Booth v. Churner

Subsequently, the District Court dismissed the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

In affirming, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Booth's argument that the exhaustion requirement was inapplicable because the administrative process could not award him the monetary relief he sought.

The attorneys general of over 30 states filed amicus curiae briefs at the Court, urging affirmance of the decision.

[3] Justice David Souter wrote the unanimous majority opinion of the court, which agreed with the Third Circuit in rejecting Booth's claims.

[5] Justice Souter wrote for the Court, "we think that Congress has mandated exhaustion clearly enough, regardless of the relief offered through administrative procedures.