Document: 406 U.S. 535 92 S.Ct. 1724 32 L.Ed.2d 285 Ruth J. JEFFERSON et al., Appellants,v.Burton G. HACKNEY, Commissioner of Public Welfare, al. No. 70—5064. Argued Feb. 22, 1972. Decided May 30, Rehearing Denied Oct. 10, See 93 178. Syllabus Appellants, recipients Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC), challenge the system whereby Texas, in order allocate its fixed pool welfare money among persons with acknowledged need, applies a percentage reduction factor arrive at reduced standard being lower for AFDC than other categorical assistance programs. Appellants assert that State's method applying this outside income contravenes § 402(a)(23) Social Security Act, which required adjustment, by July 1, 1969, 'amounts used . determine needs individuals' reflect increases living costs, because does not increase roles same extent as would an alternative procedure some States. They also make equal protection claim on grounds distinction between aid programs is rational and Texas racially discriminates against proportionately larger number minority groups Held: 1. The scheme contravene require use computation maximizes individual eligibility subsidiary benefits. Pp. 539—545. 2. challenged violate Equal Protection Clause Fourteenth Amendment. 545—551. (a) fact there are more members program categories indicate racial discrimination, absent any proof motivation scheme. There was no such here. 547—549. (b) Texas' decision provide somewhat benefits aged infirm who invidious or irrational, constitutional statutory requirement relief be treated exactly alike. 549—551. Affirmed. Steven Cole, New York City, appellants. Pat Bailey, Austin, Tex., appellees. Mr. Justice REHNQUIST delivered opinion Court. 1 case certain procedures State uses federally assisted program. Believing neither Constitution nor federal statute prohibits from adopting these policies, we affirm judgment three-judge court below upholding state procedures. 2 * (AFDC). brought two class actions, were consolidated United States District Court Northern seeking injunctive declaratory officials. A convened pursuant 28 U.S.C. 2281. 3 provides ceiling amount can spend grants.1 In numerous individuals has adopted grants. Under system, first computes monetary eligible under each aided programs.2 Then, since insufficient bring recipient up full factor3 need category guarantee. 4 constitutionality violation proportion black Mexican-American higher aged, blind, disabled fall within groups. rationally related purposes violates Amendment reason well. their original complaint, appellants argued percentage-reduction violated Act 1935, amended, 81 Stat. 898, 42 602(a)(23), cost-of-living adjustments need. 5 rejected appellants' arguments, finding discriminatory unconstitutionally arbitrary. did, however, accept reductions congressional command 402(a)(23). 304 F.Supp. 1332 (ND Tex.1969). 6 Subsequent judgment, decided Rosado v. Wyman, 397 397, 90 1207, 25 442 (1970). held that, although -of-need calculations, it did prohibit systems limited actually paid. U.S., 413, S.Ct., 1218. This then vacated remanded Jefferson further proceedings consistent Rosado. 821, 1517, 807 7 On remand, entered new denying all relief. motion amend raised claim. time may statute, specific computing enactment. argument denied without judgment. appeal 1253 followed, noted probable jurisdiction. 404 820, 115, 30 47 (1971). II 8 Appellants' relates compute when income. like many States,4 recipient's thus arriving guarantee present budgetary restraints. After subtracts nonexempt5 level reach his given. 9 States, reversed. First, subtracted 'unmet need.' applied unmet payable. 10 accounting yield different results.6 have available month, whether they Since dollar department otherwise pay full, result net improvement financial position recipient. hand, better it. need,' after been subtracted. Thus, effect, income-earning able 'keep' income, while he receives only remainder need.7 11 Each advantages. note incentive obtain eliminates incentive, so long remains less need.8 However, funds fixed, paid working poor offset elsewhere. if switch recognizing forced factor, keep down budget. Lowering those most—those income—and unwilling do this. 12 Striking proper balance competing policy considerations is, course, function 'There question considerable latitude allocating resources, free set own devotes program.' King Smith, 392 309, 318—319, 88 2128, 2134, 20 1118 (1968) (footnotes omitted).9 So actions provision arguments must addressed forum. 13 assert, contrary 402(a)(23): 14 '(a) plan services needy families children 15 '(23) amounts will adjusted fully changes costs established, maximums imposes adjusted.' 16 Recognizing language, terms, hardly much support theory, seek rely what perceive broad purpose enacting provision. 17 supra, reviewed history section had worked radical shift Id., 414 n. 17, referred 'scheme cooperative federalism,' 316, 2133, dismissed 'adventuresome' interpretation deprive traditional discretion levels payments. 414—415 1218—1219. Instead, meant standards thereby serving 'two purposes': 18 'First, face realistically magnitude public lay bare short fulfilling actual need; second, prod apportion payments equitable basis.' 412—413, 19 complied requirements. Effective 11% rise cost living, shifted maximum-grant system. way, fairly recognized exposed precise using attempted equitably. Although responded purposes' 402(a)(23), argue Congress intended total AFDC, people qualify dependent receipt cash assistance.10 thought objectionable rolls quite 21 We agree invalidate absolutely maximize mandated would, generally tend eligibility,11 but nothing legislative indicating part purpose. Indeed, enacted included another designed induce reduce program.12 little point, see 409—412, 1216—1218, tends undercut theory. Lampton Bonin, 1384, 1391 1392 (E.D.La.1969) (Cassibry, J., dissenting). Note, 58 Geo.L.J. 591 22 should invalid results greater work incentives recipients.13 Congress' desire help become self-sustaining. specifically 402(a) (8). dispute here, about compliance very detailed provisions incentives. Neither inclusion language sections supports inference change income-computation other, completely unmentioned areas. 23 Nor reference (10), 602(a)(10), 'be furnished reasonable promptness individuals.' That whom determined payment placed waiting lists, shortage funds. prevent even temporarily, person found qualified aid. H.R.Rep.No.1300, 81st Cong., 1st Sess., 48, 148 (1949); 95 Cong.Rec. 13934 (remarks Rep. Forand). Section 402(a)(10) creating exceptions enunciated Act. See, e.g., Townsend Swank, 282, 502, 448 It not, enact implication generalized criterion adhere benefits.14 Such intrusion into area given discretion, cannot invitation longstanding simply consideration reasons arbiter. III 24 turn, then, believe once computed recipient, arbitrary 75% recipients, paying 100% 95% blind. adopts apply properly below. clear framework four common elements, plans separate titles Act.15 participate one, several, programs, chooses. true assist needy, follow one constitutionally permissible way approach important goal. 26 emphasized recently, Dandridge Williams, 471, 485, 1153, 1161, 491 (1970), 'the economics social welfare, merely classifications made laws imperfect.' legislature address problem 'one step time,' 'select phase field remedy there, neglecting others.' Williamson Lee Optical Co., 348 483, 489, 75 461, 465, 99 L.Ed. 563 (1955). judgments rational, invidious, legislature's efforts tackle problems subject straitjacket. complexity suggests solving them. 27 judicial review altered unproved allegations discrimination. 'payment lesser ethnic prejudice violative Civil Rights 14th Amendment.' obviously gave careful issue, cited facts principal quoted above. never appropriated program, 1943 date five them having occurred 1959.16 overall appropriation Court's hearing 410% opposed 211% OAA 200% AB. concluded: 'The depositions Welfare officials conclusively establish defendants know make-up various prior orders here attack issued.' 29 brief effect abandon effort show findings clearly erroneous, hold not. left naked statistical argument: Negroes Mexican-Americans programs,17 funded whereas As statistics footnote demonstrate, substantial. basic outlines grants established Congress, States; heterogeneity Nation's population, infrequent coincidence composition grant identical others. acceptance theory render suspect difference treatment classes, however lacking might be. Few deal difficult posed current could survive scrutiny, find Amendment.18 31 Applying amendment, say irrational. constraints allow concluded least bear hardships inadequate living. While course possible, irrational young adaptable sick elderly, especially latter hope improving situation years remaining Whether agrees determination, forbids it.19 Similarly, MARSHALL'S dissent itself requires percentages concedes refuse continuing receive post, 577. Nevertheless, middle ground—once basis participates every all-or-nothing well defensible, dissenters correct expressly rejects But anything approve it.20 33 conclusion, re-emphasize said 487, 1162—1163: 34 'We decide today (state law) wise, best fulfills relevant economic objectives (the State) ideally espouse, just humane devised. Conflicting claims morality intelligence opponents proponents almost measure, certainly including before us. intractable economic, social, philosophical presented business (T)he empower second-guess charged responsibility myriad potential recipients.' 35 36 DOUGLAS, BRENNAN concurs, dissenting. 37 I read generously stipulated 87% receiving blacks Chicanos. therefore background rank discrimination Chicanos light fare poorly blacks. L. Grebler, Moore, & R. Guzman, People, pts. (1970); Burma, 143—199 Schwartz, Discrimination Against Mexican Aliens, 38 Geo.Wash.L.Rev.1091 Commission Rights, American (1968); Americans Administration Southwest 1218, 442, administering 'may obscure precisely manipulating mathematical formula. Rosado, described how upper limits aid, others, 'curtail 'ratable reductions' 409, 1216. Then meant: 'A reduction' represents recipients. event deducted, ratable family falls 409 13, 1216 (emphasis added). 39 If deducted reduction, generous payment, illustrates opinion. Not avoid approach, impermissibly constricts conflict 491, 448. computation, family—otherwise nonexempt need—is both noncash medicaid.1 seems inconceivable incomes solely earned rather assistance. Yet sanctioned tied benefits.2 40 One stated 'to parents relatives (of children) attain retain capability maximum self-support personal independence.' 601 Senate Finance Committee stated, key element training take employment.' S.Rep.No.744, 90th 157 (1967), U.S.Code Cong. Admin.News 1967, p. 2994 majority acknowledges '(t)he self-sustaining.' Ante, 544. nonetheless ignores explicit favor upholds penalties disincentives employment.3 41 California Supreme Villa Hall, Cal.3d 227, 98 Cal.Rptr. 460, 490 P.2d 1148 struck approves today, where reduction. attempting inconsistent Moreover, additional reason: conclusion founded strong encouraging constantly self-supporting. deducting makes gainful employment significantly attractive follows directly earned, decreased dollar. always instances Reform individual's met adding exempt payment. exist minimum necessary adequate care, though commenced, obtaining employment, break debilitating 'welfare syndrome.' practice conflicts maintain status.' 235—236, Cal.Rptr., 465—466, P.2d, 1153—1154. 43 448, calls reversal case. conceded plaintiff Maria T. Davilla 2,470 formula, 1332, 1343, despite met.4 44 When action instituted, 50% During litigation, increased 45 (which governs AFDC) 'aid shall 602(a)(10). through age attended high school vocational college eligible. 'a excludes Supremacy Clause.'5 286, 505. 46 What exclude large numbers beneficiaries application test narrower approved funds, manipulate formula 'needy' claimants. 290—291, 507—508. When, supply, lop off 'need' design managing raise questions.6 291, 508. individuals. House Report commenting said: 48 'Shortage sometimes, old-age assistance, resulted applications lists until enough removed place (T)his accorded undue hardship inappropriate financed Federal funds.' (1949). 49 481, 1159, 'So provided children, violated.' nearly 2,500 satisfy requirements relief.7 50 MARSHALL, joins, STEWART joins Part only, 51 (AFDC) distinct aspects manner arrives needy. Second, urge acts illegally providing legislation claims. dissent. 52 Before proceeding explain why disagree Court, illustrate disputes about. unable meet law permits reducing manner. deducted. contend deduct applied. describing differences alternatives Herculean task, figures themselves comprehend. Footnote opinion, example, demonstrates immediately obvious soon family's reaches $150, longer State, alternative, earning $150 continue Hence, contracts characteristics comports intent Congress. agree. 53 employed illegal, irrespective payments, participants slightly urged. 54 A. considering seq., mind words Cardozo: 'When (federal) spent promote general concept opposite shaped states.' Helvering Davis, 301 619, 645, 57 904, 910, 1307 (1937). Harlan reiterated point 422—423, 1222—1223, policies wish pursue utilizing another, ultimate answered law. 55 concludes instant choice methods choosing other. concluding inconclusive 'what theory,' has, my taken superficial look ignored interpreted cases. 56 B. begin impact argument. 59 Consideration must, examined derivation great detail. 60 concisely 416, 1220. changed individualized basis, instead substituted fixing allowances based per family. drastic suit claiming changing individualized-grant 61 Despite our recognition reveals except us child born silent union compromise,' 412, discover pre-existing legislation. ascribed section: 62 63 These conclusions led reject holding 1354, 1377, whatever meaningless. may, recomputing pare accommodate realities percent switching 1218 original). Far emasculating reading three salutary effects, effects legislation: 64 'It requiring recognize whose care provisions. Secondly, leaves downward paid, accomplishes goal, modest, forcing political consequence cutback bringing acceptable. Lastly, imposing 'maximums' appropriate introduced flat 'maximum' desirous containing budget equitably allocated accurately real measure given.' 413—414, 65 permit decrease largely wanted, bar decreases, accomplish objectives. undermines destroys premise Which decided. 66 goal saw '(r) ecalculation serve appear unadjusted marginally attained self-sufficiency, subsist living.' Memorandum Amicus Curiae 540, O.T.1969, 8. words, expressing willingness return addition Accord, 1384 (ED La.1969), reconsideration 663, 1408, 644 Alvarado Schmidt, 317 1027 (WD Wis.1970). pointed out above, sysem marginal 67 second aim force realize consequences effectively enabling constant appears contain surreptitiously accomplished eliminating totally emasculated served. 68 third final Even now approval remove statute. adjust upward strains lowering chooses pay, encouraged abandonment reductions. offering circumvent increasing expenditures, could, anyone Rather intended, powerful revert 69 stifled illustrated $100 $200. $150. Let assume maintained enactment $200 $100. assumed following made. 70 Need......................... Income....................... --------- Unmet Need................... Maximum Grant................ Total Family Funds........... 71 Assuming 20% remained stable stable, 20%. Until living: 72 Need.................. $240 Grant......... $120 Income............. Aid..................$ 73 To simply, similar to, as, factor. subtracted, impossible True, choose today's decision. can, sets absorb end less. Where adopt systems? 74 illustration mere speculation happen State—California—has already done, tried do. Only noncompliance California's took stand (p. 5) binding construction entitled prevail.' Government proceeds Ibid. Government's disingenuous, best. Brief 80. means most was, fact, section, endeavored extract meaning muddled history. seeks explicitly i.e., interpret 'meaningless exercise 'bookkeeping." making 'binding construction' me ascertain doing. prevail. 76 Surprisingly enough, shorter shrift Government. footnote, states widened possible ones. submit cavalier unwarranted. easy absence examine 'muted strains' voice struggle 'discern theme cacophony understanding.' Unlike case, looks distorted ignored, carefully scrutinized aspect intent. one. striking described. relied speculating Congress; decision, view, disagreement majority. 77 C. 402(a)(8) 881, 602(a)(8), added along 1968. encourage private H.R.Rep.No.544, Sess. (1967); Admin.News, 2834. objective full- part-time student, portion relatives, disregarded determination recently occasion consider Engelman Amos, 23, 181, 143 78 considered Jersey ceilings families. families' exceeded analogized 333 1109. 1968 amendments Because viewed disregard kinds come determining scheme, evade contemplated still excluding covered 402(a)(8), exceed affirmed 79 Both animated ..' 11. limit 402(a)(8)—to permitting draw funds—shows wanted 80 far know, eligibility. But, indicates, fault Jersey: discourages spirit sought earn amount—the specified 402(a)(8). persuasive fact—Congress idea attempt employ Texas. Nowhere mention Ways Means, Section-By-Section Analysis H.R. 5710, (Comm. Print 1967). informed HEW required. Hearings 12080 Finance, pt. pp. 255—265 (Testimony Wilbur Cohen). indication unlawful. ignorance itself, surprising rejection amendments. everything work. desire, illegal. 82 83 D. Another 550, 84 'provide wishing opportunity so, 85 primary outlaw minimizing expenditures. 481 12, limitations upheld maximums, doing: 1159. plainly dictum, well-considered dictum followed 86 remembered day. expanded list suggested aware 402(a)(7) 1379, 602(a)(7), 1939. 87 'except (in discussed, supra) agency shall, resources relative assumed, therefore, applicants Anyone assumed. Dandridge, forthcoming get small Just offer people. this, 89 tells eligibility, HEW's regulations, expecially CFR §§ 233.20(a)(2), 233.20(a)(3)(ii), give. 402(a)(7), 402(a)(10), promptly. For me, (striking substitute-father regulation) (1971) restriction students). denies and, regardless purposes, 91 time. E. last dealing 602(a)(14), (15) (assistance planning child-welfare services; entering incidence births wedlock); 602(a)(19), 632 (employment programs); 1396a(10) (medical assistance). keyed By limiting availability services. At '. Congress's major concern counseling rehabilitation services, incentives, out-of-wedlock births, family, development strengthen life. raising vital cut run welfare.' (Citation omitted.) F.Supp., 1389. 94 thing recognizes deprives need' utilize (n. 10) relegates perpetual dependence realization apparently source concern. tremendous value medical alone average range $50—$60 month. 5. rendered ability escape confines substantially impaired. time, goals preceding quotation reason, justification, way. permitted avail improved amendments, again 96 F. analysis add note. Thus confined myself examining focus individually role something flavor undoubtedly lost. flavor, bonds unique human beings necessities life, themselves. negates deterring working, depriving whatsoever. conceivable subvert aims 97 figure itself. agreed administers—Old Age Assistance (OAA), Blind (AB), Permenently Totally Disabled (APTD), AFDC. disparity object. base Amendment; distinctions motive Clause. unnecessary issue raise, merits. clear, subscribe treats issue. question, difficulty either have. record contains statements politically popular evidence stigma seemingly attaches 322, 2136, often frowned upon community. shows Negro Mexican-American. Yet, unpopular disfavored citizens, whatsoever makeup apparent, view. 100 treating differently dissolves close demonstrated, infra, am burden sure 'traditional' govern holds. relies proposition strict scrutiny required, faced Percentages conclusive, showing devastating lives relevant. 101 backwards conclude proved necessarily tolerated. asked standard. too plain determines proved. Whitcomb Chavis, 403 124, 149, 1858, 1872, 363 (1971); Gomillion Lightfoot, 364 339, 125, 110 (1960). 102 complex problems, propose resolve sufficient reached, it, greatly oversimplified distort 103 Title VI 1964 2000d: 104 'No ground race, color, national origin, subjected activity assistance.' 105 Term Griggs Duke Power 401 424, 849, 158 (1971), strike VII 2000e, practices particularly harsh group justified necessity. indicated 'good redeem testing mechanisms operate 'built-in headwinds' groups.' 432, 854. said, 'Congress directed thrust practices, motivation.' employer 'of manifest relationship question.' 106 paucity litigation VI, prepared impression think include appellants; 107 brings disposes presented: framework. 108 offered governed statute: OAA, seq.; AB, 1201 APTD, 1351 seq. No compelled wants 109 doubt freedom establishing 318 319, 2133—2134. true, identical. employment. shared dependence. H.R.Rep.No. 615, 74th 3. go beyond furnishing originally goals. simultaneously amended 1956 rehabilitative enable independence capable. describe, administers, offers objective. 302(a)(11); 602(a)(14); 1202(a)(12); 1352(a)(11). 111 authority where, statutes, treat equally respect objectives, albeit disadvantaged circumstances. 112 bona fide blind adults forth. 113 independent equal. circumstance, satisfying group. statutes same, suffering equally, chose similarly situated similarly. 114 Everything indicates forms identically situated. accepted contentions warranted unpersuasive. 115 argues employed, arguendo weight. Whatever excluded self-help. reflected furthered. irrelevant explanation 302(a)(10)(A); 1202(a)(8); 1352(a) 116 maintains secure legally responsible easily discussion grant. non-AFDC unavailable recipients—the old insurance, 201 substance 117 Third, points likelihood future says non-existent older others currently 233.20(a)(3) (ii). contention irrelevant. 118 arguments. rejected. urges differ, belies contention. rising limitations. fundamental rolls. presently insufficient, dependency, larger. Had grown large. self-fulfilling prophecy penalize Furthermore, rapid rate contrary, desirable, 602(a)(23); supra. extreme irony penalized grew accordance 119 benefits, all. 120 finds 1950 put par 121 'Today 1.1 million State-Federal dead, home, incapacitated. live, someday productive activities Nation necessity arise, defending Nation. Many seriously handicapped childhood food, clothing, attention, interest contributions toward blind.' S.Doc.No. 208, 80th 2d 122 'families persons.' 106. sound 'for comparable evident notion beneficiaries, money. Senator Benton floor Senate: 123 inequitable mothers 124 'All rear health, decency, self-respect adult. surely investment citizens decently retired. .' 8813—8814. 125 funding equivalent received federal-state differed, forth-coming differ. S.Doc. 108. subsequent changed. 126 Accordingly, reverse remand formulation Originally, prohibited Art. Constitution, Vernon's Ann.St., 'shall power authorize moneys individual, association individuals, municipal corporations beginning 1933, rule constitution 51—a, allows participation financing sum $80,000,000. amendment. Old Permanently factors are: OAA—100%; AB—95%; APTD—95%; AFDC—75%. instituted 50%, recent amendment 51—a. Nineteen 8, 15—16. exempted incentive. 602(a)(8). families, $200, outside, $100, produce results: System Alternative $ 200 (need) X .75 (% factor) —100 (outside income) 150 (reduced need) (unmet (benefits payable) hands income: Outside Income —0 x TOTAL INCOME plus =$175 = rises above He expect 407—412, 1215—1218, Certain care-and-training (15); 602(a) (19), 632; 1396a(a)(10). procedures, exceeds qualifying procedure. several attributable id., perfectly mentioned construed. Jan. 2, 1968, Pub.L.No. 90—248, Tit. II, 894, repealed, 45. 7, reliance 480—481, 1159—1160, misplaced. failed primarily lists. embodied title titles. 1962, 1381—1385, enabled combine plans, sufficiently plan. below, increase. Following 3, risen $6,150,000 $23,100,000. Percentage Number Program Year White-Anglos Recipients 1969 39.8 60.2 38.7 61.3 230,000 1967 37.0 63.0 APTD 46.9 53.1 45.6 54.4 4,213 46.2 53.8 AB 55.7 44.3 54.9 45.1 14,043 87.0 13.0 84.9 15.1 136,000 86.0 14.0 James Valtierra, 402 137, 1331, 678 contended referendum imposed mandatory ordinance authorizing low housing, referenda types ordinances initiated responded: 'But lawmaking 'disadvantages' particular deny protection. holding, presumably referendums unless all, disadvantage And analyze governmental structures gubernatorial veto filibuster likely 'disadvantage' diverse shifting people.' 142, 1334. Amendment, 1964, 2000d have, nondiscriminatory variation inapposite. Griggs, tests job-related, impermissible proscribed variances MARSHALL's cites novel category. revised share costs,' 13932, matching 101. revision grant-in-aid accompanied corresponding 402, endorsed standards, leaving 'wide setting modified engage 'extensive alteration underlying structure 1219. acknowledgment (for income), the(ir) ante, 541, understates fails cycle poverty but—in cases—it penalizes stands training. Solicitor General worth month Eligibility 'recei(pt) (of) children,' too, 602(a)(15)(A) ('receiving plan'); child's neglect abuse, 602(a)(16) aid'); paternity support, 602(a)(17)(A)(i) (ii) aid,' 'receiving 602(a)(19)(A)(i) children'); 1396a(a)(10) ('individuals assistance'). Would foreseen mandate 'that individuals'? rationale odds timehonored rules interpretation. gives grudging recital 601, disregards recitals embody undertook achieve.' Carter Coal 298 238, 297, 855, 866 867, 1160. Coosaw Mining Co. South Carolina, 144 563, 689, 692, 537; Fisher, Cranch 358, 386, 304. attributes allowing imposition departs principle '(i)n exposition statutes,' act 'are supposed object,' Kohlsaat Murphy, 153, 159—160, 844, holds cross-purposes subsections 602. Finally, giving miserly interpretation, canon remedial legislation, liberally effectuate purposes. E.g., Peyton Rowe, 391 54, 65, 1549, 1555, 426. heads follows: Assistance.......... Blind............. Disabled............ Children.................... aff'g sub nom. McCorkle, 1109 (D.C.N.J.1970). There, relying Act—and unconstitutional ancillary State. unanimously sure, dealt (42 (8)(A)(ii); 233.20(a)(3)(ii)), distinguish Rather, emphasizes today—was Act: nonfinancial criteria '(t)here omitted). Accommodation gerrymandering Here, 'reduced 543 requirement. 233.10(a)(1)(ii) provides: selected conditions unreasonable Act.'

Category: 1