## Facts

- Illinois officials administering Aid to the Aged, Blind, and Disabled (AABD) allegedly failed to comply with federal time limits for processing applications and initiating benefit payments.
- A class of AABD applicants sued state officials, alleging violations of federal regulations and the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The district court certified a class and entered a permanent injunction requiring future compliance with the federal timing rules.
- The district court also ordered officials to release and remit benefits wrongfully withheld to eligible applicants for a past period, effectively requiring payment for delays preceding the preliminary injunction.
- The court of appeals affirmed, rejecting the argument that the Eleventh Amendment barred the retroactive payment component.

## Issues

1. Whether the Eleventh Amendment bars a federal court from ordering state officials to make retroactive payments of welfare benefits for past violations of federal law when payment would come from the state treasury.
2. Whether retroactive monetary relief may be sustained by labeling it “equitable restitution” against state officials rather than a money judgment against the State.
3. Whether a State waives Eleventh Amendment immunity by participating in a federally funded, federally regulated welfare program.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the Eleventh Amendment barred the portion of the decree requiring retroactive payment of wrongfully withheld AABD benefits.
- The Court concluded the retroactive award was, in practical effect, a money judgment payable from the state treasury and thus an unconsented suit against the State.
- The Court left intact the prospective injunction requiring state officials to comply with federal time limits going forward under the Ex parte Young doctrine.
- The Court rejected the argument that Illinois waived its immunity by participating in the AABD program.
- The Court declined to treat the retroactive award as permissible “equitable restitution” where its effect was to impose past financial liability on the State.

## Legal Principles

- The Eleventh Amendment bars federal-court relief that imposes a liability payable from public funds in the state treasury when the State has not consented to suit.
- Ex parte Young permits prospective injunctive relief against state officials to end ongoing violations of federal law, even though compliance may require future state expenditures.
- Courts distinguish permissible prospective relief from impermissible retroactive monetary relief by the effect of the decree, not the label attached to it.
- Participation in a federal program does not constitute waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity absent a clear statement of the State’s intent to consent to suit.
- Eleventh Amendment immunity operates as a limit on federal judicial power over unconsenting States, preventing retroactive monetary awards against the State even when directed nominally at officials.

## Conclusion

The Court held that federal courts may order state officials to comply prospectively with federal welfare requirements, but the Eleventh Amendment bars orders compelling retroactive payments from the state treasury for past noncompliance absent the State’s consent.


Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974)