Document: 410 U.S. 656 93 S.Ct. 1172 35 L.Ed.2d 572 Raymond N. ORTWEIN and Gwendolyn Faubionv.Herbert M. SCHWAB et al. No. 72—5431. March 5, 1973. Rehearing Denied Apr. 2, See 411 922, 1551. PER CURIAM. 1 Appellants contend that Oregon's $25 appellate court filing fee, as applied in this case, violates the Due Process Equal Protection Clauses of Fourteenth Amendment and, also, First incorporated into Fourteenth. The Supreme Court Oregon decided otherwise. 262 Or. 375, 498 P.2d 757 (1972). We affirm decision for reasons we found persuasive United States v. Kras, 409 434, 631, 34 626 (1973). 2 Appellant Ortwein (who also was receiving social security an urban renewal allowance) sustained a reduction approximately $39 per month his old-age assistance when county welfare agency determined he shared shelter expenses with another person manner relieved him some costs upon which original award had been based. appealed to Public Welfare Division. Division conducted hearing upheld agency's decision.1 3 Faubion claimed certain related work training under federal program should have deducted calculating her income.2 Most these deductions were disallowed, after hearing, by disallowance resulted smaller payments over five-month period. 4 Judicial review decisions is authorized state law. Ore.Rev.Stat. § 183.480 (1971). In cases are contested, were, jurisdiction judicial conferred Appeals. 183.480(2). All appellants civil pay fee courts. §§ 21.010 21.040 Each present alleged indigent unable fee; each moved proceed forma pauperis motions denied without opinions. then petitioned alternative writ mandamus ordering Appeals accept appellants' payment fees. requested supplemental briefs issued its opinion denying petition mandamus. From denial appeal taken. 5 * Relying on Court's Boddie Connecticut, 401 371, 91 780, 28 113 (1971), remand-for-reconsideration order Frederick Schwartz, 402 937, 1624, 29 105 (1971),3 indigents seeking adverse decision, Clause Amendment. (1973), statutorily imposed bankruptcy fees against constitutional challenge based Boddie. emphasized special nature marital relationship concomitant associational interests, noted they not affected case objective sought appellant Kras could be obtained through means did require fee. Boddie, course, concerned post-hearing review. now conclude rather than governs appeal, emphasize remanded, summarily reversed. 6 A. observed one's interest discharge 'does rise same constituional level' inability dissolve marriage except U.S., at 445, S.Ct., 638. seek increased payments. This interest, like has far less significance appellants. Compare Dandridge Williams, 397 471, 90 1153, 25 491 (1970), Richardson Belcher, 404 78, 92 254, 30 231 Loving Virginia, 388 1, 87 1817, 18 1010 (1967); Skinner Oklahoma, 316 535, 62 1110, 86 L.Ed. 1655 (1942); Griswold 381 479, 85 1678, 14 510 (1965), Eisenstadt Baird, 405 438, 1029, 31 349 received it minimum level law being provided. As see 'no fundamental gained or lost depending availability' relief 7 B. stressed existence alternatives, conditioned fees, remedy. Id., 446, held procedural due process requires recipient given pretermination evidentiary hearing. Goldberg Kelly, 264, 266—271, 1011, 1018, 1019, 1022, 287 (1970). These hearings.4 hearings provide procedure, any able redress. long recognized that, even criminal cases, does State system. McKane Durston, 153 684, 687, 913, 914, 38 867 (1894); Griffin Illinois, 351 12, 18, 76 585, 590, 100 891 (1956); District Columbia Clawans, 300 617, 627, 57 660, 663, 81 843 (1937); Lindsey Normet, 56, 77, 862, 876, 36 Under facts process.5 II 8 urge unconstitutionally discriminating poor. litigation, deals payments, 'is area economics welfare.' 638; 485—486, 1161—1162. No suspect classification, such race, nationality, alienage, present. Graham Richardson, 403 365, 372, 1848, 1852, 53 applicable standard rational justification. States, supra. 9 purpose apparent. system incurs operating costs, produces small revenue assist offsetting those expenses. Cf. 21.590 do disproportionate effective accomplish State's goal. requirement rationality met. III 10 supra, required classes litigants, thus 'capriciously arbitrarily denied' other appellants, themselves, violation Clause. 876. They assert appeals, habeas corpus petitions from institutions commitment proceedings, appeals terminations parental rights may filed Jurisdictional Statement 23. told just why filings permitted, but makes clear allowed only if supervening right free appeal. Or., 382—386, P.2d, 761—762. 11 If courts interpreted give area, result loss liberty, terminating rights, cannot say categorization capricious arbitrary. 12 Affirmed. 13 Mr. Justice STEWART dissents, believing doctrine reversal judgment. 451, (1973) (dissenting opinion). He convinced, however, so resolutely firm contrary view would serve no useful set oral argument. DOUGLAS, dissenting. 15 majority today broadens fortifies 'private preserve affluent.' Meltzer C. Buck Le Craw & Co., 954, 961, 1627, 124 (opinion Douglas, J.). upholds scheme whereby justice remains luxury wealthy. 16 Appellants, recipients whose benefits reduced determinations Division, access solely grounds administrative otherwise available I continue believe invidious discrimination poverty-stricken—a classification wealth—is proscribed Meltzer, supra; 383, 788, (Douglas, J., concurring result); cf. 457, 644, Douglas Brennan, JJ.). 17 There additional consideration relevant here. properly notes '(t)his system.' determination, initial determination. By analogizing two situations, sub silentio answers question studiously avoided—whether there K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise 28.18. Access before deprived valuable least respect questions law, seems me essence process. 84, 880, dissenting part). token satisfy requirements See, e.g., Mullane Central Hanover Trust 339 306, 70 652, 94 865. Certainly, all stand better stead. contends supported substantial evidence; conflicts provisions. Moreover, deficient 287, because considered. affirms judgment discussing bearing contention discriminates poor exercise right. Accordingly, agree 'rational justification' will support statute affects primary justification fixed falls short 'compelling interest' justify infringes rights. 382, 780; Shapiro Thompson, 394 618, 633, 89 1322, 1330, 22 600. 19 below benefit argument, relying Although join am compelled comment propriety disposing case. However one views merits closer Kras. 20 distinguished three grounds. It proper compared basis. 21 (1) concluded debtor's desire obtain implicate 'fundamental interest.' While true our attach interests never '(g)aining gaining (in bankruptcy) effect change basic necessities.' suffered inroad their ability subsist. (2) Unlike who theoretical opportunity creditors nonjudicial accommodation, avenue lies 23 (3) afforded installments six months, must file lump sum. 24 BRENNAN, agreement my Brothers DOUGLAS MARSHALL distinguishable recent reason argument light majority's firmly controlling. On merits, reverse stated separate 386, 790, (1971) (concurring 644 26 MARSHALL, 27 adhere 458, But position still important differences between which, judgment, correctly '(t)here debts bankruptcy.' Therefore, issue whether Government could, basis de facto wealth limit remedy concededly deny altogether. here quite different. action them pre-existing Brother demonstrates, very doubtful permits shield acts revoke previously granted.* share Brandeis '(t)he supremacy demands shall decide erroneous rule proceeding adjudicated regularly.' St. Joseph Stock Yards Co. 298 38, 56 720, 740, 80 1033 (1936) Yakus 321 414, 64 88 834 (1944); Crowell Benson, 285 22, 52 285, 598 (1932). That thereby taken affording chance contest legality taking Fuentes Shevin, 407 67, 1983, 32 556 extent commit agencies unreviewable authority restrict preexisting great about commentators debated generations. generally Hart, Power Congress Limit Jurisdiction Federal Courts: An Exercise Dialectic, 66 Harv.L.Rev. 1362 (1953); 28.18 (1958). Because ready summarily, silentio, full briefing dissent decision. 'acted within discretion determining claimant's living arrangement represented situation shared.' explained room board allowance eligibility non-recipients, board, share/fraction (Public Division) standards.' Record 9. review, contended 'reliable, provative evidence whole record.' incentive $120 five months Manpower Development Training Act 1962, amended, Stat. 23, 42 U.S.C. 2571—2574. 12. $210 state-administered AFDC program. 4; 11. making income calculations AFDC, deduct gross 'reasonably attributable' earning income. 602(a)(7); 45 CFR 233.20(a)(3)(iv) (Sept.1972). she work-training $20 essential clothing grooming, lunches job, $30 convenience foods family use made necessary $5 oil, tune-ups repairs, miscellaneous school supplies. 13. deductions, remaining finding. Huffman Boersen, 406 337, 1598, 107 hearings, meet minimal several ways, 9—10, neither record nor provides contentions. claim Our discussion Clause, demonstrates fully satisfied. statement system,' ante, true, irrelevant misleading. cited involve efforts secure lower court. Here, contrast, ever examined claims merits. adversely affecting them.

Category: 1