Document: 429 U.S. 288 97 S.Ct. 549 50 L.Ed.2d 485 John A. KNEBEL, Secretary of Agriculture, Appellant,v.Karen HEIN et al. Kevin J. BURNS, etc., al., Appellants, v. Karen Nos. 75-1261 and 75-1355. Argued Nov. 29, 1976. Decided Jan. 11, 1977. Syllabus Federal state regulations that disallow a deduction for transportation expenses in connection with job training program purposes computing the income food stamp recipients held not to conflict Food Stamp Act 1964 or deny equal protection due process. Pp. 292-297. (a) Though under Act's broad delegation authority, Agriculture might have defined variety ways, his decision adopt definition including wages, welfare payments, allowances, other monetary receipts, 10% standardized wages allowance (including tuition grants travel allowances), only few specific deductions, is valid exercise statutory authority. The availability alternatives does render Secretary's choice invalid. 293-295. (b) Allowing items such as would significantly increase administrative costs well risks disparate treatment. P. 295. (c) Nothing requires deductions include all necessary nonfood expenditures. 295-296. (d) embody no conclusive presumption; they merely represent reasonable judgments (1) allowances should be treated like trainees wage earners, (2) standard deduction, coupled 30% ceiling on coupon purchase prices, provides an acceptable mechanism dealing ordinary commuting. 296-297. D.C., 402 F.Supp. 398, reversed. Stephen L. Urbanczyk, Dept. Justice, Washington, appellant pro hac vice, by special leave Court, Lorna Lawhead Williams, Des Moines, Iowa, appellants, Burns, others. Robert D. Bartels, Iowa City, appellees. Mr. Justice STEVENS delivered opinion Court. 1 Under administered cooperating agencies pursuant 1964, 78 Stat. 703, 7 U.S.C. § 2011 seq. (1970 ed. Supp. V), certain low-income households are entitled coupons at discount. price eligible household must pay stamps determined, part, its "income" applicable federal regulations. those allowance, which appellee receives from State uses defray cost commuting nurses' program, "income." questions presented this appeal whether authorized statute and, if so, constitutional. 2 Appellee Hein, divorced woman custody two children, head receiving assistance.1 Prior September 1972, she paid $46 retail value $92. Thereafter received grant her school, plus $44 per month.2 actual monthly expense between residence Muscatine, school Davenport amounted least $44.3 nevertheless increased determined stamps,4 resulting $12 increase. 3 After exhausting remedies, filed class action United States District Court Southern seeking enjoin enforcement requiring included income. Because constitutionality was challenged, three-judge court convened 28 2281.5 originally regulation invalid inconsistent Agriculture.6 371 1091 (1974). While State's pending promulgated clarifying amendment eliminating basis Court's holding.7 We therefore vacated original judgment, 419 989, 95 297, 42 260. 4 On remand, joined additional defendant. then both 398 (1975). could identify rational treating fully expended intended purpose. Consequently, reasoned, did implement objective providing adequate nutrition families. Since appellee's "food purchasing power," felt it totally irrational stamps. This analysis led conclusion conflicted discriminated against violation guarantee explicit Fourteenth Amendment implicit Due Process Clause Fifth Amendment.8 5 persuaded issue challenged 6 salutary purpose outlines known.9 authorizes "formulate administer program" will provide "an opportunity obtain nutritionally diet," 2013(a). He "prescribe amounts financial resources, liquid nonliquid assets, used criteria eligibility," 2014(b) ed., V). charge "represent investment part household, but event more than 30 centum household's . ." 2016(b). Finally, "shall regulations, chapter, he deems appropriate effective efficient administration program." 2013(c). statute's ways. might, example, differently allowances. decided, however, includes most receipts.10 Only allowed.11 These do any itemized either students workers. Instead, there cover incidental expenses.12 8 correct operate somewhat unfairly case. Nevertheless, we satisfied product Perhaps been equitable allow expenses,13 order just covered But invalid.14 Moreover, plainly reason exists rejecting each these possible alternatives. 9 create significant treatment.15 Disparate treatment earners criticized discriminating worker. Similar criticism can leveled entered case, members fare better workers equally low receipts high expenses. 10 primary invalidating view power.16 give power another incurs similar nondeductible related employment. nothing contrary, requirement 2016(b) shall exceed income, assumes 70% may necessities.17 Thus, built-in beyond deductions.18 11 conclude defining were reasonably adopted performance duty within question about itself, implementation sufficient justification parallel avoid guarantees. See, e. g., Weinberger Salfi, 422 749, 768-770, 2457, 2468-2469, 45 522; Mathews de Castro, 181, 185, 431, 434, 389 (1976). Nor presumption. They judgments: first, earners; second, Constitution more. See supra, 771-777, 2469-2473. 12 Reversed. It stipulated prior November 28, 1973, Ms. Hein had savings following elements income: "a. $28.75 month rent house owns interest; "b. $220 ADC; "c. Work Training Allowance; "d. $36 bonus." App. 24-25. assistance granted Program, Code Ann. §§ 249C.1, (Supp.1976). partially funded Government. Such funding now provided Title XX Social Security Act, 1397a record actually unclear point. However, construed stipulation regarding "allowance commuting" indicating required spend amount. For decision, accept construction. noted, full-time student, receive full even less. If part-time reimbursed mileage, up maximum month. disclose student. payment added Then, amount cost, deducted proper made. represented persons individual education plans whose in, from, determining 1091, 1093 n. 2014, "plans operation" submitted approved "unless standards eligibility meet established Secretary." set out applied agency. CFR 271.3(c) validity because formed direct change price; authorize 7, infra. specifically precluded "deductions educational transportation." 271.3(c)(1)(iii)(f) ordered defendants cease "any reimbursement expenses, Individual Education Plan, unless person's net adjusted income." 408 also recompute them credit future purchases past overcharge. "The effort alleviate hunger malnutrition among needy segments our society. 2011. Eligibility participation rather basis. 271.3(a). An diet. pays reduced rate based upon size cumulative stores, Government redeems face value, thereby paying difference 2013(a), 2016, 2025(a)." Moreno, 413 528, 529-530, 93 2821, 2823, 37 782. provides, includes: "(a ) All compensation services performed employee "(f Payments federally aided public programs, general programs need; "(g Government-sponsored Incentive Manpower Program "(i Cash gifts awards support, maintenance, "(l Rents, dividends, interest, royalties, payments source whatever gain benefit 271.3(c)(1)(i) relevant present these: Ten $30 made before "(d care child when member continue employment, preparatory employment Tuition mandatory fees assessed institutions (no as, limited to, books, supplies, meals transportation)." 271.3(c)(1)(iii) undergone during course litigation. express exclusion response holding stage litigation 290-291. More recently, system forth text replaced households. 41 Fed.Reg. 18788 told new has enjoined. Brief Appellant No. 75-1261, 3. case become moot go into effect, compensatory relief 8, supra. 271.3(c)(1)(iii)(a A separate allowed job- training-related child-care 271.3(c)(1)(iii)(d 13 Deductions calculating self-employment. 271.3(c)(1)(i)(b contend take approach respect earners. us, unlike considered Shea Vialpando, 416 251, 94 1746, 40 120, contains indication Congress meant require individualized consideration employment-related Given valid, follows valid. 14 recent comment regulatory Reserve Board Truth Lending 15 1601 seq., relevant. In Mourning Family Publications Serv., Inc., 411 356, 371-372, 1652, 1662, 36 318, stated: "That some remedial provision preferable irrelevant. consistently where minds differ several measures chosen, courts defer informed experience judgment agency whom delegated Northwestern Co. FPC, 321 119, 124, 64 451, 453, 88 L.Ed. 596 (1944); National Broadcasting States, 319 190, 224, 63 997, 1013, 87 1344 (1943); American Telephone & Telegraph 299 232, 236, 57 170, 172, 81 142 (1936)." letter dated March 1974, Deputy General Counsel Department explaining reasoning underlying portion "When consideration, administratively readily determinable, uniform students, (particularly college education) over above student's living. burden verifying infinite outlays incurred undue. Further, personal preference otherwise, vary greatly person thus household." fact Internal Revenue lends support formulating Commissioner Flowers, 326 465, 66 250, 90 203. 16 who rests faulty premise; them, 17 "average 24 percent income," Jurisdictional Statement pp. 10-11, 271.10, 18 believed what perceived policy favoring education. thought embodied 2014(c), exempts bona fide able-bodied adults register work prerequisite F.Supp., 405. section expresses, anything, less favorably favorable get contended cross-purposes paid. contention true sense prices. government benefits, AFDC, concedes properly 23-24. find different Cf. 4636; Hamilton Butz, 520 F.2d 709 (CA9 1975).

Category: 1