Crawford v. JanklowCrawford v. Janklow
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Heaney, Lay, Fagg
In August of 1981, Congress passed the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981,
I. BACKGROUND
In the summer and fall of 1982, South Dakota developed LIEAP in order to distribute the home energy assistance funds it planned to receive from the federal government for the 1982-1983 heating season under the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981. As part of LIEAP, the State promulgated a regulation defining “vulnerable households” eligible for home energy assistance in South Dakota. That regulation provided:
Vulnerable households are those in which the members meet the following requirements:
(1) Own or rent their home;
(2) Do not live in subsidized or public housing; and
(3) Are totally responsible for paying their own heating costs directly to an energy supplier or as a portion of rent.
S.D.Admin.R. 67:15:01:06 (1982). The second subsection of this regulation, on its face, excludes all residents of subsidized or public housing from consideration for LIEAP assistance.
On December 21, 1982, a class of plaintiffs living in subsidized or public housing brought suit in the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota against the Governor of South Dakota, the Secretary of the South Dakota Department of Social Services, and the agents, employees, and successors of these persons, all in their official capacities (hereinafter State). The plaintiffs allege that the State‘s categorical exclusion of persons living in subsidized or public housing from consideration for LIEAP assistance violated two provisions in the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981,
The district court decided the case on an expedited basis. On February 4, 1983, it certified the class status of the plaintiffs. Then, on February 18, 1983, it issued findings of fact and conclusions of law in favor of the plaintiffs.2 The court discussed the effects of the LIEAP exclusion primarily in the context of persons living in housing subsidized under
The district court held that this categorical exclusion of Section 8 recipients, along with others in subsidized or public housing, violated the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981.
II. DISCUSSION
The State contests both the statutory and constitutional grounds underlying the district court‘s invalidation of LIEAP insofar as that program categorically excluded persons living in subsidized or public housing. When a party raises both statutory and constitutional questions, courts generally refrain from addressing the constitutional matters if the resolution of the statutory issues is dispositive of the case at hand. Blum v. Bacon, 457 U.S. 132, 137-138, 102 S.Ct. 2355, 2359-2360, 72 L.Ed.2d 728, 733-734 (1982); United States v. South Dakota, 636 F.2d 241, 243 n. 2 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 939, 101 S.Ct. 3082, 69 L.Ed.2d 953 (1981). Because we find that the State‘s categorical exclusion violates the federal statute governing this home energy assistance program, we need not decide whether the same exclusion violates either the due process or equal protection clauses of the federal Constitution.
A. Existence of a Statutory Cause of Action.
The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 specifically provides:
As part of the annual application required by subsection (a) of this section, the chief executive officer of each State shall certify that the State agrees to--
* * *
* * *
(5) provide, in a manner consistent with the efficient and timely payment of benefits, that the highest level of assistance will be furnished to those households which have the lowest incomes and the highest energy costs in relation to income, taking into account family size; * * *.
The plaintiffs asserted, and the district court found, that the State‘s categorical exclusion of persons living in subsidized or public housing from consideration for LIEAP assistance violated this provision.
The district court, insofar as it based its decision on this statute, necessarily assumed that the plaintiffs had a cause of action, express or implied, against the State to enforce the condition imposed by section 8624(b)(5). Indeed, the State did not question the existence of such a cause of action either before the district court or before this Court. The plaintiffs, however, cited no express provision of the home energy assistance legislation granting them access to federal courts to enforce its provisions. We generally will not consider an issue not raised or passed upon below. Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120-121, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 2877, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976). An appellate court, however, may consider issues which are in “the nature of a jurisdictional bar” for the first time on appeal. See Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 677-678, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 1362-1363, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974) (deciding question under the eleventh amendment of the United States Constitution which was first raised on appeal). Because we view the existence of an express or implied cause of action as a jurisdictional prerequisite to the plaintiffs’ recovery under the statute herein, we cannot ignore this issue. Furthermore, our immediate resolution of this legal question is necessary to insure that the State has sufficient time to conform LIEAP to the requirements of federal law prior to the next heating season.
The question of whether the plaintiffs may enforce section 8624(b)(5) against state officials who fail to comply with its provisions may be approached in two ways: (1) deciding whether the plaintiffs have an implied cause of action against the State directly under the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981; or (2) deciding whether the plaintiffs have an express cause of action against state officials for deprivation of rights secured by the home energy assistance legislation under
First, we find that Congress intended that potential recipients of home energy assistance have a direct cause of action under the provisions of the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981. Because the express language of that legislation is silent and the legislative history inconclusive regarding any legislative intent to create a judicial remedy for persons such as plaintiffs herein, we direct our inquiry into the existence of an implied cause of action based on the four factors listed in Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 78, 95 S.Ct. 2080, 2087, 45 L.Ed.2d 26 (1975). See Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Curran, 456 U.S. 353, 376-388, 102 S.Ct. 1825, 1838-1844, 72 L.Ed.2d 182, 200-207 (1982) (intent gleaned from legislative history obviated need to consider all four Cort v. Ash factors). First, by the very terms of section 8624(b)(5), Congress targeted the home energy legislation for the especial benefit of persons with the greatest need in terms of income and proportionate energy costs. Second, the legislative history apparently provides no clear guidance regarding intent to create or deny a judicial remedy for persons such as plaintiffs. Third, such a private remedy is virtually a necessity to complete the legislative scheme of effective and efficient distribution of benefits, because the power of the Secretary of Health and Human Services to enforce the section 8624(b) conditions is limited to the withholding of funds, which “cannot be [done] for minor or insubstantial deviations” from the requirements of that legislation. S.Rep. No. 97-139, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. 909, reprinted in 1981 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 396, 933;
Alternatively, we find that the plaintiffs may also maintain their statutory claim based on the express grant of a cause of action under
In the instant case, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 created substantive rights cognizable under section 1983. Whether a particular federal statute creates substantive rights for the purposes of section 1983 is a question similar to whether there is an implied cause of action directly under that statute. See Comment, Passing the Bucks: Procedural Protections Under Federal Block Grants, 18 Harv.C.R.-C.L.L.Rev. 231, 265 & n. 154 (1983). Thus, the factors previously discussed regarding the plaintiffs’ implied cause of action suggest that the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act created substantive rights for section 1983 purposes. In addition, the conditions listed in section 8624(b) are prerequisites to funding under the statute, absent a temporary waiver by the Secretary of Health and Human Services of any of those conditions. See
Also, the express remedy created in the home energy assistance legislation to prevent noncompliance with the section 8624(b) conditions--withholding of funds from the states by the Secretary of Health and Human Services,
Based on the foregoing analysis, we conclude that the plaintiffs properly maintained the present action either directly as an implied cause of action under the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 or as an express cause of action under
B. Violation of Statutory Requirement.
The federal home energy assistance statute expressly limited the class of persons to which the states might award benefits to (1) those in households in which at least one individual received aid to families with dependent children, supplemental security income payments, food stamps, or various veterans’ benefits; or (2) those in households meeting certain maximum income levels.
The district court‘s findings of fact correctly demonstrate the effects of the categorical exclusion. The court found that, based on the statistics and charts reflected in the record, the Section 8 home energy subsidy received by some plaintiffs might not be as great as the LIEAP subsidy otherwise available to persons with the same income and equal overall heating expenses. See Crawford v. Janklow, supra, 557 F.Supp. at 1149 n. 4 (comparing Section 8 heating subsidy for one-bedroom apartment to lowest LIEAP heating subsidy for similar residence). In addition, the court found that a two-member family residing in a one-bedroom Section 8 apartment and with an annual income of $3,000 could receive a Section 8 heating subsidy of approximately 40.1% of its total heating expenses. Id. at 1149-1150. A family of identical size not residing in subsidized or public housing with the same overall heating expenses and an annual income of over $9,000 could receive a LIEAP subsidy of approximately 60% of those total heating expenses. Id. at 1149. These figures are amply supported by the record and are not clearly erroneous.
From these factual findings, the legal conclusion that the State‘s categorical exclusion violates section 8624(b)(5) cannot be disputed. That section simply mandates that any subclass devised by the State in distributing home energy assistance funds must be designed so that the greatest assistance goes to households with the lowest income and highest energy costs in relation to that income, accounting for family size. The facts discussed above clearly reflect that the State‘s categorical exclusion is inconsistent with the 8624(b)(5) mandate. The exclusion bars a Section 8 recipient from establishing that her or his heating costs are proportionately higher than those of a LIEAP recipient with greater income and equal family size. The district court‘s factual findings demonstrate that some plaintiff class members might very well establish such circumstances if given the chance. Furthermore, the conflict between the State‘s categorical exclusion and section 8624(b)(5) occurs at the very first step in the State‘s distribution process, i.e., the acceptance of applications for LIEAP assistance, making it difficult to determine the severity and magnitude of that conflict. Thus, on the basis of this statute, the district court correctly enjoined the State from using residence in subsidized or public housing as an independent basis for the exclusion of persons from consideration for LIEAP assistance.
III. CONCLUSION
The district court invalidated LIEAP only insofar as it categorically excluded persons living in subsidized or public housing from participation in that program. The court did not in any way restrict the State‘s discretion to devise a distribution plan under the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 which does not embody that same flaw. Because we agree that the categorical exclusion violated