Document: 413 U.S. 405 93 S.Ct. 2507 37 L.Ed.2d 688 NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES et al., Appellants,v.Dolores DUBLINO al. ONONDAGA COUNTY Appellants, v. Dolores Nos. 72—792, 72—802. Argued April 17—18, 1973. Decided June 21, Syllabus The 1967 amendments to the Social Security Act included Federal Work Incentive Program (WIN), designed help individuals on welfare become wage-earning members of society. States were required incorporate this program into their Aid Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) program, provide that certain 'employable' individuals, as a condition for receiving aid, shall register manpower services, training, and employment. In 1971 New York enacted provisions its Welfare Law, commonly referred Rules, which similarly cooperation by employable continue receive assistance. Appellees, public assistance recipients subject challenge those Rules having been pre-empted WIN Act. three-judge District Court ruled 'for in AFDC pre-empts Rules.' Held: 1. do not pre-empt Law. Pp. 412—423. (a) There is no substantial evidence Congress intended, either expressly or impliedly, state work programs. More than apparent comprehensiveness legislation show 'clear manifestation (congressional) intention' must exist before federal statute held 'to supersede exercise' action. Schwartz Texas, 344 199, 202—203, 73 232, 234—235, 97 L.Ed. 231. 412 417. (b) Affirmative exists establish Congress' intention terminate all programs foreclose future cooperative programs: limited scope application; it partical with supplementation, illustrated York; Department Health, Education, Welfare, responsible administering Act, has never considered pre-emptive. 417 421. (c) Where coordinate efforts within complementary administrative framework pursuit common purposes, here, case pre-emption persuasive. 421—422. 2. question whether some particular sections might contravene specific resolved, but remanded consideration. 422—423. 348 F.Supp. 290, reversed remanded. Jean M. Coon, Albany, N.Y., appellants. Dennis R. Yeager, City, appellees. Mr. Justice POWELL delivered opinion Court. 1 us 1935, 49 Stat. 620, amended, bars State from independently requiring accept employment receipt federally funded aid families dependent children. precisely, issue part known (WIN) McKinney's Consol. Laws, c. 55, Rules. A brief description both will be necessary. 2 19711 Governor Rockefeller's reorganize Program. Their aim, explained Governor, encourage 'the young able-bodied, temporarily need through fault own, achieve education skills, motivation determination make possible them increasingly self-sufficient, independent citizens who can contribute share responsibility our society.'2 3 To this, presumption are employable3 require report every two weeks pick up checks person; file certificate appropriate office stating suitable opportunities available; requested interviews; result referral employment; fail willfully employment, when available. addition establishing system private sector economy, permit establishment works projects York's social service districts.4 Failure persons participate operation results loss assistance.5 4 Like 'acquire sense dignity, self-worth, confidence flow being recognized member society . .', 42 U.S.C. § 630 (1970 ed., Supp. I). was Act,6 whereby plans. §§ 602(a) (19), seq. ed. Every plan under regulations promulgated Secretary Labor. 602(a)(19)(A) I).7 Available provided State, include 'such health, vocational rehabilitation, counseling, child care, other supportive services necessary enable such training ..' 602(a)(19) (G) I) After have provided, certify Labor ready programs, 602(a)(19)(G), 632, 633 I).8 Employment consists regular economy participation 630, As 5 court below, appellees, challenged violative several Constitution rejected last contention. 290 (WDNY 1972). On point, preempts'9 Id., at 297.10 holding only affected continued raised serious doubts viability supplementary 22 States, we set cause argument, 409 1123, 940, 35 255 (1973).11 We now reverse holding. 6 * below affects insofar they apply recipients. F.Supp., 297, 300 n. 5. Home Relief example—a general there reimbursement support12—remains untouched court's ruling. participants, however, decision would render inoperative hold exclusive manner applying carrot stick' place gainful 300.13 7 This sweeping step strikes core prerogative program—a careful describe 'scheme federalism.' King Smith, 392 309, 316, 88 2128, 2123, 20 1118 (1968); Dandridge Williams, 397 471, 478, 90 1153, 1158, 25 491 (1970); Jefferson Hackney, 406 535, 542, 92 1724, 1729, 32 285 (1972). It could impair capacity government deal effectively critical problem mounting costs increasing financial dependency many citizens. legitimate interest encouraging so, thus societal well-being personal family support. extent embody attempt promote self-reliance civic responsibility, assure funds spent behalf genuinely incapacitated most need, cope fiscal hardships enveloping local governments, should lightly interfere. problems confronting these areas severe, Government, allowed considerable latitude attempting resolution. 8 repeatedly refused void statutory absent congressional intent them. 9 'If authorized act field, manifest clearly. presumed intended exercise power unless clear so. supremacy presumed.' 235, 231 (1952). 10 See also Brotherhood Locomotive Engineers Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co., 382 423, 429, 86 594, 597, 15 501 (1966); Huron Portland Cement Co. City Detroit, 362 440, 446, 80 813, 817, 852 (1960); Mintz Baldwin, 289 346, 350, 53 611, 613, 77 1245 (1933); Savage Jones, 225 501, 533, 715, 725, 56 1182 (1912). 11 same principle relates directly where already acknowledged 'have allocating resources, since each free own standard determine level benefits amount devotes program.' supra, 318—319 U.S., 2134 S.Ct.; 478 1158 541 1729 Moreover, time passage 1967, 21 had initiated requirements eligibility.14 If plans an important dimension referrals assistance, intentions likelihood expressed direct unambiguous language. No expression exists, committee reports.15 12 Appellees argue, nonetheless, because comprehensive nature legislation, legislative history,16 alleged conflicts between laws.17 agree. reject, begin with, contention inferred merely character incentive provisions, 602(a)(19), subjects modern regulatory often very intricate complex responses Congress, without necessarily intending enactment means meeting problem, cf. Askew American Waterways, 411 325, 1590, 36 280 (1973). Given complexity matter addressed WIN, detailed scheme likely appropriate, completely apart any questions pre-emptive intent. especially sufficiently authorize govern well cooperatively requirements. 13 rely, did Court, history supporting view recipients, leaving rules.' Brief 29. pointed conclusion. cite fragmentary statements find unpersuasive. Reliance placed, example, statement Report House Ways Means Committee follows: 14 'Under your committee's bill, develop relative assure, maximum possible, individual enter labor force order self-sufficient. accomplish adult over age 16 attending school given, testing, job training.' H.R.Rep.No.544, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., (1967).18 (Emphasis supplied.) At best, ambiguous programs.19 'Appropriateness,' used Report, may mean 'appropriateness' solely confines WIN. Furthermore, language employed enacting conjunction operational funding, which, shown, quite respect total number Part II, infra. sum, attention directed relevant argument supports, except peripheral way, Far more Texas S.Ct., 234—235. II 17 Persuasive affirmative reasons strongly negate existing additional future. note, firstT hat itself face embracing. established political subdivisions 18 'in (the Labor) determines significant attained subdivisions, he use his best provision transportation established.' 632(a) 19 section constitutes express recognition probably application.20 York, meant 64 districts, though districts approximately 90% State. Yet resulting lack placement populated adequate potential enrollees programs.21 Even does operate, reach limited. according estimates, 150,000 registrants current year, contracted 90,000 registrants, whom majority full assistance.22 1971, asserts '17,511 Program, 9,600 enrollment.'23 California claims 'over 122,000 recipients' 18,000 available slots.24 evident partial stops short providing large numbers incongruous one hand prevent undertaking toward end. cannot interpret statutes stated purposes. significance supplementation experience aided objectives incentives: July September 30, first months Rules' operation, Service claimed placements 9,376 recipients.25 agency Government Act—including reviewing programs—has HEW followed consistently policy approving containing so long arbitrary unreasonable.26 presumably knew settled Subsequent WIN's passage, approve Pursuant approval, received grants-in-aid plan, including provisions.27 interpreting statute, mindful construction charged execution compelling indications wrong Red Lion Broadcasting FCC, 395 367, 381, 89 1794, 1802, 23 371 (1969); 481 482, 1159—1160. case, wholly absent. furthermore, attempted operate avoid friction overlap Officials testified recipient there, person participating if position him pursuant statute.28 framework, becomes less persuasive one. 24 context, dissenting opinion's reliance Townsend Swank, 404 282, 502, 30 448 (1971), Carleson Remillard, 598, 1932, 352 (1972), (1968), misplaced. cases law excluded people eligible. found room Act's warrant States' eligibility Here, contrast, allows procedures incident thereto—even conditions Such invalid, sphere administration. Wyman James, 400 91 27 408 (1971); Snell Wyman, D.C., 281 853 (SDNY), aff'd, 393 323, 553, 511 (1969). supra; III Our ruling establishes validity helping return resolve, 26 remand below. That opportunity consider conflict misapprehension entirely pre-empted. Further, Legislature amended 1972 provide, among things, exemption engaged full-time rehabilitation reporting check pick-up (N.Y.Laws 1972, 683), monthly rather semi-monthly payments shelter allowances (id., 685) and, significantly, definition identical 941). Inasmuch related state-federal conflict, afford it. deem unnecessary present intimate what purposes made initially consistent principles forth opinion.29 28 judgment further proceedings opinion. 29 ordered. MARSHALL, BRENNAN joins, dissenting. 31 Because today ignores fundamental rule I respectfully dissent. said 286, 505, absence authorization exclusion clearly evidenced history, excludes eligible standards violates therefore invalid Supremacy Clause.' 600, 1934, fall squarely statement; exclude standards, hardly maintained impose eligibility.1 For irrelevant filed available, yet fails 'deemed' N.Y. Services Law 131(4)(a) (Supp.1971 1972).2 Thus, rules interpretation heretofore followed, proper inquiry shows involved WIN.3 answer neither nor authorization. work-related exempting registration WIN,4 permits disregard needs otherwise good able engage.' 602(a)(19)(F) makes actual refusal permissible ground denying adopted none-too-subtle technique 'deeming' accepted not, obtained weeks. 'Deeming' familiar legal device evade applicable saying satisfied fact satisfied. But requirement, alter authorization,5 requires fictitious employment.6 33 confirms interpretation, whenever legislated requirements, focused refusals special Congress. adopt work-referral eligibility, even guise 34 inception, lessen somewhat burden children deprived parental support reason parent. 629 (1935). Assistance supply children, 'releas(ing parent) role.' H.R.Doc.No.81, 74th H.R.Rep.No.615, program's ways inconsistent requirement parent leave home Yet, original failed sufficient inducement remain home, measured child's needs. relieve pressures work, 1950 meet living.' 606(b)(1). Until 1961, then, sole emphasis preserving integrity unit.7 expanded unemployment 607. parents could, time, impairing unit. unemployed deny bona fide offers Pub.L. 87—31, 75 76 (1961). Refusal contemplated condition. S.Rep.No. 165, 87th (1961); U.S.Code Cong. Admin.News p. 1716. then developed concept, permitting 'Community Training Programs' projects, 87—543, 105, 186, rendered inapplicable 90—248, 81 892. assignment project denial H.R.Rep.No.1414, 2d (1962); Code 1962, 1943. When abandon previous policies. Recipients specified indication whatsoever supervised Labor, Programs are. parameters accommodate dual interests guaranteeing maximizing Without supervision, sort delegation testing counseling design employability plans, 885, upset accommodation sought. carefully coordinated system, whose parts fit integrated whole. surprising impliedly represented kept scrutiny variety goals sought achieved.8 believe seriously misconceives belief purpose promoting opportunities, precluding negate. Ante, 418—420. Instead, indicated desire enhance while maintaining regulated, terms participate. And regulation close supervision my view, course mentioned 'ambiguous,' 'fragmentary,' 'peripheral,' ante, 415, 416, how viewed, fairly say evidences making assistance.9 38 statement10 serves useful purpose. informs legislators that, wish accommodations previously arrived major importance, indicate wish, appear minor changes narrow ramifications throughout administration insures ramifications,11 regularly adhered to. 39 Finally, particularly Myths abound area. widely erroneously believed, little self-supporting. See, e.g., L. Goodwin, Do Poor Want Work? 5, 51—52, 112 generally influence, expedient accede generated misconceptions. possibility erroneous beliefs lead single out politically unpopular harsh treatment, different standards. observed 318—319, 2134, leaves 'considerable quotes observation misses import. adjust mentioned, imposing eligibility. across-the-board adjustments like made, groups discriminatory treatment.12 40 reasons, affirm basic action brought 131 (Supp.1971—1972): '4. care given registered nearest department engage. 'A deemed he: 'a. obtain district least semimonthly new opening part-time, full-time, temporary permanent applicant engage, 'b. interview office, 'c. 'd. willful failures above listed reported immediately office. 'For subdivision five, unable by: illness incapacitation, mental physical, duration incapacitation prevents performing services; advanced age; attendance minor, accordance chapter; fulltime, satisfactory approved rehabilitation; person's household incapacitated, reasonably notwithstanding diligent others care. assigned hundred sixty-four three fifty-k chapter employed. 'Every grants division labor, department.' Section 350-k provides placed Special Message Legislature, Mar. 29, (Brief Appellant Depts. 9). see 1, supra. ibid. These implemented, Regional Commissioner aid. 13. Administrative Letter, 71 PWD—43 reads part: '(T)he Laws renewed restoring economy. Accordingly, community, referral, but, effective there. penalty cooperating procedure ineligibility grantee head family, living alone, non-grantee nonhead family.' App. 53—54. dealing enacted. Dec. 28, 92—223, 3, 85 803. '§ 602. needy children; contents; approval Secretary. '(a) (')(19) provide— '(A) individual, part, is— '(i) time; '(ii) ill, '(iii) remote precluded; '(iv) presence incapacity another household; '(v) mother six caring child; '(vi) female caretaker child, father male clause (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) subparagraph (unless subparagraph, 633(g) title described (F) paragraph).' penalized reduction 15% average year. 603(c) parties word 'pre-emption' sense. litigation involve arguable similar problem. Cf., (1960). part. implementation AFDC, program. caveat, preserve Court's usage, advantage focusing question: mechanism AFDC. points regard termination hearings 295—297. postponed consideration jurisdiction hearing merits. conclude constitutional appellees insubstantial deprive jurisdiction. appellees' due process claim, implement informing rights. 299. stipulates done. Tr. Oral Arg. 19—20. address appeal superseded whole law. jointly financed Government. 473, 1155, (1970). Appellees' 'complete exclusion' 34; Response United Amicus Curiae 2—3. 12. information derived survey conducted Welfare. eliminate coexisting appears S.Rep.No.744, Sess. 26, 145—157; H.R.Rep.No.1030, 58—59, 2834, amendments, 6, asserted intent, 297. remand, III, infra, conflicts. light impressive contrary. Other citations effect 29—30. Perhaps revealing expressions confirm, subsequent enactment, wake invalidation became concerned misconstrued following colloquy occurred Senator Buckley Long Louisiana, Chairman Finance prior Senate: 'Mr. Buckley. Was ever preempt field ADC recipients? Long. mind. So far distinguished chairman con- cerned, body preemption field? something money employable. .' 118 Cong.Rec. 36819 Representatives, dialogue took Congressman Carey Mills, Committee, program: York. My clairman authorizing years. understanding assist area guiding able-bodied self-sufficiency—and Under Is correct? Mills Arkansas. agree friend, gentleman matter, law.' 36931 guidelines, issued appellants, 1,100 enrollees. 37. id., 37—38. Title 602(a)(19)(A)(iii) application exempts 'a precluded.' 15, citing Dept. Manpower Administration, contract No. 36—2—0001—188, modification 1972. contends funding one-fifth Act.' Ibid. 38, 17. 3. 15; 192. Appellants claim January 'there 2.657 Program,' 5,323 18. figures qualified, temporary; forms (while counts recipients); placed—and statistically tabulated—on occasion. 33—36. None observations, obscures materially attainment objective Solicitor General joined Counsel HEW. Excerpts depositions Nelson Hopper, Director Bureau George Demmon, Senior Counsellor, Erie County Services, 226, 234. 17, 7. considering take account decisions. 'has broad discretion,' 545, 1731, (1972); 1158; 2133—2134, '(s)o State's actions violation Act,' courts Jefferson, Conflicts, merit judicial federal-state resolution, substance trivial insubstantial. control. 'constitute assistance.' Reply 9. arguments present, relate purported sort. relating amicus curiae, argues characterize relies primarily (1971). But, escaped me 345 7, 387, argument. therefore, limitation Townsend. Similarly, summary affirmance (1969), offset affirmances Taylor, 980, 364 Juras Meyers, 803, 91, Weaver Doe, 987, 537, 539 authority weak, logic weaker. suggests class distinction withstand analysis, turn meaningless verbal tricks. One just easily narrowing persons: minimizing subsidies prospect income poverty level, four-year colleges granting schools. almost certainly Due Process Clause, seems interest. register. 602(a)(19)(A)(i) 'of substance,' 423 16. defining 'spell(ed) think go work,' put 113 32593 (1967). 744, 26; 2834. be, assume, argue 602(a)(10) furnished individuals' read context 'eligible' Federal.' Townsend, 505. may, course, insure transmitted extended taken whole, that. 1956, strengthen life. 880, 312, 70 848. proposal permitted Community operated H.R. 5710, 204(a). both. final version, pre-existing eliminated, implemented Again, coexist. Amendments 802, demonstrate control Each 'separate unit' connection 602(a)(19)(G) anomalous devote resources unit using thought important. discuss length analysis does, 9, classic pre-emption, is, preclude attempts regulate subject? whatever wishes, limitations, gives funds. 412. here supported inapposite strictures earlier relied against interfering 413—414. must, cautious regulating where, action, interests. Holding method impact; funds, chose. H. Hart A. Sacks, Legal 1240 (Tent. 1958). connection, let pass comment extraordinary 'history,' relying exchanges floor Senate after case. 416—417 19. Although criticized Schwegmann Bros. Calvert Distillers Corp., 341 384, 395—397, 745, 751—752, 95 1035 (1951) (Jackson, J., concurring), proposition exchanges, sponsors bill chairmen involved, bill. St. Paul, M.R. 247 310, 318, 525, 528, 62 1130 (1918). know ought aware importance exchanges. disagree offer vote endorsed interpretations offered true post-enactment bearing pending disinterested legislator pay scant attention. Representative wished barred introducing legislation. treatment unconstitutional shown discussion 11.

Category: 1