Source: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/455/265/case.html
Timestamp: 2013-12-06 00:24:04
Document Index: 302218689

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1902', '§ 209', '§ 1396', '§ 1902', '§ 1396', '§ 209']

Herweg v. Ray - 455 U.S. 265 (1982) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
Justia > US Law > US Case Law > US Supreme Court > Volume 455 > Herweg v. Ray - 455 U.S. 265 > Case	NEW - Receive Justia's FREE Daily Newsletters of Opinion Summaries for the US Supreme Court, all US Federal Appellate Courts & the 50 US State Supreme Courts and Weekly Practice Area Opinion Summaries Newsletters. Subscribe Now
Herweg v. Ray - 455 U.S. 265 (1982)
Case	U.S. Supreme CourtHerweg v. Ray, 455 U.S. 265 (1982)Herweg v. RayNo. 80-60Argued January 13, 1982Decided February 23, 1982455 U.S. 265CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
and that the federal time limitation regulation was inconsistent with § 1902(a)(17), because it disabled the States in certain instances from considering the spouse's income as available to the applicant. In response to this order, Iowa adopted a procedure for making individualized factual determinations of the amount of income available to an institutionalized Page 455 U. S. 266 spouse, and the District Court approved the plan. On petitioners' appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed.
REHNQUIST, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN, WHITE, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, POWELL, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part, post, p. 455 U. S. 278. BURGER, C.J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 455 U. S. 279. Page 455 U. S. 267
Last Term, in Schweiker v. Gray Panthers, 453 U. S. 34, 453 U. S. 49-50 (1981), we upheld the validity of federal Medicaid regulations that permit "deeming" of income between spouses in those States that have exercised the so-called "§ 209(b) option" provided for in the Social Security Act, 79 Stat. 343, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1396 et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp. III). "Deeming," in the parlance of the Social Security laws and regulations, means that a State determines eligibility by assuming that a portion of the spouse's income is "available" to the applicant. Because an individual's eligibility for Medicaid benefits depends in part on the financial resources that are "available" to him, "[d]eeming . . . has the effect of reducing both the number of eligible individuals and the amount of assistance paid to those who qualify." Schweiker v. Gray Panthers, supra, at 453 U. S. 36. We rejected contentions that these regulations were arbitrary or capricious, and that the regulations were inconsistent with § 1902(a)(17) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(17). [Footnote 1] 453 U.S. at 453 U. S. 43. In Page 455 U. S. 268 the present case, we are called upon to decide to what extent the State of Iowa, an "SSI State," may consider the income of the institutionalized Medicaid applicant's noninstitutionalized spouse in determining eligibility for Medicaid.
If a State participates in the Medicaid program without exercising the § 209(b