Edelman v. Jordan
- Decided
- May 13, 1974
- Docket
- 72-1410
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 6,517 timesOverruled on other grounds (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: overruled on other grounds (not yet verified) · Moore v. Tewalt
What later courts said
- holding that federal court may award an injunction that governs state official’s future conduct notwithstanding the 11th Amendment, but may not award retroactive monetary relief — Keitt v. New York City (2011)
- holding that waiver may be found in “express language” or by “overwhelming implications from the text” (internal quotation marks omitted) — Sossamon v. Texas (2011)
- holding that waiver may be found in “express language” or by “overwhelming implica tions from the text” (internal quotation marks omitted) — Sossamon v. Texas (2011)
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
[*653] Mr. Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondent John Jordan filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, individually and as a representative of a class, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against two former directors of the Illinois Department of Public Aid, the director of the Cook County Department of Public Aid, and the comptroller of Cook County. Respondent alleged that these state officials were administering the federal-state programs of Aid to the Aged, Blind, or Disabled (AABD) in a manner inconsistent with various federal regulations and with the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.[1]
AABD is one of the categorical aid programs administered by the Illinois Department of Public Aid pursuant to the Illinois Public Aid Code, Ill. Rev. Stat., c. 23, §§ 3-1 through 3-12 (1973). Under the Social Security Act, the program is funded by the State and the Federal Governments. 42 U. S. C. §§ 1381-1385.[2] The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW), [*654] which administers these payments for the Federal Government, issued regulations prescribing maximum permissible time standards within which States participating in the program had to process AABD applications. Those regulations, originally issued in 1968, required, at the time of the institution of this suit, that eligibility determinations must be made by the States within 30 days of receipt of applications for aid to the aged and blind, and within 45. days of receipt of applications for aid to the disabled. For those persons found eligible, the assistance check was required to be received by them within the applicable time period. 45 CFR §206.10 (a)(3).[3]
Statutes cited
Cite this
Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (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.