Document: 425 U.S. 231 96 S.Ct. 1399 47 L.Ed.2d 701 Marcel YOUAKIM et al., Appellants,v.Jerome MILLER, Individually and as Director of the Department Children Family Services, al. No. 73-6935. March 31, 1976. Patrick A. Keenan, DePaul Law Clinic, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs-appellants. William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., Ill. (Paul Bargiel, Asst. counsel), defendants-appellees. PER CURIAM. 1 As part federal Aid to Families with Dependent (AFDC) program, 42 U.S.C. § 601 Et seq., State Illinois provides federally subsidized foster care (AFDC-FC) payments $105 per month a dependent child placed unrelated parents. Under Illinois' administration program no are made parents who related child. Related eligible, however, receive under State's regular AFDC support children in amount $63 month. These without regard financial circumstances family caring In addition, an exception policy, parents, upon adequate showing need, may supplemental which bring connection approximately 2 Appellants Linda Youakim her husband, Marcel, Linda's four minor brothers sisters, Timothy, Mary Lou, Larry, Sherry Robertson. Since 1972, Youakims have been Timothy Lou. Larry living separate, facilities since 1969. Because is were ineligible AFDC-FC payments. They did apply smaller both children. Alleging injury resulting from inability provide Lou into their family, appellants filed suit District Court against state officials on behalf themselves all other persons similarly situated. Their complaint described action enjoin enforcement payment scheme ground that it denied families equal protection laws likewise discriminated wards relatives could not home full asked three-judge convene statutes regulations. 3 The court "approved" Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 23(b)(2) class, granted appellees' motion summary judgment, ultimately held "Illinois does deny plaintiffs laws." 374 F.Supp. 1204, 1210 (N.D.Ill.1974). jurisdictional statement here expressly challenged grounds conflict Social Security Act. We noted probable jurisdiction. 420 970, 95 1389, 43 650 (1975). 4 Although we jurisdiction presented question between law Act, appears Supremacy Clause claim was independent invalidating law. one seeking injunction grounds. sole relief claimed each three causes purported allege, well prayer relief, laws. It appear record case developed rested separate basis claim. Nor address relationship independently issue. 5 [1] Ordinarily, this decide questions raised or resolved lower court. California v. Taylor, 353 553, 557 n. 2, 77 1037, 1039-40, 1034, 1037 (1957); Lawn United States, 355 339, 362-363, 16, 78 311, 324, 321, 337 (1958). But Pollard 352 354, 359, 481, 484-85, 393, 397-98 (1957), Brotherhood Carpenters 330 395, 412, 67 775, 784, 91 L.Ed. 973, 987 (1947), example, demonstrate, rule inflexible. Cf. Boynton Virginia, 364 454, 457, 81 182, 184, 206, 209-10 (1960). Its usual formulation is: "It only exceptional cases coming courts pressed passed below reviewed." Duignan 274 195, 200, 566, 568, 71 996, 1000 (1927). Here, shall describe, justify our dealing issue at least extent vacating judgment remanding consideration 6 Initially, should be statutory foreign subject matter complaint. Attacks welfare often combine Equal Protection issues. latter surely pursued case, which, "facts" incorporated by reference action, alleged policy States expressed subchapter IV 49 Stat. 627, amended, specifically encouraging own homes wherever possible. 7 also apparent view Townsend Swank, 404 282, 92 502, 30 448 (1971), "serious problems" might arise if "a attempts rely concept fiscal integrity limit beyond standards class eligible payments." F.Supp., 1210. For reason,he compared law, concluded: "Far being inconsistent scheme, general seems parallel it. . Thus statute makes same classification statute." Ibid. Had relied decision would rejected Court. light these circumstances, most marginally will consider issues "not upon" below. 8 Beyond considerations, October 25, 1974, after filing but before jurisdiction, Health, Education, Welfare issued Program Instruction APA-PI-75-9 stating controlling "(w)hen has removed his judicial determination various conditions specified ., rate prevails regardless whether operated relative." Also, response appellants' statement, Solicitor General urging Act insofar provided higher than those related. Neither nor had benefit either developments when interpretation agency charged its substantial factor considered construing statute, New York Dept. Services Dublino, 405, 421, 93 2507, 2516-17, 37 688, 699 (1973); Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. Democratic Comm., 412 94, 121, 2080, 2095-96, 36 772, 794 Investment Co. Institute Camp, 401 617, 626-627, 1091, 1097, 28 367, 376-77 (1971); appellants1 now wish press think appropriate afford them opportunity do so, aired first Vacating purpose require issue, Hagans Lavine, 415 528, 94 1372, 39 577 (1974), prevail question, unnecessary reach all. A remand thus consistent practice avoiding decisions constitutional matters grounds.2 9 take similar order entered Thorpe Housing Authority, 386 670, 87 1244, 18 394 (1967). There, rather deciding constitutionality eviction public housing project, remanded reconsideration supervening administrative directive authorities thought nonconstitutional decision. Richardson Wright, 405 208, 209, 788, 789-90, 31 151, 153-54 (1972). 10 vacated, further proceedings opinion. 11 So ordered. 12 Judgment vacated remanded. 13 Mr. Justice STEVENS took case. appellee met claims merits sought restrict review From papers lodged Court, appears, dispute, September 1, receiving need-based supplementing monthly totaling $105, they program. receipt moot ineligibility precluded "from even considering accepting (two) members" nonrelatives facilities. App. 12. Were seek received course any need applying funds Whatever strength, Youakims' unlawful demonstrate mooted current larger home. conclude Youakims, properly identified Rule compare Sosna Iowa, 419 532 (1975), Indianapolis School Comm'rs Jacobs, 128, 848, 74 so maintained notwithstanding mootness named plaintiffs, appellant sued "next friend" see 17(c), interests adjudicated

Category: 1