Document: 485 U.S. 415 108 S.Ct. 1306 99 L.Ed.2d 515 Sandra GARDEBRING, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department Human Services, Petitionerv.Kathryn JENKINS. No. 86-978. Argued Jan. 13, 1988. Decided April 19, Syllabus In 1981, federal statute authorizing Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program was amended provide that a family receiving nonrecurring lump-sum income is ineligible for benefits number months would satisfy family's standard need. 1983, respondent's husband received Social Security disability payment, which expended within two days pay bills. Respondent reported receipt and expenditure payment her Services (Department) caseworker advised under 1981 amendment be next several months. The continued receive while administrative appeal pending, but ultimately concluded must enforced even though respondent had not advance notice new rule. then intervened in pending class action Federal District Court; court held Department's implementation rule without adequate AFDC applicants recipients violated regulation that, as promulgated by Secretary Health (Secretary) before enacted, requires individuals given "information written form, orally appropriate, about . conditions eligibility." Court Appeals affirmed Court's judgment pertinent part. Held: Department. Pursuant regulation, has distributed printed brochures generally describe recipient's duty report all household monthly. When sent letter advising them major changes alerting plain language does require information disseminated regarding every specific change eligibility requirements. Moreover, provision other provisions same section regulations establishes only applicants, recipients, are addressed requirement program. Further, access available, such may transmitted well. Finally, believes it appropriate rely on an oral explanation consequences when recipient reports caseworker. sum, simply State publish general description basic structure its availability. Pp. 423-432. 801 F.2d 288, reversed. STEVENS, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C.J., WHITE, BLACKMUN, SCALIA, JJ., joined. O'CONNOR, filed concurring part dissenting part, BRENNAN, joined, MARSHALL, joined last paragraph, post, p. 432. KENNEDY, took no consideration or decision case. John L. Kirwin, St. Paul, Minn., petitioner. Paul J. Larkin, Jr., Washington, D.C., U.S., amicus curiae, supporting petitioner, special leave Court. Laurie N. Davison, respondent. Justice STEVENS 1 Congress Section 2304 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 95 Stat. 845, amended,1 42 U.S.C. § 602(a)(17) (1982 ed. Supp. III); see Lukhard v. Reed, 481 368, 371-373, 107 1807, 1810-1811, 328 (1987) (plurality opinion); also id., at 384-386, S.Ct., 1816-1818 (Powell, dissenting).2 this case United States Eighth Circuit (the Department) could enforce against respondent, she represents, because required Secretary), 45 CFR 206.10(a)(2)(i) (1987). We granted certiorari review Appeals' interpretation Secretary's well remedial favor injunction barring from recouping payments made during period ineligibility. Because we conclude violated, do reach remedy question. 2 * On October 31, retroactive $5,752. used entire lump sum $3,863.75 arrearage home mortgage, overdue car repair bill $1,366, legal fee $150, remainder purchase clothing children Within days, been expended.3 3 November 2, (and expenditure) months.4 She immediately pending. See 205.10(a)(6)(i) Referee decided should terminated Jenkinses any rule, App. 69-73, Deputy Id., 73-76. While expressing disagreement policy implemented amendment, he lack produced "harsh result."5 4 proceedings August, Jenkins again eligible benefits. decision, however, meant improperly paid between 1983 May 1984. Accordingly, statute, 602(a)(22) 233.20(a)(13) (1987), due course ordered recoupment wrongfully deducting 1% each future monthly accordance state law, Minn.Stat. 256.73, subd. 6 (1986). 5 Shortly after conclusion proceedings, already challenging various grounds.6 complaint intervention, 14, 20, added allegation regulation. certified class7 entered summary issue. 598 F.Supp. 1035, 1049-1052 (Minn.1984). awarded forms relief. First, prepare adequately explained distribute current applicants. 1055. Second, notify members who injured violation they might apply corrective their local welfare agencies. Ibid. Eleventh Amendment prevented ordering repayment denied, ibid., enjoining overpayments families like Jenkinses. Slaughter Levine, 621 509, 513-514 (Minn.1985). For purposes relief, determined did expend portion F.Supp., 1055.8 7 A divided panel insofar found denied monetary relief class. 288 (CA8 1986) (case below). It concluded, have enjoined amounts were treated "overpayments" post-1981 if proper pre-1981 explaining holding, pointed out necessary achieve amendment,9 impose assumed old still effect "would truly Kafkaesque."10 judge believe either conditioned small percentage beneficiaries affected it. He construed requiring "the publicize availability." 303 (Fagg, dissenting). significance holding States' administration laws, certiorari, 482 926, 3208, 96 695 II 8 first adopted 1971 later 1978 1979, now provides: 9 "Applicants shall informed requirements rights obligations Under coverage, eligibility, scope program, related services responsibilities assistance. Specifically developed bulletins pamphlets rules appeals simple, understandable terms publicized available quantity." 10 prepared brief brochures. contains four pages describes application process, benefit levels, applicant's procedural rights. pamphlet states brochure will help you decide wish AFDC, intended cover rules. You urged contact your office limitations AFDC. Since these can time time, inquire up-to-date information." 29. 11 second six-page booklet entitled "Monthly Reporting: What Households Must Know"; explains month. Although some intricacies explained, comment specifically addition using these, relies caseworkers advice aspects relevant situations. 12 pamphlet. did, September 18, send there 19 paragraph commenting model clarity,11 presumably least alerted reader existence just mailed those benefits, until date. Such learn operation caseworker; if, true Jenkins' case, money spent, obviously too late budget use replace normal checks. 13 question us whether desirable, or, indeed, accomplish statute. pre-existing forestall congressionally mandated agencies provided change. represent sound policy, fair reading text conveys message. 14 eligibility," hardly how one write command stating condition identified enforced. reference "information" both form "about" seems instead merely descriptive statement Thus, 15 Indeed, doubtful applies recipients.12 appears "[a]pplication, determination furnishing assistance," 206.10 speaks frame determine assistance procedures redetermining changed circumstances. 206.10(a)(2)(i), face context whole, quite plainly seeking assistance, is, 206.10(b)(1) (defining "applicant"). very section, fact, "[p]rocedures designed assure make timely accurate circumstances affect amount assistance." 206.10(a)(2)(ii) (emphasis added). words, drafters wrote separately types communicated: providing information, developing themselves "written appropriate," fact mailing all, rather pamphlets, booklets, flyers, well.13 16 contends points 206.10(a)(1)(iii), provides "[a]n applicant assisted, so desires, individual(s) his choice (who need lawyer) process redetermination accompanied contacts agency represented them." "redetermination eligibility" involves "a factors affecting amount," 206.10(b)(4), thus clearly "applicant" 206.10(a)(1)(iii) include well, therefore inclusive meaning throughout 206.10, including provision. 17 unpersuaded. term "recipients" inadvertently omitted juncture. definition "applicant," understood "redetermination," makes omission apparent. An person has, directly, through authorized representative, where incompetent incapacitated, someone acting responsibly him, public administering whose terminated." 206.10(b)(1). affects "determined eligible," 206.10(a)(9), definition, yet eligible, impossible redetermined. word "recipient" referring redetermination.14 18 reveals form" "orally appropriate."15 Secretary, responsible enforcing agree strict Rather, caseworker.16 recognize taken position litigation. However, construing, claim violates constitutional statutory mandate, properly hesitant substitute alternative unless compelled regulation's indications intent promulgation. 20 emphasis harsh result particular case17 actually, large criticism itself. record indicates known hard pressed most $5,752 avoid foreclosure mortgage promised creditors. combined absence notice, "Kafkaesque" family, irrational assume needy realize prudent inform development spending money. harshness somewhat mitigated subtracts check, further actually terminated, another albeit less generous one. events, since long suffered 21 final analysis, our rests agreement much more precise mandate permit courts interfere workings governmental programs taking certain affirmative steps.18 22 reversed, remanded consistent opinion. 23 ordered. 24 KENNEDY 25 whom BRENNAN joins, MARSHALL joins 26 approach summarized "when promulgation." Ante, 430. I proposition, disagree here. litigation, what inconsistent positions. regard far reasonable than earlier position, hold him better interpretation. 27 1982, Kathryn applied Mrs. disabled, five minor children, Mr. payment. bulk way rendered promptly expenditure, ineligibility followed day. suspend upheld process. 28 issue "shall program." goes specify "in natural suggests sufficient enable exercise fulfill least, enough warn seek explanations program's unlikely suspect off outstanding debts. reason, failure sure persons manner called "truly Kafkaesque." 296 (opinion 29 warning effects agency. By incident suggests, warnings use. As emphasizes, strictly incompatible language. itself it, defer construction own answer interrogatory different maintains: 30 "Federal (ii) Program. requirements, fully expected establish policies ensure available. This obligation income, 89 added).* 31 Unlike majority, ante, 429—430, n. 16, cannot reconcile highlighted sentence position. read imply advance, way, viz., one's That adopted, Cf. Bowen American Hospital Assn., 476 610, 646, 34, 106 2101, 2122 90 584 (1986) opinion): "The agency's 'has neither nor longstanding substantially diminishes deference [the agency's] present statute.' Southeastern Community College Davis, 442 [397,] 412, 11, 2361, 2370 60 980 [1979] (citing General Electric Co. Gilbert, 429 125, 143 [97 401, 411, 50 343] (1976))." affirm extent 32 broad. "to forthwith policy." 1055 Not six specified "should thorough mechanics [lump-sum] rule." 33 never suggested justify elaborate procedures. although notified repeated notifications for. then-current shortly went into effect. Furthermore, answered following statement: 34 "A considerable latitude adopt effective Provisions bulletins." 90-91. 35 Reading light quoted above, interpreted require, add informational materials soon reasonably practicable. failed advise years came effect, cure error informing To go further, giving distributing "specifically bulletins," unduly infringed discretion 36 mistaken provide, writing, "thorough mechanics" argues easily prove counterproductive complexity involved. detailed 424, intelligible trained lawyer, rule's best notice. Had steps purpose satisfied. my view, simple suffice: "Anytime (such inheritance, back insurance settlement, gift, etc.) spend debts." 37 reasoned "[b]y failing comply Department] institute rules." F.2d, 301-302. law. adopting become 1, 1981," conforming law necessary, "will effective" month legislative session ending 1981. Pub.L. 97-35, 2321, 859-860. Minnesota, date February 1982. (dissenting gave indication whatsoever delayed inaction Whether accord therefore, 1983. accordingly recoup ed., 233.20(a)(13)(i) 38 relatively narrow. give consult social worker receive. think take deprived approved additional 2632 Deficit Reduction 1984, 98 1141, option recalculating caused three situations Examples "lump-sum income" implements Congress' directive: "When unit's applying applicable disregards, exceeds earned unearned (including title nature windfall, e.g., inheritances lottery winnings, personal injury compensation awards, earmarked paid, i.e., monies medical bills resulting accidents injury, funeral burial costs, replacement resources, etc.), aid full derived dividing size. ." 233.20(a)(3)(ii)(F) prior incentive having unspent "resource" excessive opinion). stated findings (which Commissioner, 73): [Jenkins] unit $724 per past overpayment, $688 County Agency considered error, November, exist March, existed April, grant." 71. stated, part: "While Petitioner Worker's Compensation Disability treated, arise acted differently known. treatment punitive ignores Order anything result. Regulations counsel. Neither counsel staff good verified numerous occasions. deprive minimum support insufficient grant. please termination Petitioner's grant, 75 original). original plaintiffs contended (1) fails account actual availability funds determining (2) cannot, despite good-faith efforts, sums ineligibility, (3) creates irrational, irrebuttable presumption (4) (5) results "punishment" parents' improvidence, (6) equal protection principles treating harshly received, Complaint, Record A-12—A-15. rejected arguments, except (4), 1045-1049, 1052-1055 third-party claiming III) unavailable sums, HHS' invalid consider sums; claims rejected. 1045-1049. asked for, granted, order share court's decision. 605 1242, 1249-1250 order, subsequently withdrew 294, defined follows: "[T]hose otherwise been, be, predetermined consequence member, whole re-eligibility benefits." 1041. remaining named plaintiff initial spent plaintiffs' conceded representative intervenor, became representative. 1245-1247, 3. "[A] likely learning budgeting particularly familiar policy. Consequently, net frustrate goal sought enacting rule: encouraging serve check." 295-296 (footnote omitted). importance heightened peculiarly drastic. general, income-and-asset-related reduce cut resource recipient. diverges norm, cutting regard, limited circumstances, point financial resources surpass contrast, exhausts expires, left necessities. situation operated altogether assumption governed (footnotes described stated: "Lump Sum Money: receives etc., deducted spent. If totals maximum size possibly months), gone by. grant month, 'recouped' agency." Pet. Cert. 97-98. objects raise contention below. point, though, "[b]asically, regulation] directed toward pamphlets." Brief Appellant 85-5143-MN (CA8), raised argument petition writ object, opposition, "[n]onjurisdictional defects sort brought attention opposition certiorari," Oklahoma City Tuttle, 471 808, 816, 105 2427, 2432, 85 791 (1985) original), "we deem defect waived." complaint, regulations. covers germane interpretive quest, regardless parties direction. originally referred "applicants," Fed.Reg. 3860, 3864 (1971), underwent temporary metamorphosis. published proposed rulemaking, 41 56832 (1976), respond "reports group representatives applicants." 43 6949 (1978). "revised concerning requests programs." 6950. year, explanation, shifted original, current, form. 44 17940, 17943 (1979). petitioner history strong extend beyond tends buttress reasoning upon request, specific, unrequested discuss text, comments accompanying strongly conclusion. 1970, assisted desires eligibility. 18402 (1970) later, eliminated, retained. (1971). explanatory acknowledge distinction explain deletion itself: "[N]otice making agency, wish." 3860. supports redetermination, and, accordingly, provision, means nothing more. many meticulously 40 Code 66 Minnesota's recently revised pt. 233 (1987); Minn.Rules, ch. 9500.2000 et seq. subject frequent alteration, minority recipients. Unquestionably wise (assuming feasible expensive) precede unambiguously rebutting views us, response put petitioner's predecessor plaintiff, relied: indeed advisement mailings—i.e., telling reporting, necessary—or satisfied usual, basis. separate interrogatory, explained: 90-91 answer, namely, inconclusive receipt, matter, deems involving family. year. incurred contends, reason note swore affidavit department apparently says got shown copy letter, don't remember it." 111. ways: Either argue cause going effect; invoke equitable argument. Respondent's admission forecloses former latter argument—that (or understand it) absent effect—carried weight Appeals. 1050-1051; 295-296. sympathetic plight situation, reiterate today endorsement thereof. Instead, authority seeks. Our course, overpayment refers "recipients." says: "Procedures informed. possible regulations, unreasonable: certainly greater being changed. event,

Category: 1