Schneider v. Feinberg

345 F.3d 135 (2003)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Schneider v. Feinberg

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
345 F.3d 135 (2003)


Cheryl Schneider and other family members of individuals who died on September 11, 2001, (families) (plaintiffs) sued Special Master Kenneth Feinberg (defendant) to challenge the compensation-awards process promulgated by Feinberg to administer the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund (fund). Congress created the fund as part of the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act of 2001 to compensate the families of persons who were injured or killed during September 11 terrorist attacks for economic and noneconomic damages. Per the act, the fund was administered by a special master who determined the amount of compensation a claimant received based on individual circumstances, including financial need and deductions for personal consumption. The act did not impose a cap on the amount of compensation any claimant could receive. Feinberg promulgated regulations and established an award scheme with tables calculated up to the 98th percentile of income for the year 2000. Prior to filing a claim for her deceased husband, Schneider attended informal meetings with Feinberg, in which Schneider presented an expert report indicating that her family’s lost income was likely over $28 million. Feinberg’s consultants estimated Schneider’s loss closer to $14 million, but Feinberg stated he would not compensate anyone more than $6 million. The other families also met with Feinberg and were similarly told that awards would not be based on the lost income of high-earners. Schneider and the families challenged Feinberg’s procedures via the Administrative Procedure Act, claiming that Feinberg’s regulations violated the act by imposing a compensation-cap and considering financial need and other deductions when determining awards. Feinberg moved for summary judgment, and Schneider and the families filed a counter-motion. The trial court granted summary judgment to Feinberg and dismissed the claims of Schneider and the families. Schneider and the families appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 734,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 734,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 734,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership