Document: 455 U.S. 265 102 S.Ct. 1059 71 L.Ed.2d 137 Elvina M. HERWEG, by her Husband and Next Friend, Darrell E. Herweg Herweg, etc., Petitioners,v.Robert D. RAY, Governor of Iowa, et al. No. 80-60. Jan. 13, 1982. Decided Feb. 23, Syllabus Section 1902(a)(17)(D) the Social Security Act (Act) provides that, in calculating benefits, state Medicaid plans must not "take into account financial responsibility any individual for applicant or recipient under plan unless such is individual's spouse." 1902(a)(17)(B) that participating States grant benefits to eligible individuals "taking only income resources as are, determined accordance with standards prescribed Secretary [of Health Human Services (HHS) ], available recipient." 1902(a)(10)(A) requires have exercised so-called § 209(b) option, provide assistance all recipients Supplemental Income Aged, Blind, Disabled (SSI) program. A federal regulation governing "optional categorically needy" if one spouse Medicaid, "deem" other spouse, i.e., consider latter's "available" applicant, month after spouses cease live together, following which period actually contributed may be considered. After petitioner wife, a result cerebral hemorrhages, was placed long-term care facility has husband applied on behalf. She part optional needy since she for, but does receive, SSI benefits. wife's "deemed" attributed earned wife manner inconsistent regulation. Petitioners then filed suit Federal District Court, challenging Iowa's "deeming" husband's income. certifying class plaintiffs included well needy, Court held 1902(a)(17) required procedures "provide factual determination each instance amount spouse's fact reasonably support institutionalized spouse," time-limitation 1902(a)(17), because it disabled certain instances from considering applicant. In response this order, Iowa adopted procedure making individualized determinations an approved plan. On petitioners' appeal, Appeals affirmed. Held: 1. With regard recipients, Court's order conflicts Act, permits deny recipients. To extent forbids circumstances, holding Schweiker v. Gray Panthers, 453 34, 101 2633, 69 460, Congress intended permit deem applicant's determining eligibility. Pp. 272-273. 2. preclude HHS promulgating regulations impose time limitations upon States' ability between who do share same household. imposing limitations, done nothing more than define what "available," pursuant 1902(a)(17)(B). There precludes these either disables him defining term circumstances where no longer together gives authority unimpeded Secretary's broad determine should considered The exceeded his applicable case, neither arbitrary nor capricious. 273-278. 619 F.2d 1265 reversed remanded. Neal S. Dudovitz, Los Angeles, Cal., petitioners. Brent R. Appel, First Asst. Atty. Gen., Des Moines, respondents. Justice REHNQUIST delivered opinion Court. 1 Last Term 49-50, 2643, 460 (1981), we upheld validity those "§ option" provided 79 Stat. 343, amended, 42 U.S.C. 1396 seq. (1976 ed. Supp.III). "Deeming," parlance laws regulations, means State determines eligibility assuming portion Because depends are him, "[d]eeming . effect reducing both number paid qualify." supra, at 36, S.Ct., 2636. We rejected contentions were capricious 1396a(a)(17).1 U.S., 43, 2640. present called decide "SSI State," noninstitutionalized Medicaid. 2 As explained greater detail originally enacted "required medical 'categorically needy' received cash payments four welfare programs established elsewhere [Social Security] Act." Id., 37, This program restructured 1972 Congress, when replaced three categorical (SSI), 1381 Fearing some might withdraw rather bear increased costs imposed restructuring, offered option." 1396a(f). Under elect would been State's January 1, 1972. words, option allows avoid link programs: become States" States." 3 If participates without exercising make 1396a(a)(10)(A); CFR 435.120 (1980).2 States, however, limited providing offers groups individuals, see 1396a(a)(10)(C), needy." See §§ 435.200-435.231 (1980).3 Included among needy," (1) reason receiving, (2) their status. 435.210-435.211 (1980). 4 require 435.723(b) Where first six months together. 6-month period, other. 435.723(c). similar rule applies instead six. 435.723(d).4 effect, 435.723 places question addressed lower courts, now presented our decision, whether permissible exercise "available." 5 * Petitioner comatose August 1976 two hemorrhages. When facility, husband, Elvina's receive although parties United amicus curiae agree benefits.5 its own formula ascertain contribute toward care. based butcher standard living allowances allowed children home. "deeming," attributing, 6 deeming place Supra, 269 page, n. 4. prohibit Darrell's couple ceased 435.723(d) 7 instant Southern spouse.6 plaintiffs,7 1396a(a)(17), spouse. Such give due consideration obligations particular needs family." 443 F.Supp. 1315, 1319 (1978). interpreting concluded " 'deeming' contrary congressional intent non-institutionalized deemed unavailable." 1320. noted predecessor (1980)8 interpretation 1902(a)(17). view, therefore, 8 petitioners appealed. Eighth Circuit affirmed equally divided (1980) (en banc). reverse. II 9 Although certified objection includes therefore construe entered response, applying needy. A. 10 clearly 1396a(a)(10)(A), having recipients.9 Beltran Myers, 451 625, 626, 3, 1961, 1962, 68 495 (1981). program, contained Title XVI 1382 Supp.III), contains provisions. See, e.g., 1382(a)(1), 1382c(b), (f)(1). Pursuant permitted if, determination, concludes recipient's even though contributed. spoken regard, cannot stand.10 11 requiring permitting whatsoever. 45, 2641, Thus, decision Panthers. B 12 issue remains, 13 Relying 1902(a)(17)(D),11 respondents argue placing spouses. Subsection (17)(D), argue, evidences Congress' parents. Nothing statute legislative history,12 contend, suggests prevent enforcing policies simply institutionalized. 14 think, overemphasize subsection (17)(D). That provision read independently (17)(B). (17)(B) Secretary, applicant." 1396a(a)(17)(B) (emphasis added). recognized delegates prescribe setting requirements plans. view explicit delegation substance meaning definition 'entitled mere deference weight.' 44, 2640 quoting Batterton Francis, 432 416, 426, 97 2399, 2406, 53 448 (1977). entrusted primary statutory entitled 'legislative effect.' 2640; 2406. Panthers Batterton, review 15 applicants spouses, 48, 2642, enforce spousal wholly congressionally authorized power could (17)(D) limits case. find (17)(B).13 unlimited duration. 16 contention apparently petitioners, compelled relationship programs, acknowledge "availability" within categories. explained, consists who, institutionalization, 269. Since defined reasonable electing apply method employed 1-month virtually identical requirements. say conclude treated similarly respect used 17 upholding limitation deeming, thereby render meaningless. provision, isolation provisions Act. doubt tension exists policies.14 delegated set household unreasonable law. reviewing court aside "simply interpreted different manner." 425, 2405. fortiori, ignore interprets considers preferable interpretation. 18 respondents' arguments compelling, had sought use foreclose entirely reading superfluous. Panthers,, 2641. across-the-board implement policies. challenged decided extend prohibits periods time. 19 contrary, exception general deemthe 435.723(b). full they did before 435.734. 40, 2638.15 Finally, resources. 2, supra. 20 need interpret 1902(a)(10)(A), 1396a(a)(10)(A). (1980), Accordingly, reverse judgment remand proceedings consistent opinion. 21 It so ordered. 22 STEVENS, concurring part. 23 speculates 17(D) superfluous 17(B) Ante, 277. speculation predicated belief applicant.1 observation unnecessary misleading.2 17(D), like 17(B), limit include contributions sources. language 24 Apart concerning exist, I join 25 Chief BURGER, dissenting. 26 morass bureaucratic complexity, believe nearly difficult case makes seem. State." develop "for receiving supplemental security ." developed, explicitly 1902(a)(17)(D), 1396a(a)(17)(D), made another person, person parent. ante, 267-268, n.1. What clear words purpose? Any vanishes look spelled out history: "The committee believes proper expect S.Rep.No.404, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 78 (1965), U.S.Code & Admin.News 1965, p. 1943.1 short, 17(D). 27 overemphasizes importance 1066. bases conclusion (17)(B), task promulgated goes 180 degrees expressed will states taking (1980); 269-270, n.4. (1977), great weight. believe, practically rewrite statute. weight regulation, staff, regarded too rigid.2 28 All family despite 277, n.14. sue partial reimbursement laws. compared practicality 1980 Term, concluded: 29 "It 'an answer can take action against recover legally obligated pay. [It is] unrealistic think engage multiplicity continuing lawsuits money pay place. [Because so, there be] open invitation he wish excess payment.' Brown Stanton, 617 1224, 1234 (CA7 1980) (Pell, J., dissenting part) 46, 30 difference states" enforcement practical 31 reduce most need. accept "regulators" many cases, noncontributing get away contributing worth effort attempt funds go diverted salaries lawyers others needed diversion occur. 32 approach also undermines states' role partners cooperative federal-state By deciding state" state," chosen allocate cover people. cost additional coverage. enacting matter best left states. Yet today moves agency. 33 sum, gets lost maze, ends up overruling giving prepared agency staff law drafted Congress. expressly choose seems overlook leave choices states, purposes decisions perceptions local needs. invalid. "include (A) objectives subchapter, (B) (C) evaluation resources, (D) child age (with participate subchapter chapter), blind permanently totally disabled, section 1382c title program); flexibility application account, except (whether form insurance premiums otherwise) incurred type remedial law." 1396a(a)(17). turn, requirements, 1382, coverage "medically 1396a(a)(10)(C); 435.300-435.325; 435.800-435.845 medically 435.822 provides: "(a) meet aged, blind, 435.210, 435.211, 435.231. "(b) other, "(c) "(d) ineligible together." Elvina, 435.210 Petitioners' challenge constitutional grounds. contended conflict codified violated Equal Protection Clause Due Process Clause. claims consisting "all married couples residing which: institutionalization; institutionalized; (3) is, current procedures, being 1320 45 248.3 (1976). aid I, X, XIV, XVI, IV chapter, whom chapter. 1396a(a)(10)(A) characterized ambiguous history original existence. "[A] titles IV, XVI. group less 77 Cong. 1943. Titles respectively Old Age Assistance, Aid Permanently Totally Disabled, SSI. 37-38, nn. 2636-2637, adoption alter 1902(a)(10)(A). of, "not child. 1396a(a)(17)(D). Respondents rely 1965 Senate Report quoted : parents accountable minor children." 78, Contrary dissent, "authorizing" deem, limitation, 11, conceded oral argument, Tr. Oral Arg. 9, free obtain lawsuit brought recognize uniformly alternative. extent, barriers faces implementing attributable options available. State. opt '§ status' time." 39, 6, 2638, 6. addition, subject 435.700. 52, 2644 (STEVENS, dissenting); suggest THE CHIEF JUSTICE notes opinion, analysis Court's. post, 280-281, tragic facts Mr. $234.80 1976. His gross monthly $1,350 time, expenses approximately $1,374. admits issued foreclosing "render superfluous." approves prohibition month. Moreover, written appears sooner. "after which" 270, literal February 31.

Category: 1