Document: 514 U.S. 143115 S.Ct. 1291131 L.Ed.2d 178 Eloise ANDERSON, Director, California Department of Social Services, et al., Petitionersv.Verna EDWARDS, etc., al. No. 93-1883. Supreme Court the United States Argued Jan. 18, 1995. Decided March 22, Syllabus * The federal "family filing unit rule," 42 U.S.C. § 602(a)(38), requires that all cohabiting nuclear family members be grouped into a single "assistance unit" (AU) for purposes eligibility and benefits determinations under Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. California's "non-sibling rule" (California Rule) additionally groups AU needy children who live in same household, whether or not they are siblings, if there is only one adult caring them. When application Rule resulted decreases maximum per capita AFDC due respondents, include Verna Edwards her dependent minor granddaughter two grandnieces, brought this action declaratory injunctive relief against petitioners, state officials charged administering program, claiming violates law. District granted summary judgment Appeals affirmed. Held: Federal law does prohibit from grouping living household care relative. Pp. __. (a) violate 45 CFR 233.20(a)(2)(viii), an regulation prohibiting reducing amount assistance "solely because presence non-legally responsible individual." Respondents simply wrong when contend that, e.g., it was solely arrival Mrs. Edwards' home grandnieces triggered decline previously were paid granddaughter; rather, grandnieces' plus their through Edwards. Had after coming Edwards, either applied different caretaker relative home, would have affected granddaughter's at all. (b) Nor §§ 233.20(a)(3)(ii)(D), 233.90(a)(1), which assuming cohabitant's income available child absent case-specific determination actually legally available. First, necessarily reduce them receives outside income, may rationally assume will observe duties AU's take account receipt any such by expending funds on behalf AU. Second, authorizes combination incomes order determine payment. This accords very definition as group individuals whose resources considered "as determining benefits, 206.10(b)(5), authorized statute itself, 602(a)(7)(A), provides agency "shall, need, consideration . [AFDC assistance]." In light great latitude programs, see, Dandridge v. Williams, 397 471, 478, 90 1153, 1158, 25 491, reasonably construed allow States, child's need (and therefore assistance), consider relatives also assistance. availability regulations addressed entirely problem: Attempts count controlled persons purpose See Fed.Reg. 6583-6584, and, King Smith, 392 309, 88 2128, 20 1118. has no effect. (c) Respondents' alternative arguments—(1) rule occupies field thereby pre-empts adopting its Rule, (2) 233.10(a)(1) 233.20(a)(1)(i), require equitable treatment among recipients—lack merit. 12 F.3d 154, reversed remanded. THOMAS, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. Dennis Paul Eckhart, Sacramento, CA, petitioners. A. Engelmayer, New York, U. S., amicus curiae sp. leave Katherine Meiss, Los Angeles, respondents. Justice THOMAS 1 case presents question governing program prohibits Such allows grant equal equally sized households, regardless siblings. Ninth Circuit concluded forbids equalize manner. We disagree accordingly reverse. 2 joint federal-state public Title IV-A Security Act, 49 Stat. 627, 601 seq. As name indicates, "is designed provide financial parents them." Shea Vialpando, 416 251, 253, 94 1746, 1750, 40 120 (1974). "reimburses each State chooses participate percentage expends," so long "administer[s] pursuant plan conforms applicable statutes regulations." Heckler Turner, 470 184, 189, 105 1138, 1141, 84 138 (1985) (citing 602, 603). 3 One plans must apply applies; addition, these applicants aggregated monthly benefits. 602(a)(38) (1988 ed., Supp. V); 206.10(a)(1)(vii) (1993). generally Bowen Gilliard, 483 587, 107 3008, 97 485 (1987) (upholding constitutional challenges). (AU), defined "the needs payment." 206.10(b)(5) issue Rule)—goes even further regard. It provides: "Two more AUs shall combined [t]here [adult] relative." Cal. Dept. Servs., Manual Policies & Procedures 82-824.1.13, App. Pet. Cert. 52. other words, 4 consolidation results decrease eligible. occurs while (like many States) increases additional person added AU, increase proportional. Thus, number increases, payment decreases.1 See, 473-474, 1155-56, 491 (1970) (sustaining Maryland standard but increments become proportionately smaller"). 5 situation respondent illustrates operation rules. Initially, received granddaughter, whom she sole caretaker.2 one-person eligible receive "maximum aid payment" $341 month prior September 1991. n. 1, supra. Later, began Pursuant rule, together two-person $560 ibid. Because none $901 three girls. June 1991, however, notice three-person $694 month. thus reduced payments $207 6 On themselves others similarly situated, relatives, respondents Eastern California. Rev.Stat. 1979, 1983, sought declaration injunction petitioners enforcing it. cross-motions judgment, requested relief. found indistinguishable relevant respects Washington invalidated Beaton Thompson, 913 F.2d 701 (CA9 1990). 7 brief opinion, "virtually identical" had held "inconsistent regulation." Healy, 155 Since issued decision, Health Human Services (HHS)—which administers level—determined own "do conflict policy option consolidate units household." Transmittal ACF-AT-94-6 (Mar. 16, 1994), 37. Moreover, courts appeals last resort recently rulings odds decision below.3 certiorari resolve conflict, we now II 8 Beaton, ruled (both siblings non-siblings alike) inconsistent regulations, namely, 233.90(a)(1) (1993).4 supra, 704. rely principally submission here. 9 examine keep mind cases, starting point analysis recognition gives dispensing funds." Dandridge, U.S., S.Ct., 1158. Accord, Shea, 1750 (States "are given broad discretion both level benefits"). cardinal principle, conclude do preclude adoption Rule. 10 According Using example although before came one-third $694, $231.33, arrived took Brief 6, 22. reduction occurred, according of" "non-legally individual[s]" relation granddaughter. 11 wrong. all.5 B argue "availability" implemented, form another, regulations. Section inclusion family, 'substitute parent' 'man-in-the-house' individual than [the parent] acceptable basis income" child. Likewise, 233.20(a)(2)(viii) "not contribution [a responsible] support unit." Finally, 233.20(a)(3)(ii)(D) shall, "in payment," "[i]ncome current use"; adds "income [legally available]." 13 assumes contributed to, otherwise without If begin receiving $75 example, part less $25 assertedly "assumes," violation contribute grandniece grandniece—without fact occur. 14 argument fails least reasons. premise questionable. Although nominally expend children—without regard circumstances, income. Not assumption fail reflect reality, 600, 14, 3016-17, duty imposed caretakers spend best interests child[ren]" care, 605, specifically implemented law, Cal.Welf. Inst.Code Ann. 11005.5, 11480 (West 1991). 15 respondents' misperceives foregoing add AU—$75 (granddaughter) $0 (first grandniece) (second total $75—and accordingly. should clear "assumes" places (whose herself). What really attacking attack ignores AU: ("All everyone taken establishing benefit payment"). 16 Perhaps arguing forbid combine household—whether otherwise. But whatever limits imposes States' authority regard, effected 602(a)(7)(A) ed. V). "great latitude," "broad discretion," how much receive), 17 problem, counting provided adopted implement our decisions cases. 6583-6584 (1977) 1118 (1968); Lewis Martin, 552, 1282, 561 (1970); Van Lare Hurley, 421 338, 95 1741, 44 208 (1975)). counted member applying King, 311, 2130 (a " father,' able-bodied man cohabited mother home); Lewis, 554, 1283 ("an male role spouse mother," common-law husband, nonadopting stepfather obligated children); Lare, 339, 340, 1744 "nonpaying lodge[r]," "a recipient AFDC"). Bray Dowling, 135, 144 (CA2 1994) (The "were established address specific concerns regarding imputation non-AFDC sources"), cert. pending, 94-5845. 18 comprising Mrs calculated reference herself anyone else inside sum, relied.6 III 19 offer grounds below. Neither merit, dispose quickly. invalid expansion 602(a)(38). Congress decreed intended prevent including (as Rule). reject notion Congress' directive composition "occupied field" pre-empted rules touching area. said about "workfare" York Dublino, 413 405, 414, 93 2507, 2513, 37 688 (1973), applies here well: "If pre-empt efforts important dimension ., intentions likelihood been expressed direct unambiguous language." language embrace rule; limit 21 recipients. (1993) ("the conditions result inequitable groups"); 233.20(a)(1)(i) [must] made objective basis"). Assuming provisions "creat[e] 'federal right' enforceable [42 U.S.C.] 1983," Wilder Virginia Hospital Assn., 496 498, 509, 110 2510, 2517, 455 (1990), find affirmatively fosters 22 For 1991 brothers having behalf. Yet girls cared. difference not. 23 unnecessary ever begins opt out Certainly, nothing itself speaks issue. Furthermore, challenged face seeking enjoin enforcement altogether, see First Amended Complaint CV-S 91 1473 (ED Cal.), pp. 16-17 (Jan. 10, 1992), could sustain burden showed possible (in concert another regulation) violated Salerno, 481 739, 745, 2095, 2100, 697 (A facial challenge most difficult mount successfully, since challenger establish set circumstances exists [rule] valid"). Though as-applied presented opt-out concrete factual setting might court decide it, us. potential inequities absence greater. Six up $1057 Rule's adoption, six lived $2046, almost double. sensibly equitably eliminates disparities providing households regulations.7 24 reasons, Accordingly, reversed, remanded proceedings consistent opinion. ordered. syllabus constitutes prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 321, 337, 26 282, 287, 50 L.Ed. 499. Between July 1989, August 31, adhered following schedule payments: Number AUMaximum Per $ 341 $341.00 560 280.00 694 231.33 824 206.00 940 188.00 1,057 176.17 1,160 165.71 1,265 158.13 1,366 151.78 1,468 146.80 Joint Statement Undisputed Material Facts Support Plaintiffs' Motion Summary Judgment (E.D.Cal.), p. (Feb. 13, 1992). Cf. 488, 1163, (reproducing similar schedule.) forth 11450(a)(1) Supp.1994), modified 11450.01(a), 11450.015(a). herself. explained text, along children. apart so. 135 (New policy), 94-5845; Wilkes Gomez, 32 1324 (CA8 (Minnesota rule), 94-6929; MacInnes Commissioner Public Welfare, 412 Mass. 790, 593 N.E.2d 222 (1992); Morrell Flaherty, 338 N.C. 230, 449 S.E.2d 175 (1994). "[T]he money item included prorated individual; [state] unit. ." 233.20(a)(3)(ii) part: "[I]n payment, .: "(D) Income use considered. To extent provision chapter, applicant legal interest liquidated sum ability make maintenance." "The deprived parental reason death, continued physical mental incapacity parent, (if includes cases) unemployment his parent principal earner natural adoptive stepparent married, [adoptive] general applicability stepparents stepchildren required Under requirement, described paragraph finding ineligibility State. affects share household. recognizing economies scale inhere arrangements. 599, 3016, (crediting 'the common sense proposition usually costs expenses shared' (quoting Termini Califano, 611 367, 370 1979))). aware certain situations consolidated (such payments, inheritance, lottery winnings), larger (along rule) terminated participation 591, 3012 rule's adoption). Were "opt out" situations, remaining based 1994 Transmittal, __, HHS examined case—the statutory concluded: "Apart complying related rule], State-wide policy, what retained separate units." 35. independently reached conclusion, occasion defer agency's position. Martin Occupational Safety Review Comm'n, 499 144, 150, 111 1171, 1175, 113 117 (1991) ("It well 'that construction entitled substantial deference' Lyng Payne, 476 926, 939, 106 2333, 2341, 921 (1986)).

Category: 1