RELEASE: State Law Can’t Force Civil Rights Plaintiffs into ‘Kafkaesque’ Process
WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Williams v. Washington, a case in which the Court is considering whether states may force civil rights litigants who bring claims against state officials in state court under Section 1983 to first exhaust their administrative remedies, Constitutional Accountability Center Counsel Nina Henry issued the following reaction:
As the plaintiffs’ attorney explained, the plaintiffs here were forced into a “Kafkaesque” situation where they could not challenge the Alabama Department of Labor’s failure to issue a decision on their applications for benefits until the Department reached a final decision on those applications. This is the kind of situation that Section 1983 was enacted to prevent. In the aftermath of the Civil War, state courts refused to hear civil rights claims brought by African Americans and Union sympathizers, so Congress passed legislation to ensure the courthouse doors remained open despite stonewalling by the states. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly held, exhaustion requirements like Alabama’s are incompatible with Section 1983’s purpose. State and federal courts shouldn’t have different thresholds for justice when plaintiffs seek to vindicate their constitutional rights.
Deputy Chief Counsel Brian Frazelle added this reaction:
As Justice Kavanaugh and other Justices suggested this morning, Supreme Court precedent clearly forecloses exhaustion requirements that defeat the purpose of the federal law that a plaintiff is trying to enforce in state court. At a minimum, exhaustion requirements that make it impossible to vindicate a federal right in state court must yield to federal law. As Justice Alito asked Alabama’s counsel, “What’s wrong with that?” Whether the Supreme Court rules broadly or narrowly, it should not let stand Alabama’s attempt to steer plaintiffs from the courts back to the very agency that failed to take action on their claims in the first place.
##
Resources:
Case page in Williams v. Washington: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/williams-v-washington/
##
Constitutional Accountability Center is a nonpartisan think tank and public interest law firm dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text, history, and values. Visit CAC’s website at www.theusconstitution.org.
##