Medina

Medina v. Clinton

Good Law
86 F.3d 155·96 Daily Journal DAR 6738·1996 WL 312365·1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 14172·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4161
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 12, 1996No. 95-15571California1,020 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Tashima, J.

Plaintiffs are three unemployed or underemployed adult males. They commenced this putative class action on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated against defendants the President of the United States of America, William J. Clinton (the “President”), the Department of Labor and the Secretary of Labor Robert Reich to compel the creation or expansion of federal job programs. The district court dismissed their action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs, residents of Tucson, Arizona, allege that, despite their best efforts, they have been unable for the past several years to secure continuous, full-time work at a liveable wage. Consequently, they suffer from homelessness and from severe physiological, psychological, and social hardship. They commenced this action to require the President to comply with the provisions of the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978 (the “Act”), Pub.L. No. 95-523, 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. (92 Stat.) 1887 (codified, as amended, at 2 U.S.C. §§ 632 , 636, 661, 661a-661f; 12 U.S.C. § 225a; and 15 U.S.C. §§ 1021-1024 ,3101-3152).

In enacting this legislation, Congress declared and established “as a national…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.