Injunction Denied in Fleeing Felon Case

June 1, 2007

Author: Catherine M. Callery (Kate)| Louise M. Tarantino

A district court in New York has denied a request for a preliminary injunction in litigation challenging SSA’s practice of suspending benefits of any recipient who has an outstanding warrant alleging a violation of probation or parole without a finding that the person is actually violating probation or parole.  Clark v. Astrue, a nation-wide class action lawsuit against the Social Security Administration (SSA) was filed in December in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by the Urban Justice Center, along with the National Senior Citizens Law Center and the law firm Proskauer Rose LLP.

The named plaintiffs in Clark come from various parts of New York State, Oregon, and Florida.  All had been receiving either SSI or SSDI benefits due to their various disabilities.  Their benefits were abruptly terminated by SSA based merely on allegations that they had violated conditions of their respective probations.  There were no findings in any of the cases that the plaintiffs had actually violated probation.  Each plaintiff presents a very compelling story of the severity of his or her impairments and the harm suffered by losing benefits.  Several of them have contemplated suicide as a result.

The Complaint, which is posted on the Urban Justice Center’s website (www.urbanjustice.org) in the Mental Health Project’s litigation section, alleged that SSA’s policy of suspending or denying SSDI or SSI benefits solely on the basis of an outstanding warrant alleging a violation of the conditions of probation or parole without regard to whether or not there has been a finding that such individual has in fact committed such a violation is unlawful.  Rather, there must first be a determination of an actual violation before benefits can be suspended or denied.

In denying plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, the court refused the relief requested under the “likelihood of success on the merits” preliminary injunction standard.  See Clark v. Astrue, 2007 WL 737489 (S.D.N.Y. March 8, 2007).  The court found the plaintiffs’ proposed statutory construction argument unpersuasive “in light of express statutory language reflecting that Congress contemplated and intended for the SSA to suspend benefits based on the warrant alone.” 2007 WL 737489 *5.

The district court distinguished the Second Circuit’s decision in Fowlkes v. Adamec, 432 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2005), in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit struck down the SSA’s practice of assuming that anyone with an outstanding warrant is fleeing prosecution and held that the SSA must first determine whether the person intended to flee prosecution before suspending benefits.  It found that “to the contrary, the SSA has shown that it suspends benefits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§1382(e)(4)(A)(ii) based only on warrants that specifically address violations of probation or parole, as opposed to general arrest warrants.” 2007 WL 737489 *6.

The court did find a basis to waive the exhaustion requirement for the plaintiffs, finding it would be futile for the plaintiffs to challenge SSA’s policy in the administrative process.  Plaintiffs are forging ahead with the case, and are currently engaged in discovery.