Document: 405 U.S. 669 92 S.Ct. 1232 31 L.Ed.2d 569 Laverne CARTER et al., Appellants,v.Wayne STANTON al. No. 70—5082. Argued Nov. 8, 1971. Decided April 3, 1972. Jon D. Noland, Indianapolis, Ind., for appellants. Mark Peden, Indianapolis appellee William Sterrett. Robert W. Geddes, appellee, Wayne Stanton. PER CURIAM. 1 Appellants are women who contend that an Indiana welfare regulation governing eligibility state and federal aid to dependent children contravenes the Fourteenth Amendment Social Security Act, 49 Stat. 627, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 602(a)(10). The provides a person seeks assistance due separation or desertion of spouse is not entitled until had been continuously absent at least six months, unless there exceptional circumstances need. Burns' Ind.Admin.Rules & Regs. (52—1001)—2 (1967). brought this action in United States District Court Southern Indiana, basing jurisdiction on 1983 28 1343, seeking both declaratory injunctive relief. A three-judge court was convened pursuant 2281. After 'preliminary hearing defendants" motion dismiss 'at which court' received evidence upon resolve matter, dismissed complaint ground none claimants exercised her right under law appeal from county decision denying assistance, (52—1211)—1 (Supp.1970), therefore appellants failed exhaust administrative remedies. In alternative, held pleadings did present substantial question der §§ 2201, 2202. Carter v. Stanton, IP 70—C—124 (SD Dec. 11, 1970). This direct followed we noted probable jurisdiction. 402 994, 91 2180, 29 159 (1971). 2 Contrary State's view, our 1253 satisfactorily established. Sullivan Alabama State Bar, 394 812, 89 1486, 22 749, aff'g 295 F.Supp. 1216 (MD Ala.1969); Whitney Stores, Inc. Summerford, 393 9, 44, 21 280 406 (S.C 1968). Also, plainly case 1343. Damico California, 389 416, 88 526, 19 647 Damico, indistinguishable case, likewise establishes exhaustion required such those presented here. Cf. McNeese Board Education, 373 668, 83 1433, 10 622 (1963); Monroe Pape, 365 167, 81 473, 5 492 (1961). 3 Finally, if court's characterization insubstantial based face complaint, it seems have been, error. Dandridge Williams, 397 471, 90 1153, 25 491 (1970); Shapiro Thompson, 618, 1322, 600 (1969); supra. But appears dismiss, part asserted failure 'to claim relief can be granted' (App. 19), matters outside were excluded by court. Rule 12(b) Federal Rules Civil Procedure treat one summary judgment dispose provided 56. Under 56, cannot granted no genuine issue any material fact moving party matter law. If course followed, its order opaque unilluminating either relevant facts with respect merits appellants' claim. posture unconvinced properly entered. vacated remanded proceedings consistent opinion. 4 Judgment remanded. Mr. Justice POWELL REHNQUIST took consideration case. 6 DOUGLAS. 7 I agree entertain remedies before launching their challenge. But, although should made more complete findings conclusions law, would remand simply score but hold judgment. 8 problem simple disposed 9 Act defines 'dependent child' 'needy child . has deprived parental support care reason continued absence home.'1 Public Welfare adopted definition child.'2 term 'continued home' defined though HEW recommends 'that period time specified basis establishing factor.'3 however, established rule absence' 'desertion separation.' two instances makes mean 'the shall continuous' months,4 except when department finds 'exceptional need.' 11 gets immediately parent incarcerated inducted into armed services. six-month creates separate class needy standard may 'needy' other categories. 12 directs 'aid families furnished reasonable promptness all eligible individuals.'5 requires decisions applications 'promptly' 'not excess of' 30 days check notification denial mailed within period.6 As noted, contains waiting establish absence.' And Handbook, already referred to,7 states respects '(a) comes interpretation his absent.'8 13 Here, California Human Resources Dept. Java, 121, 135, 1347, 1349, 666, program 'tends frustrate' Act. King Smith, 392 309, 2128, 20 1118, 'establishes that, congressional authorization exclusion clearly evidenced legislative history, excludes persons AFDC standards violates invalid Supremacy Clause.' Townsend Swank, 404 282, 286, 502, 505, 448. While legitimate interest preventing fraud, are, said 637, 1333, 600, 'less drastic means' available minimize hazard.' Rather than remanding lower determination ought decided now inasmuch (a) essentially undisputed, (b) correct, (c) further litigation work hardship recipients affected rule. See generally Note, Individualized Criminal Supreme Court: Study Dispositional Decision Making, Harv.L.Rev. 1260 (1968); Bell, Appellate Opinions Remand Process, Ga.L.Rev. 536 (1968). 14 so collides end frivolous defense deciding reversing Clause. 629, 606(a). Ind. Bd. Pub. Reg. 2—400(a). Health, Handbook Assistance Administration, pt. IV, 3422.5 (1967): 'When separation, continuous (6) months prior date application children; need where determined actual bona fide filed considered special finding public setting forth reasons action.' 45 CFR 206.10(3), 36 Fed.Reg. 3864. N. Part 3422.2, provides: 'Continued home constitutes deprivation following circumstances: '1. When out home; '2. nature interrupt terminate parent's functioning provider maintenance, physical care, guidance child; '3. known indefinite duration precludes counting performance function planning child. 'A absent, interferes child's receiving parent, being counted For example: father left home, without forewarning family, mother really does know why he nor whether will return.'

Category: 1