Document: 453 U.S. 34 101 S.Ct. 2633 69 L.Ed.2d 460 Richard SCHWEIKER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al., Petitioners,v.GRAY PANTHERS. No. 80-756. Argued April 29, 1981. Decided June 25, Syllabus The Medicaid program provides federal funds to States that pay for medical treatment needy persons. Section 1902(a)(17)(D) the Social Security Act that, in calculating benefits, state plans must not "take into account financial responsibility any individual applicant or recipient assistance under plan unless such is individual's spouse" minor, blind, disabled child. 1902(a)(17)(B) requires participating grant benefits eligible persons taking only income resources are, "as determined accordance with standards prescribed by [of Services], available applicant." promulgated regulations describing circumstances which one spouse may be "deemed" other purposes determining eligibility benefits. In called Supplemental Income Aged, Blind, Disabled (SSI), substantially replaced former state-run categorical need enlarged provide when his live same household, spouse's always considered whether they are actually contributed, cease share will disregarded next month both assistance, case six months. Greater "deeming" authorized have exercised option § 209(b) 1972 amendments electing enlarge SSI levels. Respondent, an organization dedicated helping elderly, filed suit Federal District Court attacking applicable on ground impermissibly employs "arbitrary formula" impute a institutionalized thus inconsistent 1902(a)(17)(B). Respondent claimed before State take applicant's it make factual determination contributed applicant. agreed declared invalid. Appeals affirmed, but were invalid because promulgating them had failed consider unfairness treating separated spouses as "single economic unit" disruption caused requirement support from spouse. Held : at issue consistent statutory scheme reasonable exercises authority delegated Secretary. Pp. 43-50. (a) view explicit delegation substantive 1902(a)(17)(B), definition term "available" entitled "legislative effect" rather than mere deference weight. 43-44. (b) language 1902(a)(17)(D), was enacted part original program, makes clear beginning Congress presume spousal support. And this provision's legislative history fully its language. By enacting 209(b), effect told wished use could retain virtually all limitations, including "deeming," allowed Act. 44-47. (c) differently most relatives explicitly authorizing "to responsibility" spouse, demonstrated antithetical general based solely "Available" different those hand. availability refers left couple after has deducted sum live, does require paid administration public formula inherently arbitrary. To determinations would dissipate factfinding been spent needy. 47-48. 203 U.S.App.D.C. 146, 629 F.2d 180, reversed remanded. George W. Jones, Washington, D.C., petitioners, pro hac vice, special leave Court. Gill Deford, Los Angeles, Cal., respondents. Justice POWELL delivered opinion 1 poor. An entitlement depends him. Some determine assuming—"deeming"—that portion "Deeming" reducing number individuals amount who qualify. question permit "deem" manner arbitrary, capricious, otherwise unlawful. 2 * established 1965 Title XIX (Act), 79 Stat. 343, amended, 42 U.S.C. 1396 seq. (1976 ed. Supp.III), "provid[es] choose reimburse certain costs persons." Harris v. McRae, 448 297, 301, 100 2671, 2680, 65 784 (1980). Each develops containing "reasonable . extent assistance." 1396a(a)(17). if he fulfills criteria lives. comply requirements imposed itself Services (Secretary). See id., 1396a Supp.III). A. 3 As originally enacted, required "categorically needy" received cash payments four welfare programs elsewhere 1396a(a)(10) (1970 ed.). categorically whom especially deserving family circumstances, age, disability.1 States, wished, permitted offer also "medically lacking ability expenses, incomes too large qualify assistance. either case, base assessments "such Secretary,available recipient." 1396a(a)(17)(B) (emphasis added). Specifically, decisions "not 1396a(a)(17)(D). 4 Believing expect help some adopted benefits.2 These calculated necessary basic living expenses remaining applicant, even where no longer B 5 1972, three new 1381 seq., Pub.L. 92-603, 86 1465.3 Under SSI, Government displaced assuming funding setting need. significantly larger earlier, programs. 6 expansion accomplished portended increased obligations retained recipients assistance—now SSI—were Medicaid. feared these withdraw cooperative expand their coverage commensurate "[I]n order impose substantial fiscal burden States" discourage participating, see S.Rep.No. 93-553, p. 56 (1973), offered what become known "§ option."4 it, elect January 1, 1972.5 became "SSI depending offered.6 7 governing States. described other. conducted following manner: When eligibility, "whether contributed." CFR 435.723(b) month, 435.723(d), latter months separation. 435.723(c). 8 least 435.734. And, choose, full did 1972. Ibid.7 II 9 Nation's elderly,8 Columbia Secretary's States.9 argued According respondent, 1902(a)(17) Act, 1396a(a)(17), establishing benefits.10 respondent's view, 10 respondent Gray Panthers Secretary, Dept. HEW, 461 F.Supp. 319 (1978).11 Circuit theory. Administrator, Care Financing Administration, 180 Citing Court's decision Citizens Preserve Overton Park Volpe, 401 402, 91 814, 28 136 (1971), court held between noncohabiting spouses, "tak[e] account" two "relevant factors." U.S.App.D.C., 149-150, F.2d, 183-184. First, maintain households one. For already put additional expense, unfair continue treat jointly responsible each. Id., 151, 185. Second, carries potential interject "disruptive forces" people's 152, 186. noninstitutionalized 11 "faced 'choice' her standard point apparently set near poverty line, being eviction institution." Ibid. 12 One aspect "disruption," according court, fact creates incentive couples divorce. n. 14, 186, 14. Because believed adequately effects affirmed invalidating remanded reconsideration.12 13 We granted certiorari sub nom. Panthers, 449 1123, 938, 67 108 (1981), resolve disagreement among Courts over validity benefits.13 III 14 broad promulgate defining find power. therefore justified them, we reverse. 15 intricate ever drafted Congress. Its Byzantine construction, Judge Friendly observed, "almost unintelligible uninitiated." Friedman Berger, 547 724, 727, (CA2 1976), cert. denied, 430 984, 97 1681, 52 378 (1977).14 Perhaps appreciating complexity wrought, conferred exceptionally prescribe applying sections Batterton Francis, 432 416, 425, 2399, 2405, 53 (1977). Of relevance present 1396a(a)(17)(B), provisions plans. Participating "taking applicant" 16 authority, "entitled more weight." U.S., 426, S.Ct., 2406. Rather, because, "[i]n situation kind, entrusts courts, primary interpreting term." 2405. Although do abdicate review our task limited ensuring "excee[d] authority" regulation arbitrary capricious. 17 think issue, insofar authorize exceed 1396a(a)(17)(D), 1965, provides, 18 child age 21 [in circumstances] blind ." (Emphasis added.) 19 It apparent Norman St. Clair, 610 1228, 1236 (CA5 1980), pending Schweiker Norman, 80-498. 20 provision Senate House Reports accompanying used identical endorsing concept spouses. Report states pertinent part: "The committee believes proper each parents accountable minor children Such reasonably include payment relative, able, care. Beyond degree relationship, however, often destructive harmful relationships members group. Thus, requiring contributions parent 404, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 78 (1965) 22 Accord, H.R.Rep.No. 213, 68 (1965), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News pp. 1943, 2018. 23 Senator Long, headed Senate's conference delegation, summarized subsection (17) follows: 24 "No can imputed available; taken 111 Cong.Rec. 18350 (1965). 25 This confirms "Congress intended deemed "be 'available' eligibility." supra, 1237. 26 If permissible, (17)(D) superfluous. Payments applicant—whether distant relative—are automatically. there content (17)(D)'s distinction envision latter. 27 unable persuasive alternative explanation (17)(D). suggests included simply enforce "relative laws" against noncontributing words, prohibit automatically computing simultaneously sue contribute argument unpersuasive. "an answer say action recover legally obligated pay. [It is] unrealistic engage multiplicity continuing lawsuits money should out first place. [Because cannot practically so, be] open invitation decide she wish excess payment." Brown Stanton, 617 1224, 1234 (CA7 1980) (Pell, J., dissenting concurring part), pending, 79-1690.15 29 Nothing terminate practice contained many plans; rather, appears ratified implicitly. noted above, consolidated national Traditionally, aid Congress, want force 209 ensure so using all16 limitations—including "deeming"—that C 30 nevertheless insists statute contrary statements history. made basis "available demonstrates entitlements "actually hands spouse," Tr. Oral Arg. 30, formula." acknowledges duty matter, 26-27, argues individualized case. 31 view. beyond doubt wary imputing others applicant.17 Yet, treated live. not, argues, Herweg Ray, 619 1265, 1272 (CA8 (en banc) (opinion Ross, J.) (aff'g equally divided 481 914 (SD Iowa 1978)), 80-60. 32 Sound principles confirm Cf. Weinberger Salfi, 422 749, 781, 782, 784, 95 2457, 2474, 2475, 2476, 45 522 (1975). There spend welfare. mandate costly procedures 2476. Sometimes, course, findings fact.18 approved rules IV 33 without sympathy minimal care.19 But "sympathy insufficient approving recovery" theory law. Potomac Electric Power Co. Director OWCP, 268, 284, 509, 518, 66 446 (1980).20 direct attack abstract. Hardships resulting particular aside inadequate sums contributing 19, here.21 hold properly permitting (1977).22 Accordingly, reverse remand proceedings opinion.23 35 ordered. 36 STEVENS, BRENNAN MARSHALL join, dissenting. 37 scope presented difficult confined married institutionalized. I believe best understood focusing attention totally dependent employed continues joint home. Arguably relevant language1 might ways: (1) none contributed; (2) (3) some, all, counted 38 persuaded reading word subpart (B) 1902(a)(17), history's emphasis preventing "availability fact, available."2 reasons stated Court, agree correct statute.3 decision, basis. That deeming never permissible; invalidated unlimited deeming. am holding place significant limits 39 factors 136. Relying reasoned contemplated cohabiting flexible approach apply situations assumption cohabitation made.4 impact institutionalization previously constituted single unit5 deeming.6 40 revising Appeals' then specifically discussed Appeals.7 reconsider light court's specify contents regulations.8 Nevertheless, concluded "duration amount."9 She cogently explained conclusion "deeming several adverse impacts beneficiaries": 41 lose medicaid enough bring level State's standards. facility reduced amount, asked institution. With respect community, unfair. occurs principally section 1902(f) amounts protected maintenance Those levels current cost living. refuse 'deemed' (possibly facility), try subsistence. "Moreover, 'deemed,' less relative laws used, individual, whereas affect community him payments. potentially severe lead us conclude duration amount."10 43 my opinion, construing "only consideration unit. factor led "should amount." prior deem, period, wage earner's entire except sufficient supply earner together thereby sharing inflation intervening years deem realistically "available."11 consequence attributable failure give adequate identified Appeals. 44 perceiving defect concluding statute. affirm judgment programs: Old Age Assistance, 301 ed.); Aid Families Dependent Children, 601 seq.; 1201 Permanently Totally Disabled, 1351 §§ 1381-1385 state-administered programs, Children survived enactment SSI. amendments, forth 1396a(f), "Notwithstanding subchapter participate XVI chapter shall aged, (within meaning chapter) (or been) purpose (in addition meeting plan) 1396b(f) title (after deducting supplemental security supplementary incurred care recognized law) 1972." exercising adopt "spend-down" provision. ibid. whose exceeded consumed Fifteen now option. They are: Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia. (Guam, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands similarly situated took there.) permits change "SSI-status" 209(b)-status" time. York State. Pet. Cert. 10, 11. part, "the agency specified [for States] extensive manner, correctly found standing alleged proved adversely affected regulations. Compare Warth Seldin, 490, 511, 2197, 2211, 343 (1975), Sierra Club Morton, 405 735, 92 1361, 1366, 636 (1972). subject-matter jurisdiction 1331(a) regard controversy. Chapman Houston Welfare Rights Organization, 441 600, 99 1905, 60 508 (1979); principal 435.734 (1980), quoted 7, supra. Also challenged Guam, Islands. 436.602, 436.711, 436.821 Subsection must— "include (A) objectives subchapter, ., (C) evaluation resources, (D) (with chapter), permanently disabled, defined 1382c program); flexibility application account, (whether form insurance premiums otherwise) type remedial law." reach arguments deprived due process equal protection. provisional allowing jurisdictions ignore Fed.Reg. 82254 At oral argument, counsel said probably rescinded reversed. 4-7. reasoning Appeals, attaches significance preamble incorporates sociological analysis opinion. Post, 53-56. reflects independent issuing regulations, adhering lower mandate. Fed.Reg., 82255 (the "are "). 1265 banc), 80-60; 1224 79-1690; 1228 quote passages necessarily endorse them. aggravated assault English language, resistant attempts understand it." 409 1225, 1226 (SDNY 1976). Counsel acknowledged suits useless, effort needed 37-39. obliged amend 5, See, e. g., (States assume available"); 15804 (remarks Sen. Ribicoff) ("only need"); 7216 Rep. Mills) ("[n]o available"). E. Van Lare Hurley, 421 338, 1741, 208 (1975) (Aid (AFDC) calculations 606(a)); Shea Vialpando, 416 251, 94 1746, 120 (1974) (AFDC 602(a)(7)). Lewis Martin, 397 552, 90 1282, 561 (1970); King Smith, 392 309, 88 2128, 1118 (1968). A brief amicus curiae paints distressing picture forced abandoning poverty. Brief John H. Foard al. Amici Curiae 4-11. judge below pointed out, "villain" per se, inflation. 155, 189 (MacKinnon, dissenting). Many recently reviewed own exempt "deeming." concedes, "near subsistence level." Petitioners 4. Over time, inflation, dollar note, event, position eliminate choices lawsuit seeks enjoin Supra, 40-41; App. 17a. concedes legality cohabit. construction create shunt ailing nursing homes circumvent occur. "allo[w] [can] 'available.' " 56. dissent addresses problem presently presents "availability" (17)(B). is. statute, "reasonabl[y] evaluat[e] resources." 1396a(a)(17)(C). sum, whatever deficiencies exist specific erred reliance (1971). "taken account." 150, 184. preceding discussion demonstrates, factors" 44-48. more. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Corp. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 519, 548-549, 98 1197, 1213-1214, 55 (1978). grounds, courts pretermitted constitutional arguments. 11, litigated remand. express merit. 346, provides: "(a) "(17) (which comparable groups may, differ levels, applicants receiving I, X, XIV, XVI, chapter, variations shelter urban areas rural areas) would, IV, future needs) aid, "Another furthermore, evaluated designed S.Rep.No.404, supplied); H.R.Rep.No.213, (hereinafter Report), Code Admin. News 2018). 1237-1238 80-498; 1233-1234 79-1690. indicated "in available": "These overevaluate available. Examples assumed orders absent fathers, reality individual." Report, 67. Thus recognizes underlying correct, available." Just premise fathers father absent, pool stated: "[T]he rule mutual proceeds common 'sharing' Fed. Reg. 2685, 2686 (1977), constituting home, households, one, maintained. Expenses fairly characterized incurred, 'deeming' accurately norm. important condition ordinarily met." 1396(a)(17) context structure, great governmental needlessly disrupt contrast ordinary husbands wives particularly vulnerable disruptive forces exerted cases continued upon willingness) amount. faced literally helpless temper harshness dilemma." 186 (footnotes omitted). "additional important": "(1) interests beneficiaries; "(2) Federal-State nature program; "(3) simple administer; "(4) budgets." 82254, 82256 response comment arguing prohibited deeming, responded: "We disagree commenters' interpretation decision. appropriate institutionalization. ordered context, approve result. concluded, through balancing context." 82258. currently until eligible. ibid.; 1381a, 1382(a), 1382c(b), 1382c(f). Reg., 82256. further although expectation another, undermined based, constitute However, undercut deciding period long overcome household unit, looked suitable eligible, viewed maintaining institutionalization." 82256-82257. MacKinnon villain here adjusted reflect sky-rocketing However well-intentioned, inflationary pressures burdensome people fixed incomes." 189. believe, should, done here,

Category: 1