## Facts

- A Seventh Circuit decision had required certain local Illinois general-assistance offices to use written eligibility standards and notice-and-hearing procedures for welfare decisions.
- A legal services organization filed suit in 1980 on behalf of Charles R. Henson, an East Lincoln Township resident, and similarly situated applicants in 65 Illinois counties allegedly denied due process in general-assistance determinations.
- The suit named East Lincoln Township and its general-assistance supervisor and sought to certify a defendant class consisting of roughly 770 township welfare departments and supervisors in those counties that did not receive state aid.
- The complaint sought only injunctive relief ordering defendant-class members to implement written standards and notice-and-hearing procedures.
- The plaintiff provided notice to the proposed defendant-class members and served written discovery on them with district court permission.
- The district court refused to certify the proposed defendant class, reasoning that defendant classes were not permissible under Rule 23(b)(2).
- The plaintiff appealed the denial of certification.

## Issues

1. Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) allows certification of a defendant class in an action seeking injunctive or declaratory relief.
2. If defendant classes are permitted, whether the proposed class of hundreds of local welfare departments and supervisors satisfied Rule 23(a) prerequisites, including commonality, typicality, and adequate representation.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit held that Rule 23(b)(2) may permit defendant classes; the rule’s text does not categorically limit class treatment to plaintiffs.
- The court nevertheless affirmed the denial of certification because the proposed defendant class failed Rule 23 requirements.
- The court emphasized heightened due process concerns when binding absent defendants, including the need for adequate representation and practical ability to participate.
- The court concluded that differences among local welfare practices and the absence of a single statewide policy undermined commonality and typicality.
- The court found inadequate representation because one township and its supervisor could not reliably represent the potentially divergent interests of hundreds of other governmental units.
- The court agreed that the requested classwide injunction raised serious administration and enforcement difficulties.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 23(b)(2) can support defendant-class certification where defendants have acted (or refused to act) on grounds generally applicable to the class and classwide injunctive or declaratory relief is appropriate.
- Defendant-class actions remain subject to Rule 23(a) requirements (numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy of representation), and those requirements must be applied with special care due to the due process implications of binding absent defendants.
- Certification may be denied where alleged violations arise from varied local practices rather than a uniform policy, making classwide relief ill-suited.
- Adequacy of representation is central for defendant classes; named defendants must be able to represent absent defendants whose interests and defenses may materially differ.
- Courts may consider manageability and enforceability of a proposed injunction, including the risk of vague commands or extensive compliance disputes.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit rejected a categorical ban on defendant classes under Rule 23(b)(2) but affirmed denial of certification because the proposed class of numerous, heterogeneous local welfare offices lacked sufficient commonality, typicality, and adequate representation, and because a single enforceable injunction was impractical.


Henson v. E. Lincoln Twp., 814 F.2d 410 (7th Cir. 1987)