The ordinary and the extraordinary in institutional litigation

Institutional litigation, in which courts are requested to oversee the operation of large public institutions, has been frequently attacked as a departure from the traditional model of litigation. In this Article, Professors Eisenberg and Yeazell argue that the procedures and remedies employed in institutional litigation are not unprecedented but have analogues in older judicial traditions. Nor, they assert, do the doctrines of separation of powers and federalism present any obstacles to institutional litigation. They conclude that the novelty lies in the newly created substantive rights which courts are asked to enforce.     

Receipt of multiple benefits by disabled-worker beneficiaries

In 1971, 44 percent of workers who had been currently entitled to social security disability insurance (DI) benefits for 1 year or more also received benefits from at least one other source. Their average disability insurance benefit was higher than that of persons who received only DI benefits. On the average, total benefits to those receiving multiple benefits were double the amounts paid to those receiving only DI benefits. The combined benefits for the former produced median replacement rates about 50 percent larger than the median replacement rates for the latter. High replacement rates--defined here as more than 80 percent of predisability earnings replaced by benefit--predominate among those with multiple benefits. Considering replacement rates based solely on disability insurance benefits substantially understates the extent to which benefits from public and private programs actually replace predisability earnings. Replacement rates based solely on DI benefits are generally higher for those receiving DI benefits only than for persons receiving multiple benefits. Limiting DI benefits to the replacement rate from DI benefits alone is disadvantageous for persons who receive only DI benefits, compared with those who also receive other benefits.