green
mansour
argued
october
decided
december
petitioner
recipients
benefits
federal
aid
families
dependent
children
afdc
program
brought
class
actions
federal
district
respondent
director
michigan
department
social
services
claimed
respondent
policies
prohibiting
deduction
child
care
costs
requiring
inclusion
stepparents
income
purposes
calculating
earned
income
thereby
determining
eligibility
amount
afdc
benefits
violated
applicable
federal
law
petitioners
sought
injunction
declaratory
judgment
notice
relief
actions
pending
congress
amended
relevant
federal
statute
expressly
require
deduct
child
care
expenses
include
stepparents
income
granting
respondent
motions
dismiss
case
district
held
changes
federal
law
rendered
moot
claims
prospective
relief
remaining
claims
declaratory
notice
relief
related
solely
past
violations
federal
law
retrospective
relief
barred
eleventh
amendment
appeals
affirmed
consolidated
appeal
held
petitioners
entitled
notice
relief
since
continuing
violation
federal
law
enjoin
therefore
valid
injunction
notice
attach
notice
justified
mere
device
ancillary
judgment
awarding
valid
prospective
relief
quern
jordan
distinguished
absent
conditions
eleventh
amendment
limitation
art
iii
power
federal
courts
prevents
ordering
notice
relief
type
remedy
designed
prevent
ongoing
violations
federal
law
pp
petitioners
entitled
declaratory
judgment
respondent
violated
federal
law
past
claimed
continuing
violation
federal
law
threat
future
violation
declaratory
judgment
inappropriate
purpose
provide
federal
judgment
issue
liability
hope
res
judicata
proceedings
leaving
state
courts
form
accounting
proceeding
whereby
damages
restitution
computed
inappropriate
exercise
federal
judicial
power
much
effect
award
damages
restitution
kinds
relief
prohibited
eleventh
amendment
pp
rehnquist
delivered
opinion
burger
white
powell
joined
brennan
filed
dissenting
opinion
marshall
blackmun
stevens
joined
post
marshall
filed
dissenting
opinion
brennan
stevens
joined
post
blackmun
filed
dissenting
opinion
brennan
marshall
stevens
joined
post
william
burnham
argued
cause
petitioners
briefs
paul
reingold
louis
caruso
solicitor
general
michigan
argued
cause
respondent
brief
thomas
casey
erica
weiss
marsden
robert
rosenberg
assistant
attorneys
general
justice
rehnquist
delivered
opinion
petitioners
brought
two
separate
class
actions
district
eastern
district
michigan
respondent
director
michigan
department
social
services
claiming
respondent
calculations
benefits
federal
aid
families
dependent
children
afdc
program
violated
certain
provisions
federal
law
final
determination
merits
either
case
made
congress
amended
relevant
statutory
provisions
undisputed
respondent
calculations
thereafter
conformed
federal
law
notwithstanding
fact
petitioners
claim
entitled
district
award
notice
relief
declaration
respondent
prior
conduct
violated
federal
law
district
denied
petitioners
forms
relief
appeals
sixth
circuit
affirmed
affirm
judgment
appeals
holding
eleventh
amendment
constitution
applicable
principles
governing
issuance
declaratory
judgments
forbid
award
either
form
relief
two
class
actions
involved
case
brought
behalf
recipients
benefits
disbursed
afdc
program
see
afdc
program
uses
person
earned
income
determining
eligibility
amount
benefits
see
complaints
alleged
certain
respondent
policies
regulations
violated
inflating
respective
class
members
earned
income
thereby
causing
reduction
termination
afdc
benefits
contrary
applicable
federal
law
one
putative
class
challenged
respondent
policy
prohibiting
deduction
child
care
costs
calculation
earned
income
case
pending
district
congress
changed
relevant
provisions
afdc
program
expressly
require
participating
deduct
child
care
expenses
specified
amount
respondent
thereafter
brought
state
policy
compliance
amendment
began
deducting
child
care
expenses
calculation
earned
income
claim
respondent
current
child
care
deduction
policy
violates
federal
law
putative
class
challenged
respondent
policy
automatically
including
stepparents
income
calculation
earned
income
district
issued
preliminary
injunction
preventing
respondent
enforcing
automatic
inclusion
policy
matter
pending
merits
congress
amended
relevant
section
afdc
program
expressly
require
include
stepparent
income
calculation
earned
income
parties
thereafter
stipulated
district
terminate
preliminary
injunction
effective
date
amendment
claim
respondent
complied
federal
law
since
time
district
granted
respondent
motions
dismiss
case
held
changes
federal
law
rendered
moot
claims
prospective
relief
remaining
claims
declaratory
notice
relief
related
solely
past
violations
federal
law
retrospective
relief
determined
barred
eleventh
amendment
appeals
affirmed
consolidated
appeal
banas
dempsey
agreed
changes
federal
law
rendered
moot
claims
prospective
relief
also
agreed
notice
declaratory
relief
retrospective
nature
relief
barred
edelman
jordan
reasoned
prospective
relief
notice
ancillary
even
notice
sort
approved
quern
jordan
escape
eleventh
amendment
bar
declaratory
relief
similarly
barred
circumstances
explained
relief
relate
solely
past
violations
federal
law
granted
certiorari
resolve
conflict
circuits
whether
federal
courts
may
order
giving
notice
sort
approved
quern
jordan
supra
issue
declaratory
judgment
state
officials
violated
federal
law
past
ongoing
violation
federal
law
decision
appeals
case
agrees
result
colbeth
wilson
supp
aff
per
curiam
conflicts
decisions
appleyard
wallace
randall
lukhard
en
banc
cert
denied
beltran
myers
per
curiam
cert
denied
silva
vowell
allowed
notice
relief
even
though
changes
state
policy
federal
law
rendered
moot
claim
injunctive
relief
stopping
ongoing
violations
federal
law
affirm
decision
appeals
eleventh
amendment
confirms
fundamental
principle
sovereign
immunity
limits
grant
judicial
authority
art
iii
pennhurst
state
school
hospital
halderman
eleventh
amendment
may
sued
federal
unless
consent
unequivocal
terms
unless
congress
pursuant
valid
exercise
power
unequivocally
expresses
intent
abrogate
immunity
landmark
case
ex
parte
young
created
exception
general
principle
asserting
suit
challenging
constitutionality
state
official
action
enforcing
state
law
one
state
theory
young
unconstitutional
statute
void
therefore
impart
official
immunity
responsibility
authority
young
also
held
eleventh
amendment
prevent
federal
courts
granting
prospective
injunctive
relief
prevent
continuing
violation
federal
law
refused
extend
reasoning
young
however
claims
retrospective
relief
see
pennhurst
supra
quern
jordan
supra
edelman
jordan
supra
prospective
retrospective
relief
implicate
eleventh
amendment
concerns
availability
prospective
relief
sort
awarded
ex
parte
young
gives
life
supremacy
clause
remedies
designed
end
continuing
violation
federal
law
necessary
vindicate
federal
interest
assuring
supremacy
law
see
pennhurst
supra
see
also
milliken
bradley
compensatory
deterrence
interests
insufficient
overcome
dictates
eleventh
amendment
petitioners
concede
claim
might
specific
type
injunctive
relief
approved
ex
parte
young
rendered
moot
amendments
afdc
program
nevertheless
seek
notice
relief
type
approved
quern
jordan
arguing
notice
independent
form
prospective
relief
protected
eleventh
amendment
bar
ex
parte
young
taking
position
think
petitioners
misconceive
eleventh
amendment
jurisprudence
decision
quern
quern
last
chapter
litigation
initially
gave
rise
edelman
jordan
supra
plaintiffs
litigation
challenged
state
administration
program
aid
aged
blind
disabled
aabd
district
issued
declaratory
judgment
current
state
regulations
governing
administration
program
violated
federal
regulations
effect
therefore
permanently
enjoined
state
officials
continuing
violate
federal
law
although
language
declaratory
judgment
broader
necessary
complement
injunction
current
violation
federal
law
implied
defendants
violated
federal
law
past
district
therefore
issued
second
injunction
ordering
defendants
release
remit
aabd
benefits
wrongfully
withheld
account
past
violations
federal
law
appeals
affirmed
jordan
weaver
reversed
holding
eleventh
amendment
barred
injunction
ordering
retroactive
benefits
effectively
award
money
damages
past
violations
federal
law
edelman
jordan
remand
district
ordered
defendants
send
notice
plaintiff
class
informing
individual
class
members
wrongfully
denied
benefits
particular
amount
together
returnable
form
filing
claims
appropriate
state
agency
appeals
reversed
holding
district
proposed
notice
violated
eleventh
amendment
effectively
result
federal
adjudication
state
liability
past
violations
federal
law
jordan
trainor
en
banc
time
appeals
determined
eleventh
amendment
bar
order
requiring
state
officials
send
mere
explanatory
notice
applicants
advising
state
administrative
procedure
available
desire
state
determine
whether
may
eligible
past
benefits
ibid
affirmed
quern
jordan
holding
although
edelman
jordan
supra
retained
continuing
vitality
monell
new
york
city
dept
social
services
see
specific
notice
order
approved
appeals
violate
eleventh
amendment
explained
appellate
particular
notice
order
fell
ex
parte
young
side
eleventh
amendment
line
rather
edelman
side
reasoned
unlike
notice
ordered
district
notice
properly
viewed
ancillary
prospective
relief
already
ordered
simply
infor
class
members
federal
suit
end
federal
provide
relief
existing
state
administrative
procedures
may
wish
pursue
ibid
also
stressed
state
defendants
objected
expense
providing
notice
state
agencies
rather
federal
courts
final
arbiters
whether
retroactive
payments
ordered
notice
automatically
lead
particular
action
review
long
jordan
litigation
convinces
us
neither
appeals
conceived
requested
notice
allowed
case
independent
form
relief
simply
held
specific
order
fell
within
ex
parte
young
exception
eleventh
amendment
principle
sovereign
immunity
ancillary
valid
injunction
previously
granted
sufficiently
narrow
retain
character
mere
device
notice
quern
jordan
nothing
inform
diverse
partially
victorious
class
concerning
extent
judgment
favor
cf
fed
rule
civ
proc
federal
courts
suggestion
notice
bind
state
officials
way
notice
routinely
available
form
relief
cases
notice
relief
type
remedy
designed
prevent
ongoing
violations
federal
law
eleventh
amendment
limitation
art
iii
power
federal
courts
prevents
ordering
independent
form
relief
measured
standards
quern
however
request
limited
notice
order
escape
eleventh
amendment
bar
notice
ancillary
grant
appropriate
relief
noticed
continuing
violation
federal
law
enjoin
case
injunction
available
therefore
notice
justified
mere
device
ancillary
judgment
awarding
valid
prospective
relief
petitioners
argue
however
entitled
declaratory
judgment
respondent
violated
federal
law
past
petitioners
correct
assertion
properly
claim
right
notice
judgment
principles
quern
declaratory
judgment
act
permits
federal
declare
rights
party
whether
relief
sought
held
act
declaratory
relief
may
available
even
though
injunction
steffel
thompson
also
held
declaratory
judgment
statute
enabling
act
confers
discretion
courts
rather
absolute
right
upon
litigant
public
service
wycoff
propriety
issuing
declaratory
judgment
may
depend
upon
equitable
considerations
see
samuels
mackell
also
informed
teachings
experience
concerning
functions
extent
federal
judicial
power
wycoff
supra
cf
younger
harris
applying
principles
held
declaratory
judgment
available
number
instances
great
lakes
huffman
held
declaratory
judgment
available
obtain
determination
constitutionality
state
tax
even
though
relevant
federal
statute
prohibited
federal
courts
issuing
injunctions
collection
taxes
held
samuels
mackell
supra
declaratory
judgment
declaring
state
criminal
statute
unconstitutional
unavailable
much
effect
injunction
prohibiting
enforcement
statute
latter
barred
traditional
principles
equity
comity
federalism
wycoff
held
inappropriate
issue
declaratory
judgment
deciding
whether
plaintiff
business
interstate
commerce
therefore
potentially
immune
state
regulation
reasoned
federal
judgment
res
judicata
subsequent
state
proceedings
federal
lifted
case
state
state
agency
hear
hand
federal
judgment
effect
serv
useful
purpose
final
determination
rights
ibid
think
cases
demonstrate
impropriety
issuance
declaratory
judgment
case
claimed
continuing
violation
federal
law
therefore
occasion
issue
injunction
threat
state
officials
violating
repealed
law
future
cf
steffel
thompson
supra
dispute
lawfulness
respondent
past
actions
eleventh
amendment
prohibit
award
money
damages
restitution
dispute
resolved
favor
petitioners
think
award
declaratory
judgment
situation
useful
resolving
dispute
past
lawfulness
respondent
action
might
offered
proceedings
res
judicata
issue
liability
leaving
state
courts
form
accounting
proceeding
whereby
damages
restitution
computed
issuance
declaratory
judgment
circumstances
much
effect
award
damages
restitution
federal
latter
kinds
relief
course
prohibited
eleventh
amendment
teachings
huffman
samuels
wycoff
declaratory
judgment
available
result
partial
end
run
around
decision
edelman
jordan
justice
brennan
dissent
contends
injunction
declaratory
judgment
quern
implied
past
violations
federal
law
declaratory
judgments
expressly
adjudicating
question
past
violations
routinely
available
think
mistaken
district
injunction
declaratory
judgment
continuing
future
violations
federal
law
quern
implied
similar
violations
occurred
past
neither
state
federal
policy
varied
time
judgment
contrast
present
violations
amended
statute
even
injunction
imply
past
practice
violated
repealed
federal
law
thus
declaratory
judgment
respondent
violated
federal
law
past
stand
feet
appropriate
exercise
federal
jurisdiction
case
reasons
previously
stated
hold
district
correct
concluding
neither
notice
proposed
petitioners
declaratory
judgment
issued
case
type
judgment
appeals
therefore
affirmed
footnotes
illinois
categorical
assistance
manual
section
subsections
thereunder
applied
applicants
aabd
invalid
insofar
inconsistent
requirements
federal
law
construed
paragraphs
jordan
weaver
nd
mar
emphasis
added
course
petitioners
make
claim
federal
declaratory
judgment
res
judicata
later
commenced
state
proceedings
declaratory
judgment
serve
purpose
whatever
resolving
remaining
dispute
parties
unavailable
reason
wycoff
justice
brennan
justice
marshall
justice
blackmun
justice
stevens
join
dissenting
last
term
dissent
atascadero
state
hospital
scanlon
explained
length
view
eleventh
amendment
doctrine
lacks
textual
anchor
constitution
firm
historical
foundation
clear
rationale
today
decision
demonstrates
absence
stable
analytical
structure
underlying
eleventh
amendment
jurisprudence
produces
inconsistent
decisions
quern
jordan
state
illinois
contended
notice
relief
ordered
appeals
identical
significant
respects
requested
instant
case
offended
eleventh
amendment
giving
proposed
notice
lead
inexorably
payment
state
funds
retroactive
benefits
therefore
effect
amounts
monetary
award
justice
rehnquist
writing
rejected
argument
chain
causation
petitioner
seeks
establish
means
unbroken
contains
numerous
missing
links
supplied
state
members
plaintiff
class
federal
notice
approved
appeals
simply
apprises
plaintiff
class
members
existence
whatever
administrative
procedures
may
already
available
state
law
may
receive
determination
eligibility
past
benefits
mere
sending
notice
trigger
state
administrative
machinery
whether
recipient
notice
decides
take
advantage
available
state
procedures
left
completely
discretion
particular
class
member
federal
plays
role
decision
whether
class
member
receive
retroactive
benefits
rests
entirely
state
agencies
courts
legislature
federal
award
declaratory
judgment
situation
useful
resolving
dispute
past
lawfulness
respondent
action
might
offered
proceedings
res
judicata
issue
liability
leaving
state
courts
form
accounting
proceeding
whereby
damages
restitution
computed
issuance
declaratory
judgment
circumstances
much
effect
award
damages
restitution
federal
latter
kinds
relief
prohibited
eleventh
amendment
ante
way
explication
retreats
position
federal
courts
may
grant
relief
prospectively
ongoing
future
violations
federal
law
retroactively
past
violations
federal
law
basically
admits
case
balancing
eleventh
amendment
supremacy
clause
ante
relief
sought
continuing
violations
finds
supremacy
clause
outweighs
eleventh
amendment
relief
requested
past
violations
determines
eleventh
amendment
outweighs
supremacy
clause
cites
constitutional
authority
balancing
test
offered
suspect
offer
satisfactory
analytical
foundation
furthermore
strenuously
disagree
suggestion
balance
struck
sufficiently
protects
supremacy
federal
law
may
true
availability
prospective
relief
sort
awarded
ex
parte
young
gives
puts
life
supremacy
clause
ante
rule
saves
clause
completely
moribund
however
alter
reality
insufficient
ensure
federal
law
paramount
day
forward
least
regard
welfare
programs
may
refuse
follow
federal
law
impunity
secure
knowledge
need
immunize
accountability
federal
courts
conform
policies
federal
law
eve
judgment
suit
brought
secure
prospective
injunctive
relief
period
noncompliance
save
money
paying
benefits
according
criteria
established
federal
law
needy
individuals
designated
congress
beneficiaries
welfare
programs
cheated
federal
rights
doctrine
require
federal
courts
protect
violate
federal
law
legal
consequences
conduct
atascadero
surely
supremacy
clause
requires
different
result
foregoing
reveals
fundamental
incoherence
eleventh
amendment
jurisprudence
develop
coherent
eleventh
amendment
doctrine
believe
must
reassess
long
line
precedents
beginning
hans
louisiana
culminating
today
decision
perpetuated
erroneous
interpretation
eleventh
amendment
demonstrated
atascadero
supra
constitutional
doctrine
sovereign
immunity
rests
mistaken
historical
premise
treated
subject
exhaustively
case
restate
conclusions
recent
scholarship
indicates
framers
never
intended
constitutionalize
doctrine
state
sovereign
immunity
consequently
eleventh
amendment
effort
reestablish
chisholm
georgia
dall
limitation
federal
judicial
power
contained
article
iii
given
limited
terms
context
eleventh
amendment
drafted
amendment
narrow
technical
language
understood
instituted
broad
new
limitation
federal
judicial
power
cases
arising
federal
law
whenever
individual
attempts
sue
state
atascadero
rather
historical
records
language
constitution
reveal
amendment
intended
simply
remove
jurisdiction
suits
state
basis
jurisdiction
plaintiff
citizen
another
state
alien
suits
result
abrogation
state
law
sovereign
immunity
causes
action
disputes
instant
case
citizens
state
federal
question
source
jurisdiction
eleventh
amendment
properly
construed
bar
petitioners
suits
respectfully
dissent
green
asked
district
order
notices
sent
afdc
recipients
advising
outcome
litigation
declaratory
judgment
telling
state
administrative
proceedings
might
available
obtain
retroactive
benefits
app
similarly
notice
approved
quern
jordan
inform
ed
class
members
federal
suit
end
federal
provide
relief
existing
state
administrative
procedures
may
wish
pursue
class
members
given
gathered
sitting
courtroom
quoting
jordan
trainor
course
class
members
gathered
sitting
courtroom
substantive
outcome
litigation
declaration
illinois
officials
violated
federal
law
enough
distinguish
cases
observe
notice
relief
quern
ancillary
prospective
injunction
prospective
injunction
moot
three
years
appeals
fashioned
notice
relief
five
years
approved
congress
abolished
federal
program
issue
quern
afdc
matching
benefits
program
pay
percent
benefit
payments
federal
government
pays
remainder
house
committee
ways
means
background
material
data
programs
within
jurisdiction
committee
ways
means
comm
print
justice
marshall
justice
brennan
justice
stevens
join
dissenting
concur
justice
brennan
justice
blackmun
dissents
contribute
proliferation
opinions
add
words
even
view
eleventh
amendment
accepted
majority
atascadero
state
hospital
scanlon
majority
reaches
incorrect
result
case
justice
brennan
opinion
cogently
explains
decision
majority
today
repudiates
quern
jordan
case
approve
notice
relief
mere
device
ante
majority
suggest
informing
class
members
state
administrative
procedures
serves
function
litigation
rather
quern
explicitly
posing
question
whether
modified
notice
contemplated
seventh
circuit
constitute
permissible
prospective
relief
retroactive
award
requires
payment
funds
state
treasury
concluded
relief
falls
ex
parte
young
side
eleventh
amendment
line
rather
edelman
side
quern
supra
ii
abandoning
result
reached
six
years
ago
majority
misapplies
eleventh
amendment
jurisprudence
majority
two
kinds
remedies
sought
state
officer
prospective
relief
designed
end
continuing
violation
federal
law
retrospective
relief
serving
mere
compensatory
deterrence
interests
ante
former
class
relief
concludes
federal
interests
involved
outweigh
eleventh
amendment
interests
implicated
suit
state
officer
official
capacity
prospective
retrospective
labels
however
irrelevant
analysis
case
notice
relief
issue
imposes
significant
costs
state
creates
direct
liabilities
state
respects
institutions
state
government
see
quern
supra
never
held
eleventh
amendment
poses
bar
relief
indeed
notice
availability
possible
relief
existing
state
administrative
remedies
state
agency
state
courts
sole
arbiters
relief
granted
assists
vindication
state
law
informing
class
members
may
causes
action
law
eleventh
amendment
balance
set
majority
opinion
thus
hard
see
weight
exists
state
side
scale
weight
overcome
interest
vindicating
federal
law
hold
whether
eleventh
amendment
intended
simply
provide
state
sued
federal
basis
jurisdiction
plaintiff
citizen
another
state
alien
believe
intended
constitutionalize
much
broader
principle
state
sovereign
immunity
majority
believes
simply
nothing
offensive
amendment
order
state
notify
class
members
possibility
may
entitled
relief
state
administrative
process
order
neither
imposes
significant
costs
state
creates
direct
liabilities
quern
properly
placed
ex
parte
young
side
eleventh
amendment
line
distinction
hardly
neat
majority
implies
majority
cites
milliken
bradley
exemplifying
permissible
injunctive
relief
ante
case
involved
continuing
federal
duty
remedy
effects
past
de
jure
segregation
upheld
eleventh
amendment
attack
order
state
officials
pay
costs
attributable
program
designed
restore
schoolchildren
detroit
position
enjoyed
absent
constitutional
violations
state
local
officials
characterizing
relief
prospectiv
compensatory
yet
petitioners
note
congress
imposed
state
agencies
continuing
federal
duty
take
necessary
steps
correct
underpayment
aid
state
plan
see
also
cfr
relief
case
might
therefore
described
related
continuing
federal
duty
part
plan
operates
prospectively
bring
delayed
benefits
constitutionally
administered
program
milliken
supra
emphasis
original
justice
blackmun
justice
brennan
justice
marshall
justice
stevens
join
dissenting
joined
justice
brennan
dissent
atascadero
state
hospital
scanlon
join
dissent
case
fully
agree
eleventh
amendment
approach
demonstrated
difference
result
case
quern
jordan
sterile
produces
inconsistent
decisions
serious
need
reconsideration
cf
garcia
san
antonio
metropolitan
transit
authority
also
reverse
judgment
appeals
case
additional
reason
expressed
dissent
joined
justices
brennan
marshall
stevens
atascadero
namely
waiver
michigan
willing
recipient
federal
funds
eleventh
amendment
barrier
otherwise
might
exist
state
easily
avoids
responsibilities
decision
today
allows
state
go
way
unimpeded
unburdened
remedy
wronged
period
michigan
noncompliance
federal
law