After hearing, the trial court declared the recoupment regulation contrary to the Social Security Act and HEW regulations and enjoined its implementa [*533] tion or enforcement. Following a remand,[4] the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that because petitioners had failed to present a substantial constitutional claim, the District Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain either the equal protection or the statutory claim. 471 F. 2d 347 (CA2 1973). The jurisdictional question being an important one, we granted certiorari. 412 U. S. 938 (1973). For reasons set forth below, we hold that the District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1343 (3) to consider petitioners’ attack on the recoupment regulation.[5]
[*534] I Petitioners brought this action under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, which provides:
Statutes cited
- 42 U.S.C. § 1983
- 28 U.S.C. § 2201
- 28 U.S.C. § 1343
- 28 U.S.C. § 2281
- 28 U.S.C. § 1253
- 42 U.S.C. § 601
- 42 U.S.C. § 602
- 42 U.S.C. § 604
- 46 U.S.C. § 688
- 28 U.S.C. § 1331
And 1 more section cited in the full opinion.
Cite this
Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528 (1974)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.