Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2001/11/26/01-29301/welfare-reform
Timestamp: 2015-04-18 20:45:51
Document Index: 699165619

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 504', '§ 504', 'art 1639', 'art 1639', 'ART 1639', '§ 1639']

Federal Register | Welfare Reform
Dates: Comments on this NPRM are due on January 25, 2002.
Comments Close: 01/25/2002
-58987 (2 pages)
Document Number: 01-29301
Shorter URL: https://federalregister.gov/a/01-29301 Action
Mattie C. Condray, 202-336-8817.
On February 28, 2001, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in Legal Services Corporation v. Velazquez, et al., Nos. 99-603 and 99-960, 121 S. Ct. 1043, 2001 WL 193738 (U.S.), striking down as unconstitutional the restriction prohibiting LSC grantees from challenging welfare reform laws when representing clients seeking specific relief from a welfare agency. The stricken restriction was first imposed by Congress in § 504(a)(16) of the FY 1996 Legal Services Corporation appropriations legislation (the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-134, 110 stat. 1321-53 (1996)) and has been retained in each subsequent annual LSC appropriation. The relevant portion of § 504(a)(16) prohibits funding of any organization:
45 CFR 1639.4 Permissible representation of eligible clients, provides that:
The Supreme Court in Velazquez, upholding the decision of the Court of Appeals, invalidated that portion of the statute which provides that representation of an individual eligible client seeking specific relief from a welfare agency may not involve an effort to amend or otherwise challenge existing law. The Court held that such a qualification constitutes impermissible viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment because it “clearly seeks to discourage challenges to the status quo.” 121 S. Ct. 1043, 1047 (2001).
In determining specifically which language in the 1996 Act to strike as invalid, the Supreme Court noted that the Court of Appeals had concluded that congressional intent regarding severability was unclear. Since that “determination was not discussed in the briefs of either party or otherwise contested” in the appeal to the Supreme Court, the majority opinion noted that it was exercising its “discretion and prudential judgement” by declining to address the issue. Id. at 1053. Instead, the Supreme Court opted to simply affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals to “invalidate the smallest possible portion of the statute, excising only the viewpoint-based proviso rather than the entire exception of which it is a part.” Id. at 1052.
The effect of the Velazquez decision has been to render the stricken language null and void. This means that the limitation on representation of an individual eligible client seeking specific relief from a welfare agency which prohibits any such representation from involving an effort to amend or otherwise challenge existing law is not valid and may not be enforced or given effect. An individual eligible client seeking relief from a welfare agency may be represented by a recipient without regard to whether the relief involves an effort to amend or otherwise challenge existing welfare reform law.
In light of foregoing, at it June 2001 meeting the LSC Board of Directors identified Part 1639 as an appropriate subject for rulemaking for the purpose of amending the regulation to make it conform to the decision in Velazquez.
For reasons set forth above, LSC proposes to amend 45 CFR Part 1639 as follows:
PART 1639—WELFARE REFORM Back to Top
1. The authority citation continues to read as follows: 42 U.S.C. 2996g(e); Pub. L. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009; Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321.
Section 1639.4 Permissible representation of eligible clients
2. Section 1639.4 would be amended by deleting the words “if such relief does not involve an effort to amend or otherwise challenge existing law in effect on the date of the initiation of the representation” and by changing the comma after the word “agency” to a period.
[FR Doc. 01-29301 Filed 11-23-01; 8:45 am]
1. The exception at § 1639.5 regarding public rulemaking and responding to requests with non-LSC funds is not at issue here.