Document: 406 U.S. 598 92 S.Ct. 1932 32 L.Ed.2d 352 Robert B. CARLESON et al., Appellants,v.Nancy REMILLARD, etc., al. No. 70—250. Argued April 10, 1972. Decided June 7, Syllabus This is a class action for injunctive and declaratory relief by child mother whose husband away from home on military duty, challenging the validity of California's Department Social Welfare Regulation EAS § 42—350.11, pursuant to which they had been denied Aid Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits. Though California incorporates in its AFDC eligibility provisions 'continued absence' concept Security Act, under dependent 'deprived parental support . reason (a parent's) continued absence home,' deemed eligible benefits, 42—350.11 excludes because service definition absence.' The District Court granted sought. Held: Section 402(a)(10) Act imposes each State participating program requirement that benefits 'shall be furnished with reasonable promptness all individuals.' Under criterion parent means may absent any reason. Consequently, applies one who service, invalid Supremacy Clause. Pp. 600—604. 325 F.Supp. 1272, affirmed. Jay S. Linderman, San Francisco, Cal., appellants. Carmen L. Massey, Richmond, appellees, pro hac vice, special leave Court. Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered opinion 1 Appellees are child. enlisted United States Army served Vietnam. applied at time when amount monthly allotment she received virtue her husband's was less than 'need' as computed agency grant an adult receives California. She relief. Although 42 U.S.C. §§ 301 1394, grants aid families 'dependent children,' includes term child' 'who has deprived or care 606(a), construed not including absence. It unquestioned fact 'needy.' 2 When check stopped, appellee again this adopted regulation1 specifically prohibited payment needy where due service. 3 seeking declaration invalidity regulation injunction restraining enforcement ground it conflicts denies appellees Fourteenth Amendment rights process equal protection. 4 A three-judge convened divided vote 1272. case here appeal. 28 1253, 2101(b). We noted prohable jurisdiction, 404 1013, 670, 30 660. 5 602(a)(10), places 'aid children shall 'Eligibility,' so defined, must measured federal standards. King v. Smith, 392 309, 88 2128, 20 1118. There, we were faced Alabama defined mother's paramour 'parent' 606(a)(1) purposes, thus permitting deny theory there no continually home. held Congress breadwinner legally obligated his children, precluded altering standard. importance our holding stressed Townsend Swank, 282, 286, 502, 505, L.Ed. 448: 6 'King Smith establishes that, least congressional authorization exclusion clearly evidenced legislative history, state standard persons assistance standards violates therefore Clause.' (Emphasis supplied.) 7 In Townsend, also expressly disapproved Health, Education, HEW policy permitted vary requirements without express implied authorization. Ibid. 8 involved 406(a)(2)(B) 606(a)(2)(B), children' those 'under age twenty-one (as determined accordance prescribed Secretary (of HEW)) student regularly attending school, college, university, course vocational technical training designed fit him gainful employment.' Illinois include 18—20-year-old high school but same group college. 606(a)(2)(B) classification varied children. Involved present controversy another matching funds set forth namely If then it, too, 9 HEW's regulations provide2 that: 10 'Continued constitutes deprivation out home, nature such either interrupt terminate parent's functioning provider maintenance, physical care, guidance child, known indefinite duration precludes counting performance function planning these conditions exist, reason, he have left only recently some previously.' 11 Solicitor General advises us although reads permit approved plans category benefits.3 included 'service armed forces other service' example situation falling above Handbook Public Assistance Administration, pt. IV, 3422.2. 12 Our difficulty position home' accurately describes active duty. House Report speaks 'in lacking father's support,' H.R.Rep.No.615, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., Senate refers 'children support.' S.Rep.No.628, 17. While '(t)hese principally female heads widowed, divorced, deserted,' ibid., stated limited cases divorce desertion. 13 agree connotes, says, 'the reason.' search vain, moreover, authority make into accordion-like concept, applicable parents others. 14 presence legal obligation key program, U.S., 327, 2138; Lewis Martin, 397 552, 559, 90 1282, 1285, 25 561. looked 'work relief' programs revival private industry' help find work needed family. supra, 17, meet need unmet depression-era aimed providing breadwinners. 328, 2139. That protection homes breadwinner. clear 'military orphans' category, for, Supreme Washington, man 15 'has little control over family's economic destiny. He labor union look persuading employer pay living wage. access collective bargaining negotiating forum persuasion, even informal concerted fellow employees. cannot quit job seek better paying (T)here could lawfully take earnings adequate while putting full job. His kind involuntary employment do virtually nothing improve welfare family.c Kennedy Dept. Assistance, 79 Wash.2d 728, 732—733, 489 P.2d 154, 157. 16 Stoddard Fisher, D.C., 330 566, Maine Clause father Judge Coffin said: 17 'We note irony result would family finds disqualified receiving removed himself possibility public voluntarily undertaking, inadequate compensation, defense country.' Id., 571 n. 8. 18 assume here, anymore 'intended provide security arbitrarily destitute entirely meaningful protection.' 330, 2140. especially confident leaving uncared entire became 'needy their fathers Armed Services defending country. 19 hold exclude so-called orphans Accordingly affirm judgment court. Affirmed. 21 Chief BURGER, concurring. 22 I join Court, assumption, articulated opinion, administratively deduct total 'need payment' being paid dependents system. curious, indeed, if two 'pockets' government required duplicating payments welfare. 23 administrative procedures give effect cumbersome, right avoid overlapping should understood. Calif.Dept.Soc.Welfare Reg. provides does exist: 'When physically temporary basis. Examples visits, trips made connection current prospective employment, duty Services.' 45 CFR 233.90(c)(1)(iii). record reveals Columbia furnish servicemen, Puerto Rico not.

Category: 1