Document: 397 U.S. 90 S.Ct. 1207 25 L.Ed.2d 442 Julia ROSADO et al., Petitioners,v.George K. WYMAN, etc., al. No. 540. Argued Nov. 19, 1969. Decided April 6, 1970. [Syllabus from pages 397-398 intentionally omitted] Lee A. Albert, New York City, for petitioners. Philip Weinberg, respondents. Mr. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The present controversy, which involves compatibility Social Services Law, McKinney's Consol. Laws, c. 55 (c. 184, L. 1969) with § 402(a)(23) Security Act 1935, as amended, 81 Stat. 898, 42 U.S.C. 602(a)(23) (1964 ed., Supp. IV), arises out a pendent claim originally included in petitioners' complaint bringing class action challenging 131—a same statute violative equal protection by virtue its provision lesser payments to Aid Families With Dependent Children recipients Nassau County than those allowed City residents. Pursuant recommendation Judge Weinstein, three-judge court was convened on 24, 1969, and hearing held. 304 F.Supp. 1350. 2 Before decision rendered State amended permit Commissioner make, his discretion, grants provided panel memorandum May 12, concluded that issue 'no longer justiciable' '(t)he constitutional attack (§ 131—a) adopted has been moot any newly subdivision would not be ripe adjudication * until there (had) opportunity state officials *.'1 That further held since existed reason continuing court,' 'matter' should 'remanded single judge whom presented such proceedings are appropriate.' 1354, 1356. On day dissolved itself, Weinstein issued preliminary injunction prohibiting respondents reducing or discontinuing 'regular recurring special grants,' payable under predecessor welfare law, 1356, State's elimination computation benefits is subject matter controversy now before this 3 An interlocutory appeal taken Court Appeals case granted calendar preference. After oral argument Appeals, June 11, entered an order staying pending disposition later converted stay into permanent subsequently District when it summary judgment 18, 1381. July 16, announced reversal, accompanied three opinions. 414 F.2d 170. Chief Lumbard Hays agreed had properly itself were view, somewhat different reasons, have ruled merits statutory claim; they also expressed their single-judge (hereinafter Court) erred merits. Feinberg disagreed all scores, expressing view reached correctly decided claim. 4 Petitioners' application author opinion, Circuit Justice, accelerated review referred him entire Court, October 13, certiorari granted. 396 815, 106, 24 68. request denied but set down early argument. 5 We reverse. For essentially reasons stated Jduge Feinberg's dissent, we think exercised discretion proceeding unable accept conclusion majority does affect States like place no limitation level determined standard need. forth Part II, conclude program fulfill requirements federal statute. 6 7 consider threshold question whether jurisdiction vested decide challenge Law. 8 only obliged adjudicate preference deciding original follows King v. Smith, 392 309, 88 2128, 20 1118 (1968), where, court, avoid ruling. U.S., at 312 n. 3, S.Ct., 2130. 9 In us declared prior circumstance removed obligation destroyed power claim.2 not. Jurisdiction over claims, otherwise, vested, exclusively concurrently, district courts. Such courts usually sit tribunals. While Congress certain classes cases shall heard first instance composed judges, mean qua loses initially lodged it. To contrary, once petitioners filed alleging unconstitutionality 131—a, sitting one-man tribunal, seised §§ 1343(3) (4) Title 28 could dispose even either dismissing want substantial question, Ex parte Poresky, 290 30, 54 78 L.Ed. 152 (1933),3 granting requested injunctive relief if 'prior decisions (made) frivolous (the) face (was) unconstitutional.' Bailey Patterson, 369 31, 33, 82 549, 551, 512 (1962). Even moot, most appropriate course may well remand findings determination rather encumber time calendars overburdened, consuming judges required court. See Swift & Co. Wickham, 382 111, 86 258, 15 194 (1965). 10 considered mootness factor affecting power, balanced policy considerations spawned doctrine pendency countervailing federalism: extent investment judicial energy character Not hearings dismissal claim, so one 'of exercise particularly strong.'4 United Mine Workers Gibbs, 383 715, 727, 1130, 1139 (1966). 11 Respondents analogize rely language effect pass falters 'dismissed trial.'5 726, 1139. appear jurisdiction-conferring They contend mootness, insubstantiality, jurisdictional defect. 12 Whether insubstantial confer jurisdiction—a maxim more ancient analytically sound—should without opposed hear respondents' analogy fails. Unlike apparent outset, frequently beyond control parties, occur after expended looking toward resolution dispute plaintiffs entitled bring 13 willing defeat commonsense jurisdiction—the conservation avoidance multiplicity litigation—by conceptual approach require primary stages prerequisite claim.6 shunned view. Moore Cotton Exch., 270 593, 46 367, 70 750 (1926); Hurn Oursler, 289 238, 53 586, 77 1148 (1933) (dictum).7 B 14 A given support contention declined Department Health, Education, Welfare forum, least instance, questions us, thi came HEW 'engaged study relationship between Section 131—a.' F.2d, 176 (opinion Hays).8 Petitioners answer, correctly, neither principle 'exhaustion administrative remedies' nor 'primary jurisdiction' situation us. do seek order, obtained ruling procedures whereby trigger participate Department's programs. Cf. Abbott Laboratories Gardner, 387 136, 87 1507, 18 681 (1967); Davis, Administrative Law 19.01 (1965); Jaffe, Judicial Control Action 425 these formal doctrines law preclude mean, however, must deprive benefit expertise agency primarily concerned problems. Whenever possible obtain views where views, regulation published real doubt how standards apply particular program.9 16 made considerable effort learn HEW. possibility HEW's participation, party amicus, explored hat stage remain aloof. cannot circumstances fault try case. II 17 turn broadly characterized involving interpretation Amendments 1967 changes inaugurated method computing resulted reduced and, broader scale, decreased some $40 million public assistance undertaking. begin brief general structure Federal (AFDC program, four 'categorical assistance' programs established 1935.10 19 topography AFDC mapped part (1968); several lower opinions, addition below, surveyed pertinent regulatory provisions.11 participating comply terms legislation, see supra, basically voluntary traditionally liberty pay little much choose, are, fact, striking differences degree aid among States. There two basic factors enter what will paid. First, necessary establish 'standard need,' yardstick measuring who eligible assistance. Second, given, is, 'level benefits' both scores always left great deal discretion. 318, 2133—2134. Thus, include need' items others take account. Diversity exists respect fact paid.12 Some impose so-called dollar maximums amount individual family. upper limit irrespective far short fall theoretical Other curtail system 'ratable reductions' receive fixed percentage need.13 It course, 100% need defined. York, purports so. 21 Administration introduced omnibus legislation amend social security laws. relevant proposals adequate up education training child care provisions designed parents advantage former paralleled other put forward amendments adjust categorical reflect rise cost living.14 embryo amendment 402 202(b) bill, H.R. 5710, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967), added 402(a) following clause: 22 '(14) provide (A), effective 1, meeting (in conjunction income disregarded plan resources) need, accordance applicable determining individuals families dependent children (and January 1967), (B), 1968, annual (to prescribed Secretary) up-dating account living costs.' (Emphasis added.) 23 202(b), stillborn contained ultimate bill reported House Ways Means Committee. 12080, Administration's renewed efforts, behalf mandatory increase programs,15 met limited success, resulting 213(a) Senate version, $7.50 per month adult categories, 213(b) substance, (23). Committee's comment 213(b), 'to price costs,' tracks language.'16 Conference Committee eliminated 213 adjustment living, enacted. provides: 26 '(The shall) amounts used determine needs adjusted fully costs established, imposes paid proportionately adjusted.' C 27 background reveals except born silent union legislative compromise. Congress, does, voiced wishes muted strains discern theme cacophony political understanding. Our chief resources undertaking words common-sense assumptions direction compass Reverting find separate mandates: first, re-evaluate component compose equation; second, 'maximums' adjusted. 29 broad purposes ascribed 402(a)(23): realistically magnitude requirement lay bare fulfilling actual need; second prod apportion equitable basis. Consistent (23), may, recomputing pare accommodate budgetary realities percent switching reduction system, obscure 30 congressional purpose render meaningless 'bookkeeping.' sometimes legislates innuendo, making declarations indicating while requiring measures though falling legislating goals, serve nudge preferred directions. spoken favor increases payments. rejected administration embodied cost-of-living practical consequences. 31 recognize responsibility additional whose falls computed light economic them provisions. Secondly, leaves free downward adjustments paid, accomplishes within framework goal, however modest, forcing consequence cutback true minimum acceptable. Lastly, imposing disire maintain adjustment, incentive abandon flat 'maximum' thereby encouraging desirous containing budget shift equitably funds allocated accurately measure being given. 32 agree Court,17 two-judge Appeals—that 42(a)(23) York.18 fathom redefine way skirts re-evaluating existing standard. This reappraisal futile, hollow, indeed, deceptive gesture, consequences increasing numbers facing failure allocate sufficient them. 33 These conclusions, compelled manifested history, represent natural blend axiom—that construe enactments give meaning—with compromise origins 402(a)(23), above. background, think, precludes adventuresome reading 17, supra. buttressed construction placed Welfare.19 While, Congress' track substitution section, commands less usual deference accorded based expertise, weight attempt experienced harmonize enactment administers. Zuber Allen, 168, 192, 314, 327, 345 (1969); Udall Tallman, 380 85 792, 616 D 34 means simple, evidence adduced supports finding unquestioned has, effect, impermissibly lowered eliminating 402(a)(23). 35 Prior March individualized Schedules showing example, food clothing ages. Payments 'recurring' number household age oldest child. Additional payments, designated 'special made. Under experiment instituted August 27, many allowances grant $100 person substituted. 36 Chapter 184 Session radically altered approach. lieu supplemented grant, fixing maximum family household. ascertaining each size family.' Memorandum Support Defendants' Motion Summary Judgment 9—10. exclusive rent fuel found '(s)pecial seemingly computations. No average across then add figure grant.' F.Supp., 1368. 37 impact new reduce substantially similarly situated, decrease almost $40,000,000. 1369—1370. upstate severe, gains apparently cancelling losses others, net drastic overall approximately 72% clientele. 1369. E 38 Notwithstanding $40,000,000 argues represents circumvent content conversion justified advance efficiency.20 39 prevent pursuing laudable goal efficiency,21 foreclosed achieving expense significantly conclusions undisturbed supported record, clearly demonstrate significant here occurred. conceded formerly covered 'special' grants. 40 occasion record might approve needs, averaging therefor direct provider services. suffices laundry telephones, deemed essential regular expenses look farther service department's own regulations administrators providing $25 quarter cyclical city residents 1968 pilot project. 41 provided: 'An 'in deficit surplus inadequate meet nonbudgeted assistance.' NYCRR 353.1(c).22 43 persuasive, conclusive, constituted testimony York's essentials life numerous City. F 44 reach our relying below attempting constrict Speculation executive motive shunned. invalidates alters unless can reality existence recipients. not, hold consistently statutes, consolidate basis statistical averages. Obviously adversely others. Moreover, conceivable payout, assuming change benefits, streamlined program. Providing old equation accounted fairly priced consolidation reflects fair averaging, moreover, noted, 'cost-of-living' benefits. What heart age. Lest uncertainty reiterate accounting subsumed category III 45 prohibited using according whatever chooses, violates Constitution. follows, incompatible declaratory against payment monies schedules, develop conforming reasonable period time. prohibit use cut off noncompliance requirements. reluctant assume closed avenue directly affected Association Data Processing Service Organizations Camp, 150, 827, (1970); Barlow Collins, 159, 832, 192 (1970). adhere implicitly plans read Alabama's 'substitute father' inconsistent did advert specifically remedial problem, unarticulated premise alternative choices paying substitute fathers 47 prayer Smith King, enforcement invalid provision. 277 (D.C.M.D.Ala.1967). justification drawing distinction invalidating nonconforming manner contrary intended Congress. withholding overpayments recipients, constant budget, corresponding misallocation matching resources. result limiting rolls unduly thus channeling countenance circumnavigation C, permitting obscuring ideal. 48 incremental State, desire massive; discreet severable prohibited. Accordingly, fix date afford revise retain review, taking offer recommendations, revised or, choose submit revamped date, restraining pursuant 49 conclusion, simply this. concern escalating involvement highly complicated area benefits,23 formally supervision HEW, slightest indication meant traditional field. business evaluate, apart challenge, wisdom programs, federal, large particular. hand, peculiarly duty field areas resolve disputes consonance conditions attached use. As Cardozo stated, speaking Helvering 301 619, 645, 57 904, 910, 1307 (1937): 'When (federal) money spent promote welfare, concept opposite shaped states.' Lassen Arizona ex rel. Highway Dept., 385 458, 584, 515 (1967). 50 reversed remanded consistent opinion. 51 ordered. 52 Reversed remanded. DOUGLAS, concurring. I join few words. leading 721—729, 1136—1140, 218. line distinguished discretionary power. Gibbs abandoned 'single cause action' test controlling 1148, instead claims derive common nucleus operative fact' 'if, regard character, plaintiff's he ordinarily expected proceeding.' 725, 1138. 56 attacked grounds. ground differential County. violated Act, requires make parties sole flows remanding 'for Yet despite Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 371 285, 287—288, 83 397, 399, 317: 'Once (a is) disposed ground, calling court.' Florida Lime Avocado Growers, Inc. Jacobsen, 362 73, 80—81, 80 568, 573—574, 568. rule, holding suit it, although practice initial seems used. Landry Daley, D.C., 288 194. 58 united Judges that, refused jurisdiction. outlined guide 'judicial economy, convenience fairness litigants.' 59 main law. And clear federal-state comity proper. Thus stated: 'There situations closely tied strong.' Id., Since involved especially weighty, exceptional exercise. 60 incident issuance temporary impaneling received testimony, affidavits, briefs, issuing days him. convenience, point 608—610, 370—371, 750. 61 studying contested section irrelevant problem. Once approved Secretary finds, notice conflict 404(a), 628, 918, 604(a) IV). 62 plans1 private individuals, namely, potential initiate compliance hearings. sense failed exhaust remedies case, problem discussed Court's refuse refusal extremely sanction cutting complying Instead, settles offending through informal negotiations. Note, Review Practices, 67 Col.L.Rev. 84, 91—92 (1967).2 63 mechanism theoretically get immaterial. done so, claims. Their act merely forces certainly competent clear, interpret challenged pressed here. 64 participation required. some, all, various one. losing risk plaintiff takes. 1118, Act. long receiving funds, legal receipt funds; distributing receives bounty imposed adverted wrote Steward Machine 548, 597—598, 883, 895—896, 1279, sustaining constitutionality Act: 65 'Alabama seeking obtaining credit millions her citizens Treasury nation. Nowhere scheme government—in limitations express implied Constitution—do she assenting assure just requital received.' 66 said, 1307, companion Co.: Where alleged action. wrong withhold State. 68 entrusted matter, 404(a) Act.3 role perform reach. APPENDIX TO OPINION OF J., CONCURRING DEPARTMENT HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE OFFICE THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20201 December 29, 1969 George R. Houston Associate Librarian Supreme 69 Street East Capitol, N.W. Washington, 20543 Dear Houston: relates your conversation me concerning statements last paragraph footnote page 91 volume 67, Columbia Review, 1967, responded petition Arkansas claimants. 71 article correct. was, response conformity hearing. Had replied letter, cases, initiative deficiencies state, laws, cannot, responsible official, voluntarily compliance. 72 Letters you refer contents matters aware audits. 73 initiated connection Nevada Connecticut. imposition sanctions states mandatory, exert every command necessity 74 If questions, please let know. 75 Very truly yours, 76 Robert C. Mardian, General Counsel. BLACK, CHIEF JUSTICE joins, dissenting. 79 recently enacted reduces (AFDC) challenging, Little week 9, today holds 'the merits' statutes inconsistent. At 401. reaches (HEW); very moment performing reviewing odds 402(a)(23); enough obviated perhaps lawsuits. regret fails due consideration unmistakeable intent technical difficult affirms abuse plunges ever-increasing unnecessary Nation's administered States.1 601—610 Government provides condition supplementing needy satisfies By statute, charged list 602 approval plan, approval, qualifies financial 601 So continues times requirements, changes, regulations, decisions, review. CFR 201.3. If, affording hearing, determines conform terminate otherwise entitled. 604, 1316 IV); 201.5. Waiver permitted together undertaken 'demonstration' experimental 1315 denying curtailing elaborated appeals adverse determination. unified, coherent rules practices ensure behind carried out. vest interpreting enforcing Although agency's sanction, assistance, seem glance harsh inflexible remedy, wisely saw vast credible threat termination about procedures, followed intended, countless lawsuits undisputed commenced conforms Act's detailed information regarding preparing statutorily nonconformity 131—a. point, midst obligation, assumed state-federal Both abused relied identical agency. 170, 176, 181 (1969). Lumbard's reasoning instructive: '(H)ere, points out, apt Education Welfare, issues upon turns—the proper Act—both exceedingly complex. briefs arguments varying elicited, demonstrated allowing operation experience 602(a)(23). U.S.C.A. (Supp.1969). believe jurisdiction, asserted plaintiffs, already 181. go mere Ensuring important supporting intervention stage. grave guaranteeing used, policies followed, enforce interests congressionally mandated ones run course. explicitness referring remdies suggests intent. But fundamentally, impossible function disrupted authority undercut rush precisely directed make. instances confronted sensitive delighted able question. run, then, pre-emption rightful lead collapse envisioned fear process along way. Finally, economy prevention premature lawsuits, overrun litigants subject. determination, inevitably hand mooted postponed completed. step examinations conflicts final approving disapproving fundamentally created hence suits completely precluded. preclusion necessarily recipient remedies. precise issues.2 brought again disparity Rothstein Wyman, 303 339 (D.C.S.D.N.Y.1969), prob. juris. Wyman Rothstein, 903, 85. view: 'Since never pendent. attempted dissolution adjudicatory power.' 175. Poresky restatement truism settled rule insubstantiality granted, still lends proposition outset panel. intimate become invested resolution. 1138, said: '(I)f, proceeding, substantiality issues, whole.' persuasive well-settled lose diversity founded domicile recovered $10,000. Sperling, 354 91, 93 1112, 1113, 1205 (1957); St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Red Cab Co., 283, 289—290, 590—591, 845 (1938); Smithers 204 632, 297, 656 (1907); generally Wright, Courts pp. 93—94 (1963). whether, urged petitioners, $10,000 amount-in-controversy provision, 1331, maintained 1343(3), contains limitation, '(t)o redress deprivation, color right, privilege immunity secured rights *.' 2130, 84 evaluate argument, understand reviews desiring available approval. approved, disapproved. Ibid. finds total partial cutoff IV) describes Secretary's behest observed Southwestern Sugar Molasses River Terminals Corp., 360 411, 420, 1210, 1216, 1334 (1959), 'one ultimately therefore deny themselves enlightment facts transaction equipped marshal evaluate.' Far States, 342 570, 574—575, 492, 494—495, 96 576 (1952). Old Age Assistance (OAA), seq.; (AFDC), Blind (AB), 1201 Permanently Totally Disabled (APTD), 1351 seq. Lampton Bonin, 299 336, 1384 (D.C.E.D.La.1969); Jefferson Hackney, 1332 (D.C.N.D.Tex.1969); Williams Dandridge, 297 450 (1968 1969), Dandridge Williams, 811, 62, (1969), 471, 1153, 491. According supplied Explanation Provisions p. 36, $3,100 annually marked 'poverty' level. report, 'Although define above poverty level, pays amount.' appears avowed fell mark. full standard, poverty. Hearings Sess., pt. 118 relation persons e.g., X dollars child, age, family, unit, th unit. latter procedure grounds, reduction' event deducted, ratable applied 202(a), (c), (d), (e). Gardner testified: 'The nothing improve things stand today, eligibility—but standards. too low good widely accepted programs; indeed probably agreed-upon experts today. 'We strongly urge adopt administration's proposal standards, update periodically keep pace living.' Finance 216 Undersecretary Cohen. 255—259. Report reads: 'Social increased board committee $70, percent. However, similar across-the-board aged formula 1965 detrimental well-being recommending proposed old-age blind, permanently totally disabled plus alone (for benefits) month. 'To accomplish produce (or income). Any 1966. 'States reprice thereafter, adjusting S.Rep. 744, 169—170 id., 293; U.S.Code Cong. Admin.News 3006—3007. disclaiming converting flat-grant concluded: '(S)ection levels payments.' 1377. extensive alternation underlying inferred ambiguous clarified history. history opposite. Senate's notwithstanding Senator McGovern, gives inference, negatived noncommittal unilluminating comments committee, purpose. considerations, foreclose technically said overlooks Hays' preface discussion merits: persuaded action, merits, sinc rest solely grounds.' 178. disavowed reaching expressly Feinberg. circumstances, hypertechnical faced desirable explanations Government's Amicus Memorandum. preamble sets streamlining relies invites unnecessarily burdensome calculations paperwork. position, Memorandum, 'reduction content' 'reductions recognition needs.' recognized administratively regarded diets attendants extraordinary susceptible open basic. 351.2, Aspects Eligibility. investigation cover aspects eligibility. (b) Need. Consideration maintenance *' (Second emphasis judiciary called frequency viability Goldberg Kelly, 254, 1011, 287 Wheeler Montgomery, 280, 1026, 307 James, 935 921, (1970) (inspections house), substance validity innumerable See, Shapiro Thompson, 394 618, 89 1322, 600 (1969) (residence requirements); supra (substitute father); Solman Shapiro, 300 409, aff'd, 5, 25, Lewis Stark, 197 (D.C.N.D.Cal.1968), 900, 237, ('man-in-the-house rule'). actions cf. (D.C.S.D.N.Y.1969); 491 406 8. Appendix concurrence. 'In services Secretary, administering supervising finds— '(1) changed residence 602(b) title, imposed, knowledge agency, cases; '(2) 602(a) title plan; '(T)he notify categories parts failure) satisfied comply. Until failure).' sharply joined. 317 326 23, 2133, 2138. canvassed

Category: 1