Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/421/338
Timestamp: 2013-12-13 19:47:12+00:00

Document:
Barry VAN LARE, etc., et al., Appellants, v. Rose HURLEY, etc., et al. Annie TAYLOR, etc., et al., Petitioners, v. Abe LAVINE, etc., et al. | Supreme Court | LII / Legal Information Institute
Supreme Court aboutsearch liibulletin subscribe previews Barry VAN LARE, etc., et al., Appellants, v. Rose HURLEY, etc., et al. Annie TAYLOR, etc., et al., Petitioners, v. Abe LAVINE, etc., et al.
421 U.S. 338 (95 S.Ct. 1741., 44 L.Ed.2d 208)
Argued: March 26, 1975.
Petitioners in No. 745054 brought class actions in two District Courts challenging New York's 'lodger' regulations, which require a pro-rata reduction in shelter allowance of a family receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) solely because a parent allows a nonlegally responsible person to reside in the home. Petitioners claimed that the state regulations conflicted with a provision of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 606(a), which in relevant part defines a dependent child as one 'who has been deprived of parental support or care by reason of the death, continued absence from the home, or physical or mental incapacity of a parent,' and an implementing regulation, 45 CFR § 233.90(a), which provides that in determining a child's financial eligibility and the amount of the assistance payment 'the income only of the (legally obligated) parent . . . will be considered available . . . in the absence of proof of actual contributions.' Petitioners also contended that the state regulations were violative of due process and equal protection. Each District Court held that the New York regulations were in conflict with the federal statutory and regulatory provisions. The Court of Appeals held that there was no such conflict and reversed the judgments and remanded the cases for convention of a three-judge court to decide the constitutional challenges. That court sustained petitioners' due process claim. This Court noted probable jurisdiction of the appeal from the three-judge court holding (No. 74453) and granted certiorari in the case of the judgment of the Court of Appeals (No. 745054). Held: The New York 'lodger' regulations, which are based on the assumption that the nonpaying lodger is contributing to the welfare of the household, without inquiry into whether he in fact does so, violate the Social Security Act and implementing regulations. Pp. 344-348.
No. 74453, 380 F.Supp. 167, vacated and remanded; No. 74 5054, 497 F.2d 1208, reversed.
Judith A. Gordon for appellants in No. 74453 and respondents in No. 745054.
Martin A. Schwartz for appellees in No. 74453 and petitioners in No. 745054.
* AFDC is a categorical public assistance program established by the Social Security At of 1935. Its operation has been described in several recent opinions. See, e.g., Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U.S. 397, 408, 90 S.Ct. 1207, 1215, 25 L.Ed.2d 442 (1970); King v. Smith, supra, 392 U.S. at 313, 88 S.Ct. at 2131. AFDC provides federal funds to States on a matching funds basis to aid the 'needy child . . . who has been deprived of parental support or care by reason of the death, continued absence from the home, or physical or mental incapacity of a parent, and who is living with' any of the several listed relatives. 42 U.S.C. 606(a). States that seek to qualify for federal AFDC funding must operate a program not in conflict with the Social Security Act. Townsend v. Swank, supra, 404 U.S. at 286, 92 S.Ct., at 505.
Each of the petitioners in No. 745054 receives AFDC on behalf of herself and her minor children. This includes a shelter allowance computed as an item of need separate from other necessities such as food and clothing. N.Y.Soc.Serv.Law § 131a. Each petitioner's shelter allowance was reduced by New York officials because she allowed a person not a recipient of AFDC and who had no legal obligation to support her family to reside in the household.
'(iv) When the man is unwilling to assume responsibility for the woman or her children, and there are no children of which he is the acknowledged or adjudicated father, he shall be treated as a lodger in accordance with section 352.30(d).'
They alleged that in making the presence of the lodger a basis for assuming the availability of income, the regulations were invalid for conflict with 42 U.S.C. 606(a), supra, and the following regulation, 45 CFR § 233.90(a) (1974), that implements that statute:
'A State plan under title IVA of the Social Security Act (relating to the AFDC program) must provide that the determination whether a child has been deprived of parental support or care by reason of the death, continued absence from the home, or physical or mental incapacity of a parent, or (if the State plan includes such cases) the unemployment of his father, will be made only in relation to the child's natural or adoptive parent, or in relation to the child's stepparent who is ceremonially married to the child's natural or adoptive parent and is legally obligated to support the child under State law of general applicability which requires stepparents to support stepchildren to the same extend (sic) that natural or adoptive parents are required to support their children. Under this requirement, the inclusion in the family, or the presence in the home, of a 'substitute parent' or 'man-in-the-house' or any individual other than one described in this paragraph is not an acceptable basis for a finding of ineligibility or for assuming the availability of income by the State. In establishing financial eligibility and the amount of the assistance payment, only such net income as is actually available for current use on a regular basis will be considered, and the income only of the parent described in the first sentence of this paragraph will be considered available for children in the household in the absence of proof of actual contributions.' (Emphasis supplied.)
Without reaching the recipients' constitutional challenges denial of due process and equal protection, and infringement of rights of privacy and free associationeach District Court adjudged the state regulations to be invalid for conflict with 42 U.S.C. 606(a) and 45 CFR § 233.90(a), supra, and granted declaratory and injunctive relief.
Both judgments were appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Court of Appeals held that the New York rules were not in conflict with federal law, reversed the judgments, and remanded for convention of a three-judge court to decide the constitutional challenges. Taylor v. Lavine, 497 F.2d 1208 (1974). The three-judge court that was convened sustained the due process challenge to the New York rules. 380 F.Supp. 167 (ED & SDNY 1974). We noted probable jurisdiction of appellants' appeal from the three-judge court holding, 419 U.S. 1045, 95 S.Ct. 617, 42 L.Ed.2d 638 (1974) (No. 74453), and also granted certiorari to the judgment of the Court of Appeals. 419 U.S. 1103, 95 S.Ct. 773, 42 L.Ed.2d 799 (1974) (No. 745054). We hold that the Court of Appeals erred in No. 745054 and reverse. Since in that circumstance we need not address the constitutional decision in No. 74453, we vacate the judgment in that case and remand with directions to dismiss as moot. Cf. United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950).
Title 42 U.S.C. 606(a) was previously construed in King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309, 88 S.Ct. 2128, 20 L.Ed.2d 1118 (1968). That case involved an Alabama 'substitute father' regulation, which denied AFDC benefits to children of a mother who cohabited in or outside her home with an able-bodied man. It was irrelevant under the state regulation whether the man was legally obligated to support the children or whether he did in fact contribute to their support. Alabama contended that its rule simply defined nonabsent 'parent' under 42 U.S.C. 606(a). The regulation was claimed to be justified as having the purpose of discouraging illicit sexual relationships and of putting 'informal' families on a par with ordinary families. We concluded that this was an insufficient justification, holding that it is 'inconceivable . . . that Alabama is free to discourage immorality and illegitimacy by the device of absolutedisqualification of needy children.' King v. Smith, supra, at 326, 88 S.Ct., at 2138. For, in light of the purpose of AFDC to aid needy children, we held, on the statutory language and legislative history, that the term 'parent' in § 606(a) must be read to include 'only those persons with a legal duty of support.' 392 U.S., at 327, 88 S.Ct., at 2138. A broader definition would fail to provide the economic security for needy children which was Congress' primary goal. Id., at 329330, 88 S.Ct., at 21392140. Thus the Alabama regulation was invalid because its definition of 'parent' conflicted with that of the Social Security Act. Id., at 333, 88 S.Ct., at 2141.
The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) codified the holding of King v. Smith in 45 CFR § 233.90(a), supra, the regulation at issue in the instant case.
Its key provision specifies that in determining a child's financial eligibility and the amount of the assistance payment, 'the income only of the (legally obligated) parent . . . will be considered available . . . in the absence of proof of actual contributions.' 45 CFR § 233.90(a). We applied this regulation in Lewis v. Martin, 397 U.S. 552, 90 S.Ct. 1282, 25 L.Ed.2d 561 (1970). Lewis presented the question of the validity of a California rule which provided that in computing payments to needy children who lived with their mother and stepfather or 'an adult male person assuming the role of spouse' (MARS), consideration should be given to the income of the stepfather or MARS. Id., at 554, 90 S.Ct., at 1283. We held the California rule invalid as in conflict with the Social Security Act, the HEW regulation, 45 CFR § 233.90(a), and King v. Smith, supra. We said that '(i)n the absence of proof of actual contribution, California may not consider the child's 'resources' to include either the income of a nonadopting stepfather who is not legally obligated to support the child as is a natural parent, or the income of a MARS whatever the nature of his obligation to support.' 397 U.S., at 559560, 90 S.Ct., at 1286. In short, we held that the Social Security Act precludes treating a person who is not a natural or adoptive parent as a breadwinner 'unless the bread is actually set on the table.' Id., at 559, 90 S.Ct., at 1286.
The only victim of the state regulations is thus the needy child who suffers reduced benefits. But States may not seek to accomplish policies aimed at lodgers by depriving needy children of benefits. King v. Smith, supra, 392 U.S., at 326, 88 S.Ct., at 2138; Lewis v. Martin, supra.
The judgment in No. 745054 is reversed and the judgment in No. 74453 is vacated and remanded with directions to dismiss as moot.
I do not think that the New York nonpaying-lodgers regulation is in conflict with federal statutory law, for the reasons stated by Judge Hays in his opinion for the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Taylor v. Lavine, 497 F.2d 1208, 1974). I therefore reach the constitutional issues presented in No. 74453, and conclude that the regulation is not constitutionally impermissible, for the reasons set forth by Judge Hays in his dissenting opinion in Hurley v. Van Lare, 380 F.Supp. 167, 177 (ED & SDNY 1974). I would thus affirm in No. 745054 and reverse in No. 74453.
Effective July 26, 1974, after the Court of Appeals decision in No. 745054, § 352.31(a)(3) was amended to provide:
'Proration of the shelter allowance lowers the amount of money available to the welfare family, but it does not prevent the family from providing its lodger with free living space by diverting part of its basic grant to pay the rent. . . . (T)here is evidence that poor families often find the presence of a lodger worth a sacrifice in income.' Recent Cases, Welfare LawAFDC Proration of Shelter Allowance, 88 Harv.L.Rev. 654, 657 (1975). See also Note, AFDC Income Attribution: The Man-In-the-House and Welfare Grant Reductions, 83 Harv.L.Rev. 1370, 13731374 (1970).

References: § 233
 § 131
 § 233
 § 233
 § 606
 § 233
 § 233
 § 233
 § 352