Quern v. Jordan
- Decided
- March 5, 1979
- Docket
- 77-841
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 4,123 timesOverruled on other grounds (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: overruled on other grounds (not yet verified) · Gonzalez v. California Highway Patrol
What later courts said
- holding that 42 U. S. C. § 1983 does not override States' Eleventh Amendment immunity — Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman (1984)
- recognizing that § 1983 does not indicate "an intent [by Congress] to sweep away the immunity of the States” — Mayfield v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice (2008)
- holding that Section 1983 claims against states are not permitted absent the state’s consent — Feingold v. New York (2004)
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
Mr. Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case is a sequel to Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651 (1974), which we decided five Terms ago. In Edelman we held that retroactive welfare benefits awarded by a Federal District Court to plaintiffs, by reason of wrongful denial of benefits by state officials prior to the entry of the court’s order determining the wrongfulness of their actions, violated the [*334] Eleventh Amendment.[1] The issue now before us is whether that same federal court may, consistent with the Eleventh Amendment, order those state officials to send a mere explanatory notice to members of the plaintiff class advising them that there are state administrative procedures available by which they may receive a determination of whether they are entitled to past welfare benefits. We granted certiorari to resolve an apparent conflict between the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in this case and that of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Fanty v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Dept. of Public Welfare, 551 F. 2d 2 (1977).[2] 435 U. S. 904 (1978). We believe that the case as it now comes to us involves little, if any, unbroken ground in this area, and affirm the judgment of the Seventh Circuit.
Following our remand in Edelman, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, upon motion of the plaintiff, ordered the state officials to send to each [*335] member of the plaintiff class a notice informing the recipient: “[Y]ou were denied public assistance to which you were entitled in the amount of $-.” Jordan v. Trainor, 405 F. Supp. 802, 809 (1975).[3] Enclosed with the required mailing was to be a “Notice of Appeal,” which when signed and returned to the Illinois Department of Public Aid, requested a hearing on the denial of benefits. That notice stated: “The department illegally delayed in the processing of-my AABD application, and, as a consequence, denied me benefits to which I was and am entitled.” Id., at 810.
Statutes cited
Cite this
Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 (1979)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.