Document: 397 U.S. 471 90 S.Ct. 1153 25 L.Ed.2d 491 Edmund P. DANDRIDGE, Jr., et al., Appellants,v.Linda WILLIAMS al. No. 131. Argued Dec. 9, 1969. Decided April 6, 1970. Rehearing Denied May 18, See 398 914, 1684. George W. Liebmann, Baltimore, Md., for appellants. Joseph A. Matera, appellees. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This case involves validity a method used by Maryland, in administration an aspect its public welfare program, to reconcile demands needy citizens with finite resources available meet those demands. Like every other State Union, Maryland participates Federal Aid Families With Dependent Children (AFDC 42 U.S.C. § 601 seq. (1964 ed. and Supp. IV), which originated Social Security Act 1935.1 Under this jointly financed computes so-called 'standard need' each eligible family unit within borders. generally Rosado v. Wyman, 397, 1207, 442. Some States provide that shall receive grants sufficient fully determined standard need. Other percentage Still others most families full accord ascertained need, but impose upper limit on total amount money any one may receive. through administrative adoption 'maximum grant regulation,' has followed last course. suit was brought several AFDC recipients enjoin application maximum regulation ground it is conflict 1935 Equal Protection Clause Fourteenth Amendment. A three-judge District Court, convened pursuant 28 2281, held violates Clause. 297 F.Supp. 450. direct appeal followed, 1253, we noted probable jurisdiction, 396 811, 62, 24 64. 2 The operation system not complex. By statute2 program. It need based number children circumstances under lives. In general, increases additional person household, increments become proportionately smaller.3 here issue imposes upon single $250 per month certain counties Baltimore City, $240 elsewhere State.4 appellees all have large families, so their standards as computed substantially exceed they actually regulation. urged Court limitation operates discriminate against them merely because size violation They claimed further incompatible purpose 1935, well explicit provisions. 3 original does federal statute, also concluded Amendment's equal protection guarantee. After reconsideration motion, court issued new resting determination regulation's invalidity entirely constitutional ground.5 Both statutory issues been briefed argued here, judgment must, course, be affirmed if either statute or Constitution.6 We consider question first, appellees' position correct, there no occasion reach issues. Ashwander TVA, 288, 346—347, 56 466, 482—483, 80 L.Ed. 688 (Brandeis, J., concurring); Rosenberg Fleuti, 374 449, 83 1804, 10 1000. 4 * contend contrary 402(a) (10) Act, amended,7 requires state plan 5 'provide individuals wishing make aid dependent opportunity do so, furnished reasonable promptness individuals.' 6 argument denies benefits younger family. Thus, say, patent since are just 'dependent' older siblings definition 'dependent child' fixed law.8 King Smith, 382 309, 88 2128, 20 1118. Moreover, regulation, limiting household receive, contravenes basic law encouraging parents 'farm out' relatives whose yet subject limitation. 7 cannot gainsaid effect provision reduce capita largest families. Although argue more recently arrived such totally deprived aid, realistic vie lot entire diminished presence without increase payments. Cf. supra, at 335 n. 4, 2142 (Douglas, concurring). accurate say child's wholly taken away than first child rescinded. fact, affected. Whether diminution compatible here. For reasons follow, permissible law. 8 stressed States' 'undisputed power,' these provisions act, 'to set level need.' Id., 334, 2142. described enterprise 'a scheme cooperative federalism,' id., 316, 2133, carefully '(t)here considerable latitude allocating resources, free own determine funds devotes program.' 318—319, 2134. 9 Congress itself cognizant limitations from very outset section ed., provides 'For care homes enabling furnish financial assistance rehabilitation services, far practicable conditions State, whom living help maintain strengthen life attain retain capability self-support personal independence consistent maintenance continuing parental protection, *' (Emphasis added.) 11 Thus starting point analysis must recognition gives great dispensing funds. 12 title repeated references added 1962, Pub.L. 87—543, 104(a)(3), 76 Stat. 185, words preamble quoted above, show wished structure. effect. From inception defined part reference lives.9 When relatives, then 'aid' includes payments medical including spouse parent. 606(b) IV). noted, 'is treating relative, parent be, unit.' F.Supp., 455. desirous keeping Amendments 1967 provided could go arose parents' unemployment, federally standards, although incapacitated. 607 13 respond concern preserving environment. Given Maryland's choice support some adequately less adequately, give see nothing forbids balance stresses uniform insufficiency would greater ability families—because inherent economies scale—to accommodate needs strong policy favor units prevent sustaining many can, providing somewhat need.10 Nor necessitate dissolution bonds. even should inclined his income sending away, child, payments, live enumerated relatives.11 kinship tie attenuated destroyed. 14 rely heavily requirement 'shall 602(a)(10) But leaves language mean individual's group. Indeed deny proportional reductions result receiving As practical children, aid. find IV) this.12 So long violated. 15 view Secretary Health, Education, Welfare (HEW), who charged approval plans. parties stipulated has, numerous occasions, approved scheme, family, force various forms 1947. majority pay maximums kind issue.13 disapproved provision. On contrary, explicitly recognized systems.14 16 Finally, acknowledged awareness limitations. subsection, (23): 17 '(The shall) July 1, 1969, amounts will adjusted reflect changes costs were established, paid adjusted.' 81 898, 602(a)(23) 18 specific congressional not, maximum. structure left States, tests. However, above amendment clear permits regulations.15 19 reasons, conclude prohibited Act. II adopt violating regime invidious discrimination says invidiously discriminatory effect, rationally supportable least four valid grounds. can clearly justified, argues, terms legitimate interests gainful employment, maintaining equitable economic status between supported wage-earner, incentives planning, way possible while apparently recognizing concerns, nonetheless invalid face overreaching,' 468—that '(b)ecause cuts too broad swath indiscriminate basis applied group eligibles purports apply, 469. 21 If involving government action violate First Amendment guarantee speech, finding 'overreaching' significant might crucial. when otherwise governmental sweeps broadly impinge activity protected Amendment, overbreadth unconstitutional. See, e.g., Shelton Tucker, 364 479, 247, 231. concept place case. deal social field, affecting freedoms guaranteed Bill Rights, only results disparity families.16 approve invalidation reminiscent era thought gave power strike down laws 'because unwise, improvident, out harmony particular school thought.' Williamson Lee Optical Oklahoma, Inc., 348 483, 488, 75 461, 464, 99 563. That ago passed into history. Ferguson Skrupa, 372 726, 1028, 93. 22 area economics welfare, classifications made imperfect. classification 'reasonable basis,' offend Constitution simply mathematical nicety practice inequality.' Lindsley Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 61, 78, 31 337, 340, 55 369. 'The problems ones justify, require, rough accommodations—illogical, unscientific.' Metropolis Theatre Co. City Chicago, 228 69—70, 33 441, 443, 57 730. 'A aside facts reasonably conceived justify it.' McGowan 366 420, 426, 1101, 1105, 393. 23 To sure, cases cited, enunciating fundamental Clause, main involved business industry. assistance, contrast, impoverished human beings. recognize dramatically real factual difference cited one, applying different standard.17 Snell D.C., 281 853, aff'd, 393 323, 89 553, 511. consistently legislation restricting availability employment opportunities. Goesaert Cleary, 69 198, 93 163; Kotch Board River Port Pilot Com'rs, 330 552, 67 910, 91 1093. Flemming Nestor, 363 603, 1367, 1435. And true principle courts views what constitutes wise policy.18 long-established meaning Maximum constitutionally valid. explore advances justification enough solid foundation found State's interest avoiding working poor. combining recipient's permission earned, reduction grant, incentive seek employment. keying minimum wage steadily employed head receives, maintains semblance breadwinner.19 employable.20 respect below regulatory maximum, therefore standard, absent. require choose attacking problem all. discrimination. before us meets test. 26 decide today wise, best fulfills relevant objectives ideally espouse, humane devised. Conflicting claims morality intelligence raised opponents proponents almost measure, certainly us. intractable economic, social, philosophical presented programs procedural safeguards systems administration, Goldberg Kelly, 254, 1011, 287. empower second-guess officials difficult responsibility limited among myriad potential recipients. Charles C. Steward Mach. Davis, 301 548, 584—585, 883, 889—890, 1279; Helvering 619, 644, 904, 909, 1307. 27 reversed. APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT following schedule determining subsistence needs, exclusive rent, time brought. Md. Manual Dept. Pub. Welfare, pt. II, Rule 200, Sched. A, p. 27: 29 STANDARD FOR DETERMINING COST SUBSISTENCE NEEDS I III IV V Monthly Number persons 30 (include unborn No heat Light and/ Heat Heat, 32 person) cooking utilities fuel 34 included light water 35 heating 36 shelter 37 38 living: 39 Alone. $51.00. $49.00 $43.00 $40.00 $38.00 40 person. 42.00 41.00 38.00 36.00 35.00 41 persons. 37.00 34.00 33.00 32.00 84.00. 82.00 76.00 72.00 70.00 43 74.00 68.00 66.00 44 72.00. 64.00 45 113.00. 110.00 105.00 101.00 99.00 46 108.00 106.00 97.00 47 143.00 140.00 135.00 131.00 128.00 48 164.00 162.00 156.00 152.00 150.00 49 184.00 181.00 176.00 172.00 169.00 50 209.00 205.00 201.00 197.00 193.00 51 235.00 231.00 227.00 222.00 219.00 52 259.00 256.00 251.00 247.00 244.00 53 284.00 281.00 276.00 271.00 268.00 Each over 54 24.50 Modification cost eating restaurant: Add $15 individual. schedules estimated Maryland. B—Plan 29; B, 30. present schedules, same, appear Services, pp. 33, 35. BLACK, CHIEF JUSTICE joins, concurring. 58 Assuming, does, individual bring authorities challenging inconsistent §§ 601—610 though he consistent, cf. 430, 1227 (1970) (Black, dissenting), join 59 HARLAN, 60 Court's opinion, reservation deem called implications drawn opinion. 61 stated dissent Shapiro Thompson, 394 618, 658—663, 1322, 1344—1347, 600 (1969), doctrine expounded unless justified 'compelling' interest, pass muster traditional standards. my dissenting Katzenbach Morgan, 384 641, 660—661, 86 1731, 1732—1733, 828 (1966). Except racial classifications, unique historical considerations Shapiro, 659, 1344, believe assuring rationality classification, decisions depend nature involved. 62 basis, 'the welfare,' 485, holding. 63 DOUGLAS, dissenting. 64 Appellees, (AFDC) 1983 declared permanently enjoined enforcement places ceiling payable AFDC. alleged denied necessary case, purposes 65 attack, X, Department absolute AFDC, regardless actual need.1 born six, thus making impossible seven commensurate accordance formulated Services whereas six determined. Appellee Williams, according herself her eight $296.15 month. Appellees Gary $331.50 themselves children. Instead, received grant. 66 392 2134, 1118, stated: 'There dictum, context dealt Alabama's 'substitute father' little clarify limits authority. holding Alabama mother 'cohabited' outside home able-bodied man, 'parent' manner 406(a) 606(a) rejected contention assistance.' U.S., 318, S.Ct., 2133. whatever else said 'latitude' extended makes include restrictions payment methods numerous. specifically class Another method, 402(a)(10) refuse take applications pending decrease rolls two commonly present, however, maximums. Maximums Methods Limiting Money Payments Recipients Special Types Public Assistance, Oct. 1968, Tables 2, (NCSS Report D—3). Grant maximums, dollar types; Only latter type Percentage involve standard. 68 authority given plans stems 401 states appropriations 'enabling referred 'by 2134 (emphasis added). both Government legislature appropriate willing able appropriate. use matching formula 403 603 supports deference fiscal legislatures. never expressly decided. arguendo, follow distribute deems ends; means. United Government, Memorandum Amicus Curiae 442, stated, 7. 70 'Maximums, whether dollars arbitrary lacking ratable reductions, means smaller proportion state's test another Where used, reduced (t)his explains why wish distinguish reducing obligation and, inferentially, disfavor former.' 71 initial ruling relied primarily 'all (families with) IV.). 1950, 549. House Committee Ways Means, where originated, explained follows: 72 'Shortage sometimes, old-age resulted decision keep waiting lists until removed them. (T)his treatment accorded people undue hardship inappropriate program funds.' H.R.Rep. 1300, 81st Cong., 1st Sess., (1949). 73 below, appellants legislative history 'eligible individuals' applicants beginning provision, members unit. argument. 74 encourage *.' 401, 'relative living' 406 606 always intended apply behalf. Senate Finance, report terms: heart security child. All parts sense measures 77 'In addition, special underprivileged respects worst victims depression. 78 'Many relief work breadwinner These benefited still revival private numbers 79 'These father's adult needed 'With coming in, young years, adequate aided friends relatives. Through cash home, preventing necessity placing institutions. everyone expensive altogether desirable meeting devised.' S.Rep. 628, 74th 16—17 (1935) Prior relative living. underscores fact benefit exclusion caring operated effectively dilute correct deficiency, 1950 allowed relative. Means 82 'Particularly small proper supervision. Since food, clothing, essentials, allotted needs. 'To anomalous situation wherein enable nearly adequate, bill recipient purposes. 84 emphasizes family; seem negative sharing allocations essential 85 There evidence fair share 1962 development (services life) receives 602(a)(13). 1967, 'family services' 'essential persons' same retained emphasis services 'each individual.' 402(a)(14), (15), 602(a)(14), (15) Supp.IV). Finance 'Under requiring agency identifying needed, services. proven useful amendment, required attention carry (T)he committee believes broaden therefore, establish broadened persons." 744, 90th 155 (1967) U.S.Code Cong. Admin.News, 2291. 87 helpful interpreting reveal Congress' overriding commanded expanded years. At available. Now added.2 recipient. indication phrase refers idividual beneficiaries lies computation States. 403. presently relation contribution recipients, five-sixths $18 expenditure, up $32 provisions, nor ever previous versions Section 403(d)(1) eligibility absence section, age ratio 'absent parent' population January 1968. Appellants somehow indicates concept. properly contention. participation 'within bounds' 'give effective constructive establish.' H.R. Rep. 544, 110. Keeping tied category growing rapidly. Ibid. relates contributions authorize termination absent Representative Mills 'Finally, Chairman, add financing category—where home—to now category. believe, establish. deserving off State. 113 Rec. 23055. sum, compute related excluded size. contained affects grants. 92 institutions.' S. (1935). Also 401. powerful break excess relatives.' 456. device, 'excess' obtained. 'If Mrs. Williams twelve years placed $79.00 month, she remaining $250.00. ages $65.00 $250.00.' 453—454. 94 correctly created 95 benefits, criteria. had 96 attempt avoid command stating 'it affected.' Ante, 477-478. implication that, how doubt true. portions plan, alter being parents, directed. equate are, quite distinct devices design irrespective doing so. 97 Against 402(a)(10), cite three regulations. 98 402(a)(23) 602(a) (23) provides: '(A must) 100 genesis Administration proposal cost-of-living adjustments annually thereafter. Hearings 5710 (1967); Section-by-Section Analysis Explanation Provisions 5710, (Comm.Print) (1967). emerged 12080, did relating levels 12080 109—144 adjustment thereafter Committee, 'any aid' adjusted. 774, 293 An proposed positive rejected. 33560. Senate-House Conference adopted omitting annual updating after Conf. 1030, 101 Nowhere hearings, reports, floor debates, shown intent validate regulations 402(a)(23). Rather, shows exclusively concerned increasing state-imposed easily nullify retaining ceilings made. was, acknowledging existence existing automatically imply practice. task construction more. look reference, legislation. context, preserve integrity bill. significance legitimately read reference. 102 108(a) 189, amended superseded, authorized 'protective payments' designed cure payees unable manage 10606 87th 2d 137 (1962). State' condition 'aid children.' changed requirement, funding state-determined met resources. 103 protective behalf ADC standards.' 1589, (1962); & Adm.News, 1956 104 hardly interpreted anything, implicitly disapproves withholding 105 final 220(a) 90—248, Medical Assistance Title 1903(f), 1396b(f) incomes 133 1/3% highest (of HEW) finds size, adjust account sizes.' allow qualification medically indigent qualified extension Title. Congressional rejection infer Quite 106 appellants, attempting alleviate harsh application, approving supporting operation. discussed inadequate overcome manifested recipient, 107 tender compliance lack disapproval HEW binding conformity thoroughly explored supplemental accepted claim considers violative held: 108 decision, promulgated departmental statement considered treatment, inactions entitled substantial, much decisive, weight our consideration instant case.' 460. 109 seldom formally challenged Note, Judicial Review Practices, Col.L.Rev. 84, mere formal challenge, constituting affirmative decisive judicial question. 110 inconsistency affirm below. 111 MARSHALL, BRENNAN 112 comments own, erroneously statute. view, fundamentally More important run misreading emasculation applicable administration. holds arbitrariness sustained goal imagined arguably furthered effects. classification's underinclusiveness overinclusiveness demonstrates something asserted relationship serve tenuous seriously maintained tends accomplish ascribed goals. 114 recognizes, beings,' 'dramatically difference' relies. acknowledgment dramatic differences exist candid precedent. subscribe sweeping refusal role law, decision. 115 outset, emphasized exactly administering established challenge litigation. Indeed, refused permit recover monetary time, contention, any, calculation arbitrarily across state-defined fifth succeeding family.2 short, represents whatsoever established. 116 focus toward strengthening succinctly '(t)he objective homes.'3 objectives, moreover, outlines participate fall allows complete departure intent. 117 children,' derives name, appears as, inter alia, 'money term extensively sanction definitions—that is, select Yet creates granted. 118 disapprove device Surely, Brother DOUGLAS demonstrates, of, to, assessment embodied 329—330, 333, 2139—2140, 2141, 1118 (1968). 119 attempts reading mandate conclusion 'do aid.' '(s)o violated.' sympathetically clause solely benefits. am unpersuaded, simultaneously benefits—and sanctioned class—those Furthermore, interpretation drastically limitation—or, indeed, $25 month—as rule. purporting granting comply law—in spite few thereby agree funded circumstances. 120 consequences confirming invalid. complicated extent subsidy 603(a) 'Recipients' live. continues passes none 121 Specifically, record spends average $40 formula, $22 anything supplied sixth shift increases. 11, succeed transferring burden 'profit' incongruous result. undertook subsidize recipient—including child—it seems incremental account. 122 second administered serves disintegration ineligible monthly children.5 concededly bare divide viewed speculative negligible. dispute effect.6 answers saying 'may destroyed.' attenuation conclusively demonstrates,7 eliminating establishing rationale takes step backwards charity relatives—the meant remedied 123 Despite denial regard nevertheless Congress. bolster argues reached department neither score convincing. 124 HEW, about confidence know structure.8 reason simple—he asked. admonition district considering area, whenever 'should obtain forth views,' 407, 1215, invited file brief Perhaps versed complexities dubious, relies failure scheme. completely cut 1225 125 tells had, obvious; but, not. focused opposed combinations devices.9 And, done Douglas disapproving ameliorating harshness 413—414, 1218. slender threads comment woven sanction. 638 640, 1333—1334, (1969). construing legislation, 'we guided sentence member sentence, (should) whole object policy.' Richards 369 585, 592, 492 extensive review 'intended children' intend 'arbitrarily leave destitute meaningful protection.' 330, 2140. original.) reasoning likewise excludes apparent, hence injunction obtained 126 Having decided matter construction, alone. overruling device,10 reaches wrong lays insupportable laws. 127 uniformly taking formulation sizes. superimposed operative create classes families: cover not.11 128 process effected produces treatment. Persons similarly situated (dependent families), afforded equal, approximately Subsistence children; others. calculated State; grossly 129 Yet, general principle, distinction found.' Morey Doud, 354 457, 465, 1350, 1485 (1957). Gulf, Colorado Santa Fe R. Ellis, 165 150, 155, 255, 256, 666 (1897). Consequently, distribution supply denying situated. Griffin County School Prince Edward County, 377 218, 1226, 256 (1964). 130 granted himself born. (the five family), underinclusive assist, namely, Such manifests prima facie volation classification,'12 compelling come forward persuasive classification. 131 undertakes inquire justification; rather avoids focusing abstract dichotomy approaches utilized 132 'traditional test,' 'without basis.' (1911).13 hand, 'fundamental right,' perpetuating order sustained. supra; Harper Virginia Elections, 383 663, 1079, 169 (1966); McLaughlin Florida, 379 184, 283, 222 defies easy characterization 'tests.' 'mere rationality' 563 (1955), accurately interests. extremes gone dreaming rational bases instances healthy revulsion earlier excesses using protect halls. literally vital powerless minority—poor breadwinners—is concedes. Why imposed here? told falls answer obvious. 134 appreciably advanced priori 'right,' otherwise.14 concentration character question, importance discriminated recently, behind protecting, disadvantaged classification.' Kramer Union Free 15, 395 621, 626, 1886, 1889, 583 quoting Rhodes, 23, 30, 5, 10, (1968).15 135 stake concedes, 'business regulation' cases. stuff sustains children's lives: shelter.16 already times benefit, 'gratuitous' sustain life, stricter procedural17 substantive,18 deprivation benefit. 136 based—the families—one readily commends approximating factor control—the brothers sisters—bears resemblance illegitimate condemned Levy Louisiana, 391 68, 1509, 436 clear. early stages litigation, attempted rationalize theory conserve funds, motion dismiss, sole revealed record, fit measured requirements, appropriation.' 458. quire justification, saving 633, 1330. 266, 1019. 138 post-trial proceedings briefs court, abandoned reliance justification. place, appeared rationales prominent majority—the notions imposition equality earning wage. 139 latter, political for—or perhaps opposition to—the questionable really ground, especially prescribed bears wage.19 indicate elimination produce line open record.20 unlike countries, chosen assist raising encouragement elected need—the aged, blind, infirm, unemployed unemployable, whether, having once undertaken late expediency supportable. Cooper Aaron, 358 1401, (1958). 140 Vital employment-incentive supposition appreciable employable. perfectly obvious operate expected work. connection, candidly notes 'only universe employable.' urges ignore 'total universe' concentrate instead heads deprive arguable parents. wield whip fashion cause fault 334—336, 2141—2143 Doe 302 761 (D.C.Conn.1969), dismissed, 677 (1970). 141 Even invitation accepted, hard discern. 32,000 classified employable members, these, disclosed record. objects figure father fails household. vast mothers unemployable mentally physically incapacitated, marketable skills, or, prominently, dictate remain home.21 clear, disclose precise figures, 'employable' fraction mothers. silent assume dispensed particularly alternative accordingly arrange. failed substantial households viable logical incentive, indisputable overinclusive applies vigor like disabled working. 142 singles suggested carved unusually 'work incentives' Not selected basis—family size—that evil correct. prone 143 arguments picked strongest available; suffer similar defects.22 note contends example, congressionally Work Incentive Program elaborate counseling, training, 630—644 IV).23 alternatives relevant, appraising overall 144 analysis, structured calculate living, happen One speculate litigation virtually conceded along path resistance. Now, manufactured challenge. 145 interests, insignificant themselves, accident Clearly served destructive stake. assertedly underinclusive—because larger position—and overinclusive—because strongly end. Were pure defects beyond heretofore seemed borderline see, Railway Express Agency New York, 336 106, 463, 533 (1949), 'reasonableness' 146 event, suffice invoke spectre past recite Inc. gas company optical dispenser; discrimination—the families—is unconnected rationale, impact against—the existence—too great, supposed contrived requirements Constitution. 147 620, amended, 301—1394 Ann.Code, Art. 88A, 44A (1969 Repl.Vol.). Appendix 'B. Amount—The resulting deducted Rule, category: '1. $250—for local departments 'Plan A' Shelter Schedule '2. $240—for B' 'Except that: 'a. him high training (III-C-3), 'b. resource refund (VI-B-6), refund. 'c. exceeded emergency items regular (VIII) 'd. nursing specified D, a. '3. insufficient formerly VII, 20. kind, food stamps, housing, 1396 IV); 1695—1697. earnings jobs. VI, B(8)(c) (2). U.S.C 602(a)(19)(F) III(D)(1)(d). opinions prevailing party may, assert reviewing judgment, trial court. Compare Langnes Green, 282 531, 538, 243, 246, 520, Story Parchment Paterson Paper 555, 567—568, 248, 252, 544. American Ry. 265 425, 435—436, 560, 564, 1087; '(I)t settled appellee cross-appeal, urge decree appearing attack lower insistence overlooked ignored it. respect, entered asserts grounds affirmed.' issues, comes expressed controlling remand merits Aetna Cas. Sur. Flowers, 468, 798, 800, 1024; Ballard, 322 88, 882, 887, 1148. however. Bondholders Marlborough Inv. etc. Commissioner Internal Revenue, 315 192 537, 539, 784; H. Hart Wechsler, Courts System 1394 (1953). Jaffke Dunham, 352 280, 307, 314. 550, 881, V). (1) death, continued physical mental incapacity parent, father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, brother, sister, stepfather, stepmother, stepbrother, stepsister, uncle, aunt, cousin, nephew, niece, residence (2) (A) eighteen, (B) twenty-one (as Secretary) student regularly attending school, college, university, course vocational technical employment.' covers foster charges. 608 Supp, 8, 406, 629, 321, 850. Financial Statistical Report, Table (7 Nov. 1969), 32,504 assistance. 1970 Fiscal Year Budget, 2,537 affected removal one-thirteenth Of allocated limitation, supra. grants, represent, lists. view. 48, 148 (1949); Cong.Rec. 13934 (1949) (remarks Forand). contemplates responsible adults. 605. D—4). 3: 'When flat *. types conjunction with, legal exceeds usually lowering Interim Policy Statement 31, Fed.Reg. 10230 (1968); CFR 233.20(a)(2)(ii), 1396b(f), income. exception, 1396b(f)(1)(B)(ii) IV): 1965-66...................... $1.4 1966-67...................... $1.6 1967-68...................... $1.7 1968-69...................... $1.9 1969-70...................... $2.1 (i) Administration's effort secure forcing 1967. reporting amendments 'States receive.' (1962) 1956. 600, where, interference freedom interstate travel. infected racially inherently suspect. 222. Developments Laws—Equal Protection, Harv.L.Rev. 1065, 1082—1087. $52—$64 40-hour week, 206 $46—$52 Md.Ann.Code, 100, (Supp. 1969). named plaintiffs residents $250-per-month applies. distributed 'financial services.' 406(b) remedial law' live, residing 'child-welfare 'Family 406(d) 'services thereof preserving, rehabilitating, reuniting, independence.' 'Child-welfare programs' 425 625 'public supplement, substitute for, supervision remedying, assisting solution neglect, abuse, exploitation, delinquency protecting homeless, dependent, neglected (3) promoting mothers, (4) day-care child-care facilities.' 402(a)(15) 'with of—(i) assuring, possible, enter labor accept self-sufficient, (ii) incidence births wedlock 432 632 establishment work-incentive placement 'institutional experience likely lead employment,' 'special projects job economy also, 402(a)(19). 408 402(a)(20). feels counseling guidance management 405, speaking payments.' Those calculating borders ludicrous suggest capable 50% 95%. Because minor variations varies depending county resides, cutoff allowance precisely members. practice, met. seventh (i.e., unit), met, all, extent. usual situation, 165, (1961). technically, supplies spent $18, plus one-half $32, $22. $79 $408 $158 Similarly, $65. Hence $380 $130 contended speculative. serious cast stipulation despite desire together, difficulty (1935), goals thus, 615, today. Welfare's 'Condition X,' Yale L.J. 1222, 1232—1233 submitted analogous Solicitor General label 'arbitrary,' oppressive 'patently individuals,' received, Curiae, 442; Brief Robert Finch, Lampton Bonin, 299 336, 304 1384 (D.C.E.D.La.1969); Jefferson Hackney, 1332 (D.C.N.D.Tex.1969). best, ambiguous possibly opposite ascribes amount, budgetary deficit income), ways. combined alternatively, 1968 D—3); Sparer, Law Testing, Prac.Law. (No. 4) 13, differing subtract state-calculated need; jurisdictions, subtracted Dews Henry, 587 (D.C.Ariz.1969), Arizona unanimous Westberry Fisher, 1109 (D.C.Me.1969); Lindsey 303 1203 (D.C.W.D.Wash.1969); Kaiser Montgomery (D.C.N.D.Cal.1969). Collins 248 Iowa 369, N.W.2d (1957) (family constitution); Metcalf Swank, 268 (D.C.N.D.Ill.1968) (dictum). theory, be. levels. discriminates fourth fifth, generally, Tussman tenBroek, Laws, Calif.L.Rev. 341, Law—Equal 1076—1087 Van Alstyne, Demise Right-Privilege Distinction Constitutional Law, 1439 rights' infringed cite, Skinner Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 535, 1110, 1655 (1942), proposition 'right procreation' fundamental. goes, right procreation marginal indirect compulsory sterilization Skinner. turns closed curious value judgment. survival comforted knowledge 'fundamental' rights preserved intact. 'right' Graham, Assistance: Right Receive; Obligation Repay, N.Y.U.L.Rev. 451 Harvith, Albany L.Rev. 210 Due Process: Limitation Survive, Ga.L.Rev. 459 Universal Declaration Human 25. essentially concepts cases, aspects approach lesser degree clarity Rinaldi Yeager, 305, 1497, 577 Carrington Rash, 380 89, 775, 675 (1965); California, 353, 814, 811 (1963); questions, Comment, Measure Competing Interests Litigation, Me.L.Rev. 175 Rothstein 339, 346—347 (D.C.S.D.N.Y.1969); 14, L.Rev., 222—226. Sniadach Family Corp., 340 342, 1820, 1822—1823, 349 (1969) (relying devastating garnishment prior hearing due process); 264, 1018, 287 (1970); 'Thus crucial context—a blacklisted contractor, discharged employee, taxpayer tax exemption, anyone entitlements ended—is resolution controversy waits.' 627, 1327, striking one-year residency noting subsist—food, shelter, necessities life,' Kirk Regents, etc., 273 Cal.App.2d 439—440, Cal.Rptr. 260, 266 267 554, 754, 747 (1970), upholding tuition-free graduate education distinguishing 'involved immediate pressing preservation health 17, supra), deprivations closer acrutiny, Process Clauses, entitlements. spoken voices position, abolished proposals doing, throughout Minutes Meeting, September 26, 1958, App. 130—132. IX A(2)(b)(5) prohibits referral home. unsuitability chronicled Profile Caseloads, Research Carter, Employment Potential Mothers, Review, minuscule birth control incentives. punishes factors control, overinclusively became disincentive desertion stand scrutiny. Likewise, 602(a)(21), 610 developed desertion. 27, 88—96 (1967 mandated, 'preventing life.' 602(a)(15)

Category: 1