Mario Lopez v. Margaret M. Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services

The Secretary of Health and Human Services seeks a partial stay pending appeal of a preliminary injunction issued by the United States District Court for the Central District of California. 1 See Fed.R.App.P. 8(a); Ninth Circuit R.App.P. 6(h). The order requires the restoration of disability benefits to a large number of Social Security recipients. From 28,000 to 78,000 individuals may be eligible. We reject the Secretary’s request for a stay and allow the preliminary injunction to stand.

BACKGROUND

The underlying dispute before the district court involves a class action 2 challenge to policies and procedures used by the Secretary in terminating Social Security disability benefits. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-431 (1976 and Supp. IV 1980) (Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits for disabled workers); 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381-1383 (1976 and Supp. IV 1980) (Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits for persons who are both poor and disabled). According to findings made by the district court, since March of 1981 the Social Security Administration has drastically increased the rate at which it reviews the status of per *1434 sons receiving disability benefits. 3 As a result, the…

concurring.

I concur completely in Judge Reinhardt’s opinion. I write separately only to emphasize my concern over the Secretary’s avowed policy of nonacquiescence with Ninth Circuit law as enunciated in Patti v. Schweiker, 669 F.2d 582 (9th Cir.1982), and Finnegan v. Matthews, 641 F.2d 1340 (9th Cir.1981). The Secretary’s ill-advised policy of refusing to obey the decisional law of this circuit is akin to the repudiated preCivil War doctrine of nullification whereby rebellious states refuséd to recognize certain federal laws within their boundaries. The Secretary’s nonacquiescence not only scoffs at the law of this circuit, but flouts some very important principles basic to our American system of government — the rule of law, the doctrine of separation of powers imbedded in the constitution, and the tenet of judicial supremacy laid down in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 , 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803). The government expects its citizens to abide by the law — no less is expected of those charged with the duty to faithfully administer the law.

713 F.2d 1432 2 Soc.Sec.Rep.Ser. 395 Mario LOPEZ, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al., Defendants-Appellants. No. 83-6126. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Aug. 24, 1983. Elena H. Ackel, Los Angeles, Cal., Lew Hollman, Pacoima, Cal., Bruce Iwaskai, Marilyn Holle, Ellen Finkelberg, Frankel & Finkelberg, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellees. J. Paul McGrath, Washington, D.C., Stephen S. Trott, William Kanter, Eloise E. Davies, Washington, D.C., for defendants-appellants. Emergency Motion for a Partial Stay Pending Appeal of a Preliminary Injunction Ordered by the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Before PREGERSON, BOOCHEVER and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges. REINHARDT, Circuit Judge: 1 The Secretary of Health and Human Services seeks a partial stay pending appeal of a preliminary injunction issued by the United States District Court for the Central District of California. 1 See Fed.R.App.P. 8(a); Ninth Circuit R.App.P. 6(h). The order requires the restoration of disability benefits to a large number of Social Security recipients. From 28,000 to 78,000 individuals…