## Facts

- Illinois administered a clothing-allowance benefit within Chicago’s General Assistance (CGA) program.
- Under the pre–August 1, 1976 policy, employed CGA recipients received a clothing allowance automatically as part of their monthly grants.
- Unemployed CGA recipients could receive clothing funds only on an “as-needed” basis under agency guidance (including Official Bulletin No. 66.68), and many were not told that the benefit existed or how to request it.
- On November 14, 1975, unemployed CGA recipients filed a § 1983 class action against the Director of the Illinois Department of Public Aid (DPA) and other officials seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging:
  - unequal treatment based on employment status, and
  - denial of due process because the as-needed program was administered in an arbitrary and capricious manner.
- While the case was pending, DPA issued Bulletin 76.19 (June 25, 1976), effective August 1, 1976, providing automatic clothing allowances to unemployed recipients as part of their regular monthly grants.
- The district court certified a class of unemployed CGA recipients and their dependents in Chicago.
- On October 18, 1976, the district court entered a preliminary injunction requiring defendants to notify class members of their right to apply for clothing benefits they had not received for the period between November 14, 1975 and August 1, 1976.
- After further proceedings, the district court ruled for plaintiffs on due process grounds, finding that administration of the prior as-needed clothing program was arbitrary and capricious, and ordered remedial notice and a procedure allowing class members to seek past benefits for the pre-change period.
- The DPA director appealed, challenging the due process ruling and arguing that existing program standards were adequate; plaintiffs and defendants also filed cross-appeals concerning the scope of relief.

## Issues

1. Did DPA’s adoption of Bulletin 76.19 providing automatic clothing allowances to unemployed recipients moot the case or bar forward-looking and retrospective equitable relief?
2. Did the pre–August 1, 1976 as-needed clothing-allowance program for unemployed CGA recipients, as administered, violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause because it operated without adequate standards and notice and was applied arbitrarily?
3. Was class-wide equitable relief—particularly notice and an opportunity to apply for clothing benefits allegedly not received between November 14, 1975 and August 1, 1976—an appropriate remedy under § 1983?

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit held that the case was not mooted by Bulletin 76.19 because a live dispute remained over the legality of the prior administration and over remedies tied to past denials of benefits.
- The court affirmed the district court’s conclusion that the earlier as-needed program had been administered in an arbitrary and capricious manner that failed due process requirements, given the lack of meaningful standards and the frequent failure to inform recipients how to obtain the benefit.
- The court approved class-wide equitable relief requiring notice and a claim procedure for the pre-change period, treating that remedy as directly responsive to the program’s lack of notice and uncontrolled discretion.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment and remedial approach in substance, leaving in place relief aimed at allowing affected class members to seek clothing benefits for the period before the policy change.

## Legal Principles

- A government agency’s voluntary policy change during litigation does not automatically moot a constitutional challenge when claims remain for relief tied to past conduct or when voluntary cessation could permit a return to the challenged practice.
- When the government distributes public-assistance benefits, due process requires administration through standards and practices that meaningfully limit discretion and provide recipients a fair chance to learn about and seek available benefits.
- An “as-needed” benefit program may violate due process if it is implemented through inconsistent, unguided decisionmaking and recipients are not informed of the benefit’s availability or how to apply.
- In § 1983 public-benefits litigation, federal courts may craft equitable remedies such as class-wide notice and an application procedure to address past deprivations caused by unconstitutional administration, so long as the remedy fits the violation found.

## Conclusion

Carey v. Quern held that Illinois officials’ pre–August 1, 1976 administration of an as-needed clothing allowance for unemployed Chicago General Assistance recipients violated due process because it operated without adequate standards and notice and was applied arbitrarily; the later policy change granting automatic allowances did not moot the controversy, and the court upheld class-wide equitable relief requiring notice and a process for class members to seek unpaid benefits for the earlier period.


Carey v. Quern, 588 F.2d 230 (1978)