Document: 424 U.S. 577 96 S.Ct. 1010 47 L.Ed.2d 249 Abe LAVINE, etc., Appellant,v.Ronald MILNE et al. No. 74-1137. Argued Dec. 2, 1975. Decided March 3, 1976. Syllabus A New York welfare statute disqualifies from the receipt of Home Relief benefits for 75 days anyone who voluntarily terminates his employment or reduces earning capacity purpose qualifying benefits, and further provides, by way a "rebuttable presumption," that person applies assistance within after so terminating reducing shall be "deemed" to have done "for such larger amount thereof, in absence evidence contrary supplied person." In this action challenging constitutionality latter provision, three-judge District Court held provision violative due process. Held: The presumption" does not deny process law under Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 582-587. (a) provision's sole is indicate that, as with other eligibility requirements, applicant rather than State must establish he did leave only if it can called, normal assumption an entitled unless until proves eligibility. 583-585. (b) fact prescribed procedure decision, even one favorable applicant, ensuing hearing at which may appeal adverse decision local official need handed down 90 date was requested, thus extending beyond 75-day waiting period, render meaningless. ascertaining applicant's quitting job no different determining any substantive requirements eligibility, nothing Constitution requires initiated prior determination qualifications adjudicatory hearing. Even inordinately large number applicants are initially denied incorrectly because false evaluation their motives resigning jobs, placed doubt, since Amendment guarantee all state officials' decisions will correct, would seem incentive wrongfully. P. 586-587. (c) small tempted receive them practical difficulty proving one's mind frequently lead incorrect denial assuming, Arguendo, burden on industrious indigent far outweighs conceivable gain screening out indolent few, nevertheless prefers its chosen course, assay wisdom determination. 587. 384 F.Supp. 206, reversed remanded. Amy Juviler, City, appellant Gerald A. Norlander, appellees, Pro hac vice, special Court. Mr. Justice WHITE delivered opinion 1 statute, N. Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 131(11) (Supp.1975),1 Aid Families Dependent Children. issue case states question raised judgment court whether "presumption" denies law. 2 Appellee Milne appellee intervenors residual category aid needy individuals unable qualify types federal relief.2 addition meeting financial see, E. g., 18 NYCRR §§ 352.27, 352.28, meet (Supp.1975) 385.7 promulgated pursuant thereto. Section provides: 3 "Any terminated reduced home relief dependent children thereof disqualified receiving seventy-five termination reduction, otherwise required regulation. Any requests increase grant shall, regulation, deemed person."3 4 Each appellees ground voluntary cessation qualifying" Relief; each therefore barred days. 5 Contending regulation violate Due Process Equal Protection Clauses Amendment, brought class suit seeking declaratory injunctive damages against Commissioner Department Social Services Westchester County Services. Jurisdiction predicated upon 28 U.S.C. 1343(3) 42 1983. Since sought injunction enforcement unconstitutionality, convened 2281, 2284. 6 Upon cross-motions summary certified second sentence supporting were unconstitutional.4 Injunctive followed.5 found created wrongful purpose. Relying holding presumptions permissible they unreasonable, arbitrary, invidiously discriminatory, Bandini Petroleum Co. v. Superior Court, 284 8, 52 103, 76 L.Ed. 136 (1931); Leary United States, 395 6, 89 1532, 23 57 (1969); Tot 319 463, 63 1241, 87 1519 (1943), rebuttable presumption irrational violation Clause. "(T)here insufficient connection between known fact, is, application public employment, presumed assistance."6 First, limits low substantial people work merely obtain benefits. Second, determined poor "the same desire fruits non-poor." Although recognized could rebutted, fair-hearing took long excess "meaningless" usually come penalty period had passed. 7 Appellant Lavine, Services, appealed 1253, we noted probable jurisdiction, 422 1054, 95 2676, 45 706 (1975). We reverse. 8 As scheme, imposes host requirements; when applying most governmental bear showing respects. See, e. 351.1(b)(2)ii, 351.6, 351.8, 370.4(a).7 An earn income hold assets exceed minimal levels. See 352.16, 352.22, 352.28. He certain circumstances dispose equity house, 104, 360 (1966 Supp. 1975); sell automobile, 352.15(d), 352.28(b). If denied, reapply basis new invoke right reviewed full administrative 358.4-358.5. To elsewhere statutes regulations, first additional qualification: terminate obtaining ineligible No challenge entertained below.8 9 131(11), here, provides quit "in unconstitutional carries procedural consequence; shifts neither going forward nor proof, appears carry outset. 10 offending interpreted circumlocutory direction authorities employ standardized inference supplies information issue, However, instruction superfluous obvious reason failure prove essential element always result much tort contract plaintiff nonsuit. if, indeed, called here 11 Despite aura radiates, makes absolutely clear bears proof others. And do object requirement free impermissible benefit-seeking motive,9 underlying complaint has been unfairly State. 12 Where lies given rarely without consequence dispositive outcome litigation application. It establishing illicit motive difficult, although argues, should best himself. However be, us resolve where ought lie issue. Outside criminal area, concerns attend, locus persuasion normally constitutional moment.10 13 both brief during oral argument, made real opportunity rebut comes requested applicant. 358.18. Because issued more 15 end longer relevant, claim Thus, contend imposition "sanction." Brief Appellees 96. There least two answers contention. 14 State's visits agency, informed criteria, response questions posited afforded demonstrate 351.1. these determine receives Relief. made, 358.4, 358.5. Certainly true places doubt procedure. officials initial overturned, payments retroactive appear required. 351.8. successfully gains advantage and, costs waste. cite data suggest wealthy jobs Their argument about $3.10 per day,11 including shelter allowance12 force. also asserted satisfactorily leads qualified individuals. so, course; permissible, fulfilling purpose, being unconstitutional, conventionally applied 16 For reasons stated herein, reversed, remanded proceedings consistent opinion. 17 So ordered. Reversed 19 STEVENS part consideration case. This formerly numbered 131(10) (Supp.1973). renumbered change language 1974 amendment Law, Laws 1974, c. 621, 2. 158(a) (Supp.1975), part: provide himself, secure support legally responsible relative, needed care provisions chapter, sources, eligible relief." Title "(a) who: (1) (2) good cause fails refuses undergo necessary medical examination treatment; (3) Part manpower services certification accept certification; (4) pick up check semi-monthly Employment Service so; (5) referral participate vocational rehabilitation program, 30 thereafter time willing comply Part, except recipient HR Part. "(b) grant, similarily ADC, person. "(c) event subject WIN program take priority, sanction imposed imposed." below reported Sub nom. Berman, 206 (S.D.N.Y. 1974) (three-judge court). single-judge court. Id., 213 n. 8. enjoined respect applicants, but Children, despite AFDC before Both agree, though reasons, erred adjudicating applicants. Our disposition obviates pass F.Supp., 210. 370.4(a), that: "Insofar practicable, responsibility verified concerning previous maintenance, loss extent duration current need." 9, Infra. Nor seriously questioned. Welfare fundamental right, Federal Government sort obligation minimum levels support. Dandridge Williams, 397 471, 1153, 25 491 (1970). denying those perfectly legitimate reasonable legislative risk availability might undermine work. conclusively clearly relief, Court's cases dealing so-called irrebuttable point. States Agriculture Murry, 413 508, 93 2832, 37 767 (1973); Vlandis Kline, 412 441, 2230, (1973). Also wide mark Western & Atlantic R. Henderson, 279 639, 644, 49 445, 447, 73 884 (1929), invalidated statutory presumptions" civil area lack rational ultimate actually evidence. Without examining today decided were, evident involved easing party shifting another. Here, said, takes place. leaves relied point; reflect standard rule Does guilt, Mullaney Wilbur, 421 684, 1881, 44 508 (1975); re Winship, 358, 1068, 368 (1970), aimed assisting satisfy standards reliability indicated cases. Turner 396 398, 642, 24 610 These helpful 131-a (Supp. 1975). Shelter allowances provided "as paid" basis, maximums established district. 352.3.

Category: 1