Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Richardson v. Wright

405 U.S. 208

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1972-03-27
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • vacating judgment of the district court and remanding to the Secretary for further proceedings because “[i]n the context of a comprehensive complex administrative program, the administrative process must have a reasonable opportunity to evolve procedures to meet needs as they arise.”
  • “In the context of a comprehensive, complex administrative program the administrative process must have a reasonable opportunity to evolve procedures to meet needs as they arise”
  • challenge to procedures employed in suspension or termination of disability benefits
  • Brennan, Douglas, and Marshall, JJ., dissenting
  • initial denial of welfare benefits

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Richardson v. Wright. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
77 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Administrative Law — Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies In the context of a comprehensive and complex administrative program, the administrative process must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to evolve procedures to meet needs as they arise; accordingly, where an agency adopts new regulations governing the procedures at issue while judicial review is pending, a court should withhold judicial action pending reprocessing of the disputed determinations under the new regulations. 404 U.S. 209 (per curiam)
  2. Administrative Law — Mootness and Constitutional Avoidance Where reprocessing of a disputed administrative determination under new agency regulations may result in a determination of entitlement, rendering unnecessary any consideration of the claimants' constitutional claim, the appropriate judicial course is to vacate the lower court's judgment and remand with direction to remand the cause to the agency while retaining jurisdiction for such further proceedings as may be necessary upon completion of the administrative process. 404 U.S. 209 (per curiam)
Per Curiam.

We noted probable jurisdiction of these appeals, 404 U. S. 819 (1971), to consider the applicability of Gold *209 berg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254 (1970), to the suspension and termination of disability benefit payments pursuant to § 225 of the Social Security Act, 70 Stat. 817, 42 U. S. C. § 425, and implementing regulations of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Shortly before oral argument, we were advised that the Secretary had adopted new regulations, effective December 27, 1971, governing the procedures to be followed by the Social Security Administration in determining whether to suspend or terminate disability benefits. These procedures include the requirement that a recipient of benefits be given notice of a proposed suspension and the reasons therefor, plus an opportunity to submit rebuttal evidence. In light of that development, we believe that the appropriate course is to withhold judicial action pending reprocessing, under the new regulations, of the determinations here in dispute. If that process results in a determination of entitlement to disability benefits, there will be no need to consider the constitutional claim that claimants are entitled to an opportunity to make an oral presentation. In the context of a comprehensive complex administrative program, the administrative process must have a reasonable opportunity to evolve procedures to meet needs as they arise. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the District Court for the District of Columbia, 321 F. Supp. 383 (1971), with direction to that court to remand the cause to the Secretary and to retain jurisdiction for such further proceedings, if any, as may be necessary upon completion of the administrative procedure.

Vacated and remanded.