Applications for Benefits: Due Process, Equal Protection ...

1 ApplicationsforBenefits:DueProcess, Equal Protection , *OnJanuary31,2003,theLosAngelesTimesrepo rtedthatgovernment-contractedemployeessh reddedapproximately90, federalprosecutors,aninabilitytokeepupwi thmountingpaperworkmotivatedthecontracte mployeestoengageinthe"shreddingspree." :Whathappenswhenapplicantsforstatebenefi tsfacesimilardifficulties? * ,WakeForestUniversity,1997;candidateforJ urisDoctor,WashingtonandLeeUniversity, , , ,PaperTear-UpSnafuHitsINSF acility, ,May12,2002,at B 1(describingtheinvestigationintotheincid ent);MonteMorin,2 AccusedafINSS hreddingSpree, , ,2003,atB5(describingtheincident). (2004) "Newer" ,theSuprelneCourtestablishedthatthetermi nationofa person'swelfarebenefitsdemandedprocedura ldueprocessprotections,findingthatwelfar ebenefitsarea statutorilycreatedentitlementandthusa , ,overthepasttwentyyears,theCourthasrepea tedlydeclinedtoaddresstheissueofwhethera napplicantforbenefitsenjoysthesameproced uraldueprocessprotectionsasa personalreadyreceivingthesamebenefitsor, forthatmatter, , , 'srepeatedacknowledgementoftheissue,andh abitualavoidanceofit,leavesa , ,261-62& (1970)

2 (findingthattheterminationofanentitlemen tcreatedbystatute"involvesstateactiontha tadjudicatesimportantrights"andstatingth atwelfarebenefitsare"morelike'property't hana 'gratuity'''). , ,970-71(1980)(mem.) (orderdenyingcertiorari)(Rehnquist,J.,di ssenting)(notinga questionastowhetherapplicantsforwelfareb enefitsenjoythesameprotectionsasthosealr eadyreceivingbenefits). , , , ,942(1986)(statingthattheCourthasneverhe ldthatproceduraldueprocessprotectsapplic antsforbenefits); 'lAss'nofRadiationSurvivors, , (1985)(failingtoreachthequestionregardin gwhetherthereis a propertyrightinanapplicationforfederalve terans'benefitsthatimplicatestheDueProce ssClauseofFifthAmendment); , ,1021(1985)(mem.)

3 (orderdenyingcertiorari)(O'Connor,1.,dis senting)(assertingthattheCourthasneverde terminedwhetherapplicantsforgeneralassis tancehavea protectedpropertyinterest). , ,43-44(1999)(avoidingtheissueofwhetheran employerorinsurermaywithholdmedicaltreat mentbyfindingissuersnottobe"stateactors" ).Fora discussionofthefactsandreasoningofAmeric anManufacturers, (refusingtoaddresstheissueofwhetherthere wasa propertyinterestinclaimsforpaymentundera state-regulatedworkerscompensationact,as distinctfrompaymentitself,becauserespond entsdidnotcontendsuchaninterest).APPLICA TIONSFORBENEFITS885largebodyoflaw:Is dueprocessimplicatedwhena personappliesfora statebenefit,andifnot,doesanapplicanthav eanyclaimagainsta stateagencywhenshefeelsthatthestatehasar bitrarilydeniedherapplicationforbenefits ?

4 7 Originallyidentifiedasoneofthe"cracks"in "thenewproperty"byProfessorWilliamVanAls tyne,theproblemofanapplicant'sinabilityt oobtainproceduralprotectionstoensurea :Whena litigantis adverselyaffectedentirelyasa largemarginofprobablemistakeasitselftobe intolerableina ,however,thatunlikehisfreedomsofspeech,a ssociation,assembly,religion, , , propertyrightthatguaranteessomeapplicant sproceduraldueprocessbecauseofthenatureo ftheinterestat , thecontextofstatebenefits,becausetheAdmi nistrativeProcedureActprovidessomemeasur eofproceduraldueprocessprotection,though veryminimal, 555(e)(2000)(requiringnoticeofdenialandr easonsforthatdenialforallapplications).

5 Specifically,thestatutestates:Promptnoti ceshallbegivenofthedenialinwholeorinpart ofa writtenapplication,petition, priordenialorwhenthedenialisself-explana tory, ,Cracksin"TheNewProperty":AdjudicativeDu eProcessintheAdrninistrativeState, ,449-51(1977)(identifyingtheproblemaliti gantmayfaceifthegovernmentdeniesherappli cationwithoutreasonaspartlyresultingfrom theconstitution'sfailuretospecificallyid entifya rightto"freedomfromproceduralgrossness") . , , ' , ,638( )(findingthata statutegrantinga conditionalbenefitcreatedanexpectationof a benefit,andthusproceduraldueprocesswasne ededtoprotectthepropertyinterestintheapp lication).TheCourtalsofoundthatinthispar ticularcasethe" [was]bolsteredbythenatureofthebenefitat stake,"whichwasanemployee' ;seealsoNat'lAss' (2004)sucha statutorilycreatedrightstillfaceunsatisf actoryanswersastowhythegovernmentdidnote xtendthema ,theapplicanthasnoremedyfora ,thecurrentstateofthelawleavesuswithtwop ossiblealternatives:Eitherthereisa limitedrighttoproceduraldueprocessinspec ificcircumstancesasDerwinski, , ( )("[T]hedistrictcourtcorrectlyconcludedt hatbothapplicantsforandrecipientsof[Serv ice-ConnectedDeathandDisability(SCDD)]be nefitspossessa constitutionallyprotectedinterestinthose benefits .)

6 ");HaitianRefugeeCtf., , ,1562( )(concludingthatanentitlementinterestexi stsintherighttoapplyfortheSpecialAgricul turalWorkerprogram); , ,752(1st )(findingthatthefreedomtomakeuseofone'so wnmotorvehicleisa libertyinterestthatdueprocessprotects,wh etherthoseproceedingsrelatetothesuspensi onofa licenseortotheapplicationforalicense);Na t'IAss' , ,1312( )("Thecourtconcludesthatrecipientsandapp licantshaveaprotectedpropertyinterestint heirclaimstoSCDD benefits ."),rev'donothergrounds, (1985); , ,1027( )("ViewingtheSocialSecurityActandtheVirg iniaregulationswhichadministertheactasa whole,theCourtconcludesthatthesestatutes andregulationscreatea legitimateentitlementandexpectancyinMedi caidbenefitsforapplicantswhoclaimtomeett heeligibilityrequirements.

7 "); , ,1091-92( )(findinga propertyinterestinanapplicationforcompen sationfora work-relatedinjuryinprisonbecausestatuto rylanguagecreateda "legitimateclaimofexpectancy"ofapprovalo ftheapplicationifit fulfilledanobjectivemedicalstandardforqu alification). , , ,59( )(findingnopropertyrightina licenseorcertificateofapprovalforanautom obilejunkyarddespitethearbitraryactionso fthestatezoningboardofappealsindenyingth eapplicationbecausetheevaluationstandard ssetforthbythestategavethezoningboard broaddiscretioningrantingordenyinglicens es);City-WideAsphaltPaving, , ,401( )(determiningthatnolegitimateclaimofenti tlementtocontractawardwaspresentbecauses tatutorylanguageprovidedbroaddiscretiont othelocalgovernmentin makingitsawarddecision).

8 , , , ,123( )(findingno"generalrequirementforanevide ntiaryhearinginconnectionwiththedenialof anapplicationforwelfarebenefits"); , ,1308( )("InMainea "); , ,894( )("[A]partyaggrievedbylossofapre-existin grightorprivilegemayenjoyproceduralright snotavailabletoonedeniedtherightorprivil egeinthefirstinstance."). ,supranote8,at448-51(discussingthe"predi camentofanindividualforeclosedfromsomeco nnectionwithgovernmentfora reasonthatheisunabletoascertainatall");s eealsosupratextaccompanyingnote8 (describinganapplicant'sdifficultiesinob tainingproceduralprotections).APPLICATIO NSFORBENEFITS887definedbythepropertyinte restcreatedbystatestatute, :IftheCourtfailstoacknowledgeanydueproce ssconcernsandsustainsarbitraryandcaprici ousstatedecisionswithrespecttoanygivenap plication,it wouldinessencebesigningoffona stategovernment' ,a cityzoningreviewboardwithbroaddiscretion coulddenyanyrealconsiderationtoanapplica tionfora licenseorcertificateoflocationforajunkya rdbyrejectingtheapplicationasa ,ifthestatedidnotprovideanyrighttoappeal ora righttosueunderitsownlaws,thegovernmentd isappointsa citizen' state'sarbitrarytreatmentofitscitizens,i rrespectiveofthediscretionlevela stateactorenjoysindistributinga benefit,setsa ,a , ,supranote8.

9 At450-51(discussingthe difficultyinchallengingadversedecisionsw hena personbelievesthatinadequateproceduralpr otections,whichcreateasignificantpotenti alforthemistakendenialofbenefits,causedt hedenial). , (citingstatesuperiorcourt'sfindingsoffac tthatthelocalzoningboardhadactedarbitrar ilyandagainstpublicpolicyindenyingapplic ationforlicensebeforea hearing).TheSecondCircuitlaterfoundthatt herewasnopropertyinterestinalicenseorcer tificateofapprovaland,hence,norighttodue processprotection, ("[E]venanoutrightviolationofstatelawint hedenialofa licensewillnotnecessarilyprovidethebasis fora ");seealsoVanAlstyne,supranote8,at487(di scussingthepossibilityoflocatingthe"free domfromarbitraryadjudicativeprocedures"i na libertyinterest).

10 Freedomfromfundamentallyunfairmodesofgov ernmentalaction,animmunity(ifyouwill) libertymaybeat leastasoldastheideaofthesocialcontract, , ,MedCorp., , ,409( )("[A]partycannotpossessa propertyinterestinthereceiptofa benefitwhenthestate'sdecisiontoawardorwi thholdthebenefitiswhollydiscretionary.") ;Wedges/LedgesofCal., , ,62( )("Althoughproceduralrequirementsordinar ilydonottransforma unilateralexpectationintoa protectedpropertyinterest,suchaninterest iscreated'iftheproceduralrequirementsare intendedtobea "I( , ,820( ))); (2004)acknowledgeanindividual' ,18reframingtheissueasa ,recentSupremeCourtprecedentwouldseemtop romotetheuseofequalprotectiontoprotectci tizensfromutterlyarbitrarytreatmentbya plaintiffcouldattempttostatea claimagainsta "thenewproperty,,,21 PartIIexaminesapplicationsforbenefitsasp ropertyinterests, , ,931( )(findingnopropertyinterestin petitionforannexationoflandandstatingtha tthecourtfound" guidingprinciple"thatassiststheutilitydi strictinexercisingitsdiscretionarypower) .