Document: 404 U.S. 23 92 S.Ct. 181 30 L.Ed.2d 143 Irving J. ENGELMAN et al.v.Carolyn AMOS al. No. 70—33. Nov. 9, 1971. PER CURIAM. 1 The motion of appellee Amos for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 2 A three-judge District Court, Mr. X v. McCorkle, 333 F.Supp. 1109 has enjoined New Jersey officials from enforcing a state regulation applicable payments under the federally financed program Aid Families With Dependent Children. Title IV Social Security Act 1935, 49 Stat. 627, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 601—610. 3 question, § 615 Categorical Assistance Budget Manual, would deny AFDC benefits extent that family's 'total available adjusted income,' calculated without deduction 'income disregards' specified by 402(a)(8) federal Act, 602(a)(8), exceeds ceiling State. challenged on grounds (1) it conflict with 402(a)(8), and (2) fails provide that, calculation earned family income which be compared ceiling, stepfather's earnings are not taken into account unless they 'actually available' current use dependent child, 45 CFR 233.20(a)(3)(ii). It was also suggested proceedings below 615.5 conflicts 406(b) 606(b), when authorizes directly vendors who goods or services beneficiaries. 4 Court upheld challenge all three grounds. Judgment entered enjoining enforcement 'insofar violates statute' ordering 'revise conform statute.' appeal. 5 appellants United States, its amicus curiae brief, appropriaely point out there nothing statute prohibits State making vendor so long made funds matching. statute, 406, merely does reimbursement kind. We agree these observations amicus, thus disagree Court's conclusion respect direct insofar those entirely reimbursable 406 Act. this limitation application general language, judgment affirmed. 6 Affirmed.

Category: 1