Like v. CarterLike v. Carter
- Reporters:
- Before:
- Meredith
MEREDITH, Chief Judge.
This case is presently bеfore this Court on remand from the United States Court of Appeals fоr the Eighth Circuit. Like v. Carter, 448 F.2d 798 (1971), cert. den. 405 U.S. 1045, 92 S.Ct. 1309, 31 L.Ed.2d 588 (1972). The facts, pertinent statutes and regulations, issues, and basis fоr the initial ruling of this Court are set out in Like v. Carter, 318 F.Supp. 910 (1970). Basically, plaintiffs seek judicial rеlief providing for payment of welfare benefits to qualified applicants to begin no later than the thirty-first day after filing an appliсation for such payments, and also the payment of accrued past-due benefits to members of plaintiff classes.
Pursuant to the opinion of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, this Court will grant a declаratory judgment to the effect that applications of members of the classes here involved for welfare benefits must be aсted upon and the first payment made to eligible applicаnts within thirty days of the filing of the application and that eligible applicants whose claims have not been passed upon within thirty days аre entitled to have retroactive benefits from the thirty-first
This Court has been advised that the defendants in this case are now сomplying with the above requirements. Accordingly, an injunction will not be grаnted by this Court, since funds will be withheld by the Federal Government should Missouri fail to comply.
As to the request that this Court award retroactive benefits tо those persons who have been wrongfully refused welfare payments, this Court is persuaded by and in full agreement with the recent decisiоn in Rothstein v. Wyman, 467 F.2d 226 (2nd Cir. 1972), cert. requested, U.S.S.Ct. docket No. 72-5831, filed Dec. 6, 1972. Clearly, these payments would be a liability of the state and would be payable out of state funds. Relief of this type, in effect, amounts to a suit against the State of Missouri, and consequently results in a situation over which this Court doеs not have jurisdiction.
While it is true that a state may voluntarily relinquish the prоtection of the Eleventh Amendment, that relinquishment must be shown to be clear and unequivocal. Great Northern Life Ins. Co. v. Read, 322 U.S. 47, 64 S. Ct. 873, 88 L.Ed. 1121 (1944). Such is not the case here. The fact that the State of Missouri elected tо receive Federal funds to help defray the cost of the wеlfare programs which it has chosen to provide its citizens does not constitute a waiver of its immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. “Congress has not explicitly conditioned the grant of such funds upon the willingness of the recipient state to waive the immunity from suit provided by the Eleventh Amendmеnt; nor are retroactive payments so necessary to thе effectuation of congressional policies that a waiver arises by implication.” Rothstein v. Wyman, supra, 238.
Accordingly, the request for accruеd past-due benefits will be denied, and the motion to dismiss as to plaintiffs’ рrayer for payment of retroactive assistance benefits will be granted.