Brief Fact Summary. After the tragedy of September 11, 2001, Congress and the President enacted the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund (Fund) of 2001 to provide compensation to the bereaved. Plaintiffs brought suit claiming that the Fund unconstitutionally discriminates against them
Synopsis of Rule of Law. The duty of a judge is to give deference to the Department of Justice’s regulations and respect to the Special Master’s policies to the extent that they are rooted in law.
Issue. Did the Special Master, Feinburg (Defendant) discriminate against Plaintiffs by failing to award Plaintiffs more money in administering the Fund?
Held. No. Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion was granted.
* The Fund’s purpose is to provide compensation to any individual (or relatives of a deceased individual), who was physically injured or killed as a result of the terrorist-related aircraft crashes of September 11, 2001. By electing to file a claim with the Fund, a claimant waives all rights to bring a civil action regarding the September 11 crashes.
* The Special Master is to make his award determinations without regard to negligence or any other theory of liability. Defendant’s awards are not to include amounts for punitive damages and are to be offset by amounts of collateral source compensation the claimant received or is entitled to receive. There was no mention of dollar limitations on the amount of an individual claimant’s compensation award.
* The methodology established by the Special Master was intended to provide a speedy and efficient alternative to normal tort litigation. Claimants were able to predict the awards for which they are eligible, and which they will be entitled to receive within a 120-day period. They can decide among three options: (1) to enter the process and accept the presumed award; (2) to obtain a hearing before the Special Master and seek to prove entitlement to a higher amount, also within a relatively short period; or (3) to pursue the normal tort litigation process, with all its risks of contested liability, discovery, lengthy pre-trial and trial proceedings, appellate review, and substantial litigation expense, but with the potential for larger economic recovery.
* The court found that the regulations, duly promulgated as required by law, reasonably and properly implement the provisions of the Act. The duty of a judge is to give deference to the Department of Justice’s regulations and respect to the Special Master’s policies to the extent that they are rooted in law. The regulations and policies are lawful and valid.
We therefore agree with the District Court's and the Court of Appeals reading of this language as describing the process of direct review of individual denials of SAW status, rather than as referring to general collateral challenges to unconstitutional practices and policies used by the agency in processing applications.View Full Point of Law