Document: 398 U.S. 275 90 S.Ct. 1582 26 L.Ed.2d 218 George K. WYMAN, etc., et al., Appellants,v.Edna ROTHSTEIN al. No. 896. Argued April 27, 28, 1970. Decided June 1, Philip Weinberg, New York City, for appellants. Edward V. Sparer, Philadelphia, Pa., appellees. Peter L. Strauss, Washington, D.C., United States, amicus curiae, by special leave of Court. PER CURIAM. 1 Appellees commenced this action in the federal District Court Southern challenging on equal protection and statutory grounds § 131—a Social Services Law, McKinney's Consol.Laws, c. 55, which provides payments to welfare recipients Nassau, Suffolk, certain other State counties lesser amounts than provided residents City should Welfare Administrator determine that adequate cause exists differential. A three-judge court was convened it found appellees' likelihood success their constitutional claim warranted issuance a preliminary injunction against what be payment violation Equal Protection Clause Fourteenth Amendment. The unnecessary consider claims. We noted probable jurisdiction. 397 903, 910, 25 85. 2 Subsequent decision rendered its Rosado v. Wyman, 397, 1207, 442 (1970), wherein we held called upon pass validity State's program should, before reaching issues, first any pendent claims are presented, notwithstanding pendency negotiations between Department Health, Education, Welfare. 3 In light foregoing, judgment is vacated case remanded an opportunity propriety granting interim relief accordance with conventional equitable principles basis claims, or, if question reached, continuing present Court's Dandridge Williams, 471, 1153, 491. 4 It so ordered. 5 Vacated remanded. 6 Mr. Justice MARSHALL took no part case. 7 BLACK, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins, dissenting. 8 When appellees, Secretary process determining provisions under attack consistent standard requiring uniform statewide application state plans. See Security Act 402, as amended, 81 Stat. 877 seq., 42 U.S.C. 602 (1964 ed., Supp. IV); 45 CFR 233.20. Although agency has not yet made final decision, appears from brief submitted States curiae HEW determination do conform Act's requirements. Accordingly, today remands consideration involves live controversy 430, 1227, my belief such controversies resolved proceedings two governments involved, Act. See, e.g., §§ 602, 1316 IV). For reason, I would vacate remand directions complaint dismissed.

Category: 1