Document: 477 U.S. 635 106 S.Ct. 2727 91 L.Ed.2d 527 Richard E. LYNG, Secretary of Agriculture, Appellantv.Natividad CASTILLO et al. No. 85-250. Argued April 29, 1986. Decided June 27, Syllabus Eligibility and benefit levels in the federal food stamp program are determined on a "household" rather than an individual basis. The statutory definition term "household," as amended 1981 1982, generally treats parents, children, siblings who live together single household, but does not treat more distant relatives, or groups unrelated persons together, household unless they also customarily purchase prepare meals together. Appellees families buy their separate economic units, will either lose benefits have allotment decreased result 1982 amendments to statute. They filed actions that were consolidated Federal District Court, claiming distinction between all other individuals violates guarantee equal treatment Due Process Clause Fifth Amendment. On cross-motions for summary judgment, applying "heightened scrutiny," invalidated distinction. Held: is unconstitutional. Court erred judging its constitutionality under scrutiny" since close relatives "suspect" "quasi-suspect" class. "directly substantially" interfere with family living arrangements thereby burden fundamental right. Judged proper standard review, Congress had rational basis making distinction, it could reasonably determine sharing home tend while might be so inclined. Pp. 638-643. Reversed. STEVENS, J., delivered opinion which BURGER, C.J., BLACKMUN, POWELL, REHNQUIST, O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, post, p. 643, WHITE, MARSHALL, dissenting opinions. Jeffrey P. Minear, appellant, pro hac vice, by special leave court. Maria Norma Martinez, San Antonio, Tex., appellees. Justice STEVENS Court. 1 together.1 Although there variations facts four cases raise question whether siblings, Amendment.2 2 * units; each amendments. Moreover, appellees' counsel eloquently explained, case loss reduction impose severe hardship needy family, may especially harmful affected young children whom adequate diet essential. 3 accordingly these lawsuits invalidate treated households purpose determining eligibility stamps. considered merits challenge definition. 4 was persuaded It observed amendment made difficult "manipulate" rules "so obtain status receive greater benefits"; administrative "attempting make determinations 'household' status" timeconsuming; reasons economy health likely " 'to actually households' related App. Juris. Statement 5a-6a. held, however, "a stricter review 'rational basis' test" required. Id., at 7a. Relying primarily United States Dept. Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 528, 534, 93 2821, 2825, 37 782 (1973), construed holding "congressional desire harm politically unpopular group" justify exclusion contained persons, reasoned "if Supreme willing protect political should even traditional value together." Juris.Statement 8a. 5 We noted probable jurisdiction, 474 994, 1511, 89 911 (1985), now reverse. II 6 scrutiny." disadvantaged class comprised siblings. Close As historical matter, been subjected discrimination; do exhibit obvious, immutable, distinguishing characteristics define them discrete group; minority powerless. See, e.g., Massachusetts Board Retirement Murgia, 427 307, 313-314, 96 2562, 2566-2567, 49 520 (1976) (per curiam). In fact, quite contrary true. 7 Nor classification Zablocki Redhail, 434 374, 386-387, n. 12, 98 673, 681, 12 (1978). See id., 403-404, S.Ct., 690 (STEVENS, concurring); Califano Jobst, 47, 58, 95, 101, 54 228 (1977). order prevent any group from dining Indeed, overwhelming majority probably has no effect all. exceedingly unlikely would choose apart simply increase stamps, cost housing almost certainly exceed incremental additional 50 Fed.Reg. 36641, 36642 (1985). Thus, just Moreno—the decision read require scrutiny"—the "legislative must sustained if itself rationally legitimate governmental interest." U.S., 533, 2825. 533-538, 2825-2827.3 8 Under we agree both treating different constitute "household." general economies scale realized preparation surely justified providing achieve such efficiencies.4 Legislature's recognition potential mistake fraud5 cost-ineffectiveness case-by-case verification claims ate householdsS6 unquestionably warrants use definitions this area.7 9 remains accommodate wishes dine separately without invidiously discriminating against relatives.8 question, words, "[l]imi[t] availability 'purchase separately' rule those most households, although others (i.e., [distant and] persons)." S.Rep. 97-504, 25 (1982), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1663. 10 So stated, justification obvious. home—almost definition—tend event, though undoubtedly honest recipients, mistaken misstated true weaker communal ties, because percentage former category fact jointly comparable latter category. represent far largest proportion recipients9 well convinced limited funds permit accommodation given stretched embrace well.10 Finally, somewhat easier relatives—again, definition—to habits policy favoring common meal so. Because differences, conclude two categories merited differential treatment. Neither take "one step" 1981—when applied parents children—nor second step when extended well—was irrational did simultaneously third apply entire program. 11 judgment therefore 13 dissenting. 14 I affirm ground challenged classifications violate Equal Protection fail rational-basis test. 15 16 For last three paragraphs MARSHALL's opinion, issue irrational. Accordingly, dissent. 17 18 This demonstrates yet again lack vitality Court's recent protection jurisprudence. Cleburne Living Center, 473 432, 455, 105 3249, 3262, 87 313 (1985) (MARSHALL, concurring part part); Antonio Independent School Dist. Rodriguez, 411 1, 70, 1278, 1315, 36 (1973) dissenting). my view, analyzing affecting receipt benefits, court consider "the character relative importance discriminated receive, asserted state interests support classification." Dandridge Williams, 397 471, 521, 90 1153, 1180, 491 (1970) By contrast, rigid, bipolar approach, purports scrutiny suspect involved exercise right impeded, see ante, 638-639, puts legislative impinging upon sensitive issues structure survival same plane refusal let merchant hawk his wares particular street corner. believe component become blunt instrument. 19 can hardly denied. concludes statute directly substantially arrangements, cf. Moore East Cleveland, 431 494, 97 1932, 52 531 (1977) (plurality opinion), "does together," 638. relies, apparently, criminal sanctions, merely influence decisions. bit late day, cut off due process analysis—be procedural substantive—by invoking Goldberg Kelly, 254, 262, 1011, 1017, 287 (1970); Shapiro Thompson, 394 618, 627, 1322, 1327, 22 600 (1969). 20 necessary families' very survival, Government denies not, preparing themselves manner believes minimize unnecessary expenditures. belies suggestion influencing whose resources low rely shelter. thus chosen intrude into room—a place where thought privacy exists strongest form. What possible interest preventing members choose? none Government's business. 21 amount conclusive presumption roof cooking Thus regulation affect important recognized Moore, vital survival. recognized, some house cannot work schedules. 1662. Others sufficient plates utensils few once, only one burner stove. These option eating them, damage prescribing dine. assuming realize achieve, threatens lives denying minimal provided similar income needs. Balanced Congress' undeniably fraud waste used, best tenuously achievement goals. While our consideration affected, doubt used here pass held excluded containing member further Despite attempts distinguish critical drew bears relation prevention fraud. 535-536, 2826 ("denial essential assistance otherwise eligible members" prevention). present case, conclusion lie about individuals. demonstrated fraudulent conduct detect abuses households. 23 stressed program, H.R.Rep. 97-687, (1982); 97-106, (1981), classified "household consolidation" provision antifraud measure. Nevertheless, Committee Reports cite hard evidence significant sources fraud; Committees save money "tighten[ing] household." 24, House hypothesize, course considering amendments, 18-year-old child declare himself purposes, 119. If indeed abuse widely existed, resulting legislation, lumped nonelderly offspring cure. proceeded restrict following year. 24 When moved beyond grouped well, interfered desires demonstrably remain families. so, moreover, recognizing distinct often genuinely maintain 25, nevertheless assumed less families, failed provide chance rebut presumption. view life extreme deference untested assumption inappropriate. respectfully Section 3(i) Food Stamp Act 1964, 78 Stat. 703, redesignated amended, U.S.C. § 2012(i), provides part: 'Household' means (1) alone who, others, purchases foods prepares consumption (2) consumption; except shall elderly disabled member." italicized language added 101(1) Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 1981, Pub.L. 97-35, 95 358. clause extending proviso appears boldface, 97-253, 772. "The sovereign, like States, govern impartially. concept justice law served Amendment's process, Fourteenth Amendment." Hampton Mow Sun Wong, 426 88, 100, 1895, 1903, 48 495 (1976). Accord, 5, (1973); Bolling Sharpe, 347 497, 499, 74 693, 694, L.Ed. 884 (1954). 1971, 84 2048, That composed entirely another rest. Unlike statute, 1971 completely disqualified Not ineligible admitted nonrelative household. concluded fraud, Program. "Thus, practical operation, excludes participation 'likely program' but, rather, desperately need aid afford alter retain eligibility." 538, 2827. Report 1977 reference Moreno: "This essentially attempt ban (so-called 'hippie communes'). 1973 Moreno Department 782, upheld earlier ruling lower implemented brief period states." 95-464, 140 (1977), 1977, 2110. was, therefore, "wholly basis" "invalid 782. 1662 ("Because economics scale, small (one-, two-, three-person) stamps per person larger example, current $70 1-, $128 2-, $183 3-person households"); 97-128, 31 (1981) ("It (one, two, persons) households—for one, three, $233 four"). ("Thus, able fragment separate, smaller purchasing separately, significantly increased. took first toward limiting manipulation requiring parents. year's proposal next logical step"); pp. 118-119 ("Currently, states, part, consist others. closely purposes obtaining entitled. over years old, visible support, participate, eligible, claim indicate he zero gross income. could, existing law, certified being supported parents"); ("[C]urrent . enables large result[ing] increased benefits"); 97-139, 52-53 ("Under units totally parents"). "Limiting disabled), reasonable control situation State local administrators identified r[e]quires congressional action. tightening leading recommendation change response survey Committee. Suggestions revision received Alaska, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Virginia, Washington, Wyoming, numerous administrators, including several testified before "A problem occurs 'claim' not. Verification household's administratively burdensome examples administrators." 24-25 1661-1663. 53, 99, ("General fund magnitude administered modicum efficiency, inevitably produce seemingly arbitrary consequences cases"); 485, 1161, (" 'The problems government ones justify, rough accommodations—illogical, be, unscientific' (quoting Metropolis Theatre Co. Chicago, 61, 69-70, 33 441, 443, 57 730 (1913))). also, Mathews De Castro, 429 181, 189, 431, 436, 389 (1976); Weinberger Salfi, 422 749, 785, 2457, 2476, 45 522 (1975). origin clear, suggests "expan[d] load, household," based concern impact various types arrangements." 256 (1981). Cf. Commerce, Bureau Census, Economic Characteristics Households States: Fourth Quarter 1984, 34 (1986) (statistical table indicating 87% receiving blood, marriage, adoption eat together); Third 26, (same); Second First (same). "[A]n open-ended allows changing too subject manipulation." Even error—given millions believed jointly—could improper expenditure many dollars. FY 1985, 8-43 (in 1983, approximately million participants valued nearly $12 billion); Statistical Abstract 122-123 (105th ed.) "expect[ed] workers effectively claims" 'separateness' submitted 1664 (1982).

Category: 1