Schweiker v. Chilicky

About this case

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1988 United States Supreme Court case

Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412 (1988), was a United States Supreme Court decision that established limitations on implied causes of action . The Court determined that a cause of action would not be implied for the violation of rights where the U.S. Congress had already provided a remedy for the violation of rights at issue, even if the remedy was inadequate.

In this case, seriously disabled people were wrongfully being denied federal benefits (although, on appeal to an Administrative Law Judge, two-thirds had their payments restored). Although Congress provides for the return of back-pay, no provision is made for pain and suffering or other economic losses. The injured parties sued responsible agency personnel, under the theory that pursuant to _Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents _ they could allege a private right of action for deprivation of due process.

The Court examined whether Congress intended a private right of action under these circumstances, and concluded that if Congress has created a meaningful remedy – even if it is incomplete – then no Bivens-type remedy is available. Special factors counseling hesitation included judicial deference to a combination of:

some indication that Congress considered providing a cause of action, and chose not to; and
the design of some government program containing what Congress considers an adequate remedial mechanism.

Here Congress has provided a great deal of process, and some relief, and has been otherwise silent as to a remedy, which the Court found to be enough to foreclose a Bivens remedy.

External links

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Schweiker_v._Chilicky&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: External links")
]

Text of Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412 (1988) is available from: CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Internet Archive (docket files) Justia Oyez (oral argument audio)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Schweiker_v._Chilicky&oldid=1351349169 "

Categories :

Hidden categories:

Schweiker v. Chilicky

Add languages Add topic

Editorial context from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA 4.0).

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

“The prospect of personal liability for official acts . . . would undoubtedly lead to 16 new difficulties and expense in recruiting administrators for the programs Congress has 17 established.”

Schweiker v. Chilicky

Citations

About this case

See also

External links

How courts have described this case