Opinion ID: 670690
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Uniform Treatment.

Text: 56 The district court also concluded that the Policy violates federal regulations that require uniform treatment of AFDC recipients. See Bray I at  8; supra note 9. As previously noted, Sec. 233.20(a)(2)(iii) mandates that the standard of assistance must be uniformly applied throughout the State. See supra note 7. 12 57 New York has chosen to premise uniformity upon identical treatment of similarly sized households receiving AFDC assistance in which one caretaker relative is required to expend the AFDC funds in the best interests of all members of such households. The uniformity that the Caretaker Plaintiffs advocate would ensure that dependent children such as the nieces in this case will receive the same AFDC benefit if they are taken into a household that already constitutes an AFDC assistance unit as they would receive if they were taken into a non-AFDC household. The Caretaker Plaintiffs do not persuade us that the federal requirement of a uniform statewide standard for AFDC assistance that is expressed in Sec. 232.20(a)(2)(iii) should be read to invalidate the New York choice, and mandate the substitution of the alternative for which the Caretaker Plaintiffs contend. Cf. Dandridge, 397 U.S. at 487, 90 S.Ct. at 1163 (intractable economic, social, and even philosophical problems presented by public welfare assistance programs more appropriately decided by state officials than federal courts).