Damico v. California (1967)

An underlying purpose of the federal Civil Rights Act was to provide a remedy in the federal courts supplementary to any remedy any State might have, and relief under the Act may not be defeated because relief was not sought under state law which provided an administrative remedy.

Citation:	389 U.S. 416 (1967)
Court:	SCOTUS
Date decided:	Dec 18, 1967
Longer case name:	Damico v. California
Law type:	Civil
Jurisdiction level:	Federal
State of origin:	California
Topic(s):	Civil Rights Act, Due process, and Public assistance
Lists:	Important cases
Result:	Win
Attorneys:	George F. Duke for appellants.
Others involved:
More info:

Case Importance

The poor don’t have to exhaust administrative remedies to sue a state in federal court if the state is violating law in a welfare case.

Case Details

(The syllabus is not part of the opinion, but is a summary prepared by the court reporter as a convenience.)

Syllabus

Appellants’ suit under the Civil Rights Act, challenging the California welfare law and regulations as unconstitutional, was dismissed by a three-judge District Court for failure “to exhaust adequate administrative remedies.”

Held: One of the Act’s underlying purpose was “to provide a remedy in the federal courts supplementary to any remedy any State might have,” and “relief under the Act may not be defeated because relief was not sought under state law which provided [an administrative] remedy.” McNeese v. Board of Education, 373 U. S. 668.

Reversed and remanded.

INTERNAL USE ONLY:
Last modified: 2022-12-27 12:45
Case internal grade: A | Case internal status: OK |
Case internal status notes:
Collections: