Schweiker v. Chilicky (1987)
- Docket
- 86-1781
- Decided
- 1987-01-01
Summary
Question: When a government employee violates a citizen’s legal rights, should that citizen be allowed to pursue monetary damages as compensation, even when the violated statute does not contain monetary damages as a possible remedy in its remedial process? Conclusion: No. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor delivered the opinion for the 6-3 majority. The Court held that the respondents were not entitled to monetary damages because they were not mentioned in the extensive remedial options provided in the Social Security Disability Act (Act). The Court rejected the respondents’ argument that this case was analogous to Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents , a case in which the Court ruled that, when a government actor violates a citizen’s legal right, federal courts may use any available remedy to make the wronged party whole. In Bivens there were no special circumstances preventing monetary damages, and Congress provided no legal redress in the statute. In this case, the Act provides an extensive remedial program in which Congress carefully considered the possibilities for remedy and specifically left out monetary damages. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a concurring opinion in which he disagreed with the majority opinion’s decision to ignore the Solicitor General’s argument that Congress had enacted a statute expressly requiring dismissal of this complaint. Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that Congressional silence on the monetary damages issue does not mean that the explicitly stated remedial process was intended to be the only source of remedy. He argued that legislators of “normal sensibilities” would have wanted some form of remedy for citizens wronged to the extent that respondents were. Justices Thurgood Marshall and Harry A. Blackmun joined in the dissent.