Document: 457 U.S. 132 102 S.Ct. 2355 72 L.Ed.2d 728 Barbara BLUM, etc., Appellantv.Jeanne BACON, et al. No. 81-770. Argued April 28, 1982. Decided June 14, Syllabus New York's Emergency Assistance (EA) Program, which is federally funded under the Social Security Act (SSA), precludes furnishing of EA cash to persons receiving or eligible for Aid Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) in any form replace a lost stolen AFDC grant. Appellees, who had been denied these state provisions, brought class action Federal District Court enjoin enforcement alleging that they conflicted SSA and violated equal protection. Ultimately, on remand after its decision invalidating provisions Supremacy Clause vacated by Appeals, invalidated no-cash provision as violation protection but upheld loss-or-theft provision. On A Second Appeal, The appeals held both Equal Protection Fourteenth Amendment. Held : Because York conflict valid federal regulation promulgated Secretary Health, Education, Welfare (Secretary) proscribes inequitable treatment individuals groups an program, are invalid Clause. Pp. 2359-2364. (a) Reliance find not foreclosed Quern v. Mandley, 436 725. While emphasized State retains considerable flexibility determining emergencies cover plan, it was suggested stripped all authority review plan arbitrarily inequitably excluded recipients. P. 2360. (b) Secretary's apply "equitable treatment" so forbid exclude recipients from program eminently reasonable deserves judicial deference, especially where legislative history leaves no doubt were expected be included program. 2360-2363. 2nd Cir., 648 F.2d 801, affirmed. Robert S. Hammer, City, appellant. Martin A. Schwartz, appellees. Justice MARSHALL delivered opinion Court. 1 has established Program receives substantial funding Title IV-A (Act), 42 U.S.C. § 603(a)(5). excludes emergency assistance cash. It also public (including recipients) reimbursement grants, even though provides such other benefit United States Appeals Circuit inconsistent regulations violates we conclude law Act, affirm without reaching issue. 2 * Appellee Jeanne Bacon two minor children depends entirely grant support her family. 1, 1977, while she shopping, wallet food stamps stolen. She promptly reported theft police Department Services (DSS). requested State's explaining money purchase essential items household month. DSS request basis recent AFDC, N.Y.Soc.Serv.Law §§ 350-j(2)(c) (3) (McKinney Supp.1981) (the "no-cash" provision), grant, including 350-j(2)(e) "loss-or-theft" provision).1 Gertrude Parrish suffered similar fate. An mother, funds when apartment broken into ransacked. applied EA, same relief appellee Bacon. named appellees, Linda Selders Freddie Mae Goodwine, cashed their checks loss money.2 3 Appellees this insofar denies pursuant provision.3 argued conflicts because discriminates against recipients: than recipients, grants (such social security Supplemental Income) those recipients). 4 Southern granted summary judgment favor appellees ground impermissibly narrowed eligibility standards imposed programs 406(e) 606(e),4 Toia, 437 F.Supp. 1371 (1977). 580 1044 (1978). Shortly thereafter, decided 725, 98 2068, 56 658 (1978), imposes permissive, mandatory, participating States. motion rehearing, Court, remanded case further consideration light Quern. remand, changed prior Act. In subsequent opinion, 493 865 (1980). second appeal, agreed our finding concluded, however, violate 801 (1981). We noted probable jurisdiction. 1122 454, 969, 71 109. II 5 Where party raises statutory constitutional arguments judgment, ordinarily first address argument order avoid unnecessary resolution See Califano Yamasaki, 442 682, 692-693, 99 2545, 2553, 61 176 (1979); Hagans Lavine, 415 528, 543, 94 1372, 1382, 39 577 (1974).5 may resolved grounds. As explain below, rules (now Health Human Services) proscribe Thus, 6 Before reviewing dispositive case, appellant's claim reliance supra. carefully reviewed nature scope examined one aspect relationship program.6 Under plans approved financial assistance. major categorical aid Act—indeed, "the core system." Id., at 728, S.Ct., 2071. required, condition make available meet criteria. 740, 2077; 602(a)(10), 606(a). supplement AFDC. permits choose provide temporary plans. contrast establishes much broader limited 606(e). 7 Plaintiffs made broad limit more narrowly 406(e). issue provided only certain families shelter applicants presumptively immediate need clothing furnishings. rejected plaintiffs' unlike standards. 8 did before us today whether complete automatic exclusion applicable regulations. occasion consider question, since addition, pertinent undermined claims supported rules. U.S., 743-744, n. 19, 2078-2079, 19; 45 CFR 233.120 Here, hand, 233.10 (1981); infra, 2360-2362.7 short, although hardly B 9 Secretary, charged administering following IV-A, programs: 10 "(a) requirements. title I, X, XIV, XVI, must: "(1) Specify individuals, based classifications, will conditions must met groups. selected inclusion arbitrary unreasonable basis, result purposes titles Act." 11 issued exclusively addressed (1981).8 12 regulations, specifically required disapproved class. Court's Quern, Office Family Administration Action Transmittal SSA-AT-78-44 (OFA) agencies programs. explains "States remain free, policy develop own definition kind program." App. 173a. Nevertheless, "[a] Plan clearly specify Other categories needy option; specified plan." 174a (emphasis added). amicus brief filed invitation confirmed through particular regulation, Motion Affirm 12a-17a. interpreted discrimination justified by, tailored to, Ibid.9 13 agree equitable-treatment automatically strike down rules, deserve deference. have often interpretation agency administration statute entitled See, e.g., FEC Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, 454 27, 38, 70 23 738, 2076. strong conclusion deference particularly appropriate case. C 14 1967, Congress thoroughly revised many provisions. House Senate Committee Reports concerning portion revision would ultimately become program10 unmistakably clear initial Report states: 15 "Your committee understands process authorizing payments frequently meeting needs crisis occurs. event eviction, utilities turned off, alcoholic parent food, necessary. unavailable today. 16 When child suddenly deprived his parents accidental death finds home contrary child's welfare, normal methods payment suspended new arrangements court referrals made. 17 "To encourage welfare move maximum effectiveness situations, bill contains offer 50-percent participation payments. . involved 21 either recently living close relatives. do upon application receive (although generally type), resources. 18 "Assistance might form. enough can migrant well residence requirements Its utilization optional States." H.R.Rep. 544, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 109 (1967) 19 This passage obvious implication benefits EA. almost identical, except explanation changes bill. S.Rep. 744, 165-166 (1967), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News p. 2834.11 Indeed, earlier provision, describes series amendments "would set up protections families." 146, 2982.12 20 debates Amendments, abbreviated, buttress understanding congressional intent. Senator Long, floor manager bill, repeated Report's characterization several establish "new 113 Cong.Rec. 32592 (1967). Comments legislators reveal understanding.13 Testimony witnesses statements introduced hearings illuminating. Many assume covered, some belief principally program.14 III explicitly forbids "inequitable system," 2071, principal group beneficiaries assisted Moreover, above 22 no-cash15 Chrysler Corp. Brown, 441 281, 295-296, 1705, 1714, 60 208 (1979). disposition claim, appellees' argument.16 24 ordered. Soc.Serv.Law 350-j part: "2. For section, term 'emergency assistance' means aid, care services authorized during period excess thirty days twelve month he living, circumstances: twenty-one years age; "(b) with, within previous six months lived subdivision b section three hundred forty-nine chapter; "(c) cases applications assistance, categorically dependent ; "(d) resulted catastrophic occurrence situation threatens family stability caused destitution and/or home; "(e) could foreseen applicant, control, and, person loss, mismanagement regular "(f) being duplicate already thirty-one-a chapter. "3. shall extent forth sections thirty-one chapter Such furnished services, long remains available, fuel vendor restricted payments." record indicates standing challenge Bacon, Parrish, purported rely denying However, money. appear justify denial Selders, administrative memorandum outlines exclusions 34a-37a, 51a. therefore unclear stamp voucher refused equivalent voucher. Although replaced voucher, unable use replacement 1371, 1376-1377 (SDNY 1977). Accordingly, rule prevented obtaining effective 1384-1385. alone denominated representative subclass plaintiffs challenging rule. 1381. facts concession relied Brief Appellant 6-7; Tr. Oral Arg. 4, 17, sought duplication 350-j(2)(f) Supp.1981). They longer seek respect determined does preclude true emergency. 865, 875 1980). Section children' following, 30 12-month period, age relatives subsection (a)(1) place maintained home, resources, payments, care, necessary child, arise relative good cause accept employment training employment— "(A) kind, medical type remedial recognized behalf of, member "(B) Secretary; "but whose 602 includes "(2) paragraph (1) workers part parts thereof designate." 81 Stat. 893. argues properly us. accepted, filing cross-appeal cross-petition, matter appearing below. Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co. Ludwig, 426 479, 96 2158, 48 784 (1976) (per curiam ); Dayton Board Education Brinkman, 433 406, 419, 97 2766, 2775, 53 851 (1977); see R. Stern E. Gressman, Supreme Practice 478 (5th ed. 1978). raised Appeals. asserts file modify Acceptance allegedly modification injunction below right modified regulation." Reply 8. cites novel view affirmance alter ordered "modifies" simply rests different legal adopted. general discussion programs, 728-729, 735-736, 739, 742-743, 2074-2075, 2076, 2078 footnote, excluding if theoretically covered basic 739-740, 16, 2076-2077, 16. descriptive statement not, course, expression less holding, These adopted 1102 1302, "make chapter, efficient functions [he] chapter." described creating "broad rule-making powers." Thorpe Housing Authority, 393 268, 277, 89 518, 523, 474 (1969). 233.10(a)(1) (1981) 402(a)(5), 602(a)(5), "must found proper operation 8a. applies portions supra, 741-742, 2077-2078. appears consistently taken position Ingerson Pratt, Civ. 76-3255-S (Mass., Nov. 1979), stated later Massachusetts' "recipient status" affected amount received whereas non-AFDC received. Documentation Dept. HEW relating File Clerk (as another rule) regulation. 76-3755-S Feb. 8, 1982). small 1967 originated President's proposal extend migratory workers. H.R. 5710, 122-123 consistent what living." Ways Means, Section-by-Section Analysis (Comm. Print 1967). House, Means proposal, very version enacted. 12080, 137-139 After passage, changes—increasing time employment, protecting conference, third accepted. H.R.Conf.Rep. 1030, 2834. conference inserts "AFDC" word "eligibility" sentence quoted text above—yet indication presumed covered. documents indicate viewed extension example, initially contained title, "Emergency Certain Needy Children." 137 enacted placed Subchapter 601 seq., "Aid With 603(a)(5), numerous historical category. (1967); Finance, Amendments 1967: Comparison Passed Representatives Existing Law, 37-38 1967); Summary Major Provisions Detailed Prior 68-69 (1968). expressed concern (which include AFDC) too inflexible afford relief. implicit assumption Ribicoff "flexibility" dealing emergencies; Curtis explained "[f]or days, paid [EA recipients] cannot qualifications." 32853, 36319 Hearings 12080 1034 (statement Commissioner, Louisiana Public Welfare); id., A8 Alabama Pensions Security); A125 Governor Hawaii); A289 Rhode Island Welfare). discriminate all. face, thus But appellant obtain special law. Both lower courts concluding F.2d, 807-808; F.Supp., 872-873. particular, relevant cases, burglary auction expenses, items. 808. reason question given familiarity Bishop Wood, 341, 346, 2074, 2078, 684 (1976). Of suggest alternative grants. Cf. 734-739, 2074-2076. reach presented jurisdictional refers recipients; thus, challenges requires granting

Category: 1