Document: 421 U.S. 338 95 S.Ct. 1741. 44 L.Ed.2d 208 Barry VAN LARE, etc., et al., Appellants,v.Rose HURLEY, al. Annie TAYLOR, Petitioners, v. Abe LAVINE, Nos. 74—453, 74—5054. Argued March 26, 1975. Decided May 19, Syllabus Petitioners in No. 74—5054 brought class actions two District Courts challenging New York's 'lodger' regulations, which require a pro-rata reduction shelter allowance of family receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) solely because parent allows nonlegally responsible person reside the home. claimed that state regulations conflicted provision Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 606(a), relevant part defines dependent child as one 'who has been deprived parental support or care by reason death, continued absence from home, physical mental incapacity parent,' and an implementing regulation, 45 CFR 233.90(a), provides determining child's financial eligibility amount assistance payment 'the income only (legally obligated) . will be considered available proof actual contributions.' also contended were violative due process equal protection. Each Court held York conflict federal statutory regulatory provisions. The Appeals there was no such reversed judgments remanded cases for convention three-judge court decide constitutional challenges. That sustained petitioners' claim. This noted probable jurisdiction appeal holding (No. 74—453) granted certiorari case judgment 74—5054). Held: are based on assumption nonpaying lodger is contributing welfare household, without inquiry into whether he fact does so, violate Act regulations. Pp. 344-348. (a) A State barred assuming persons apply their resources aid child, King Smith, 392 309, 88 2128, 20 1118; Lewis Martin, 397 552, 90 1282, 25 561, yet under lodger's mere presence results decrease benefits though may contribute nothing needy child. 346-347. (b) cannot justified ground establishes existence excess space if so would remain reduced after leaves, not case. P. 347. (c) do prohibit lodgers living homes therefore they designed prevent (who ineligible welfare) benefits. 347-348. 380 F.Supp. 167, vacated remanded; 74 5054, 497 F.2d 1208, reversed. Judith A. Gordon appellants 74—453 respondents Martin Schwartz appellees petitioners Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered opinion Court. 1 question presented reducing pro rata provided recipients extent household We conclude provisions law invalid. 1118 (1968); 561 (1970); Townsend Swank, 404 282, 92 502, 30 448 (1971). 2 * AFDC categorical public program established At 1935. Its operation described several recent opinions. See, e.g., Rosado Wyman, 397, 408, 1207, 1215, 442 supra, at 313, 2131. funds States matching basis 'needy who parent, with' any listed relatives. 606(a). seek qualify funding must operate Act. 286, S.Ct., 505. 3 receives behalf herself her minor children. includes computed item need separate other necessities food clothing. N.Y.Soc.Serv.Law 131—a. petitioner's officials she allowed recipient had legal obligation household.1 authorized provide: 4 '18 N.Y.C.R.R. 352.31: '(a) For applicant recipient. 5 '(3) When female man whom married, than occasional transient basis, his shall applied accordance following: 6 '(iv) unwilling assume responsibility woman children, children acknowledged adjudicated father, treated section 352.30(d).'2 7 352.30: 8 '352.30 Persons included inthe budget. 9 '(d) non-legally relative unrelated applying nor budget deemed boarding lodger. pays verified family. lodger, $15 per month income; lodgers, $60 income. In event least month, family's including fuel heating, share regular allowance.' (Emphasis supplied.) 10 No petitioner contributed pursuant italicized sentence, each share. example, $150 monthly being paid four $120 moved in. 11 challenged Federal Courts.3 They alleged making availability income, invalid following 233.90(a) (1974), implements statute: 12 'A plan title IV—A (relating program) provide determination (if cases) unemployment made relation natural adoptive stepparent ceremonially married legally obligated general applicability requires stepparents stepchildren same extend (sic) parents required Under this requirement, inclusion family, 'substitute parent' 'man-in-the-house' individual paragraph acceptable finding ineligibility State. establishing payment, net actually current use considered, first sentence 13 Without reaching recipients' challenges denial protection, infringement rights privacy free association—each adjudged 606(a) declaratory injunctive relief.4 Both appealed Second Circuit. rules law, judgments, Taylor Lavine, 1208 (1974). convened challenge rules. 167 (ED & SDNY 1974). appellants' holding, 419 1045, 617, 638 (1974) 74—453), Appeals. 1103, 773, 799 hold erred reverse. Since circumstance we address decision vacate remand directions dismiss moot. Cf. United Munsingwear, Inc., 340 36, 71 104, L.Ed. 36 (1950). II 14 Title previously construed (1968). involved Alabama father' denied mother cohabited outside home able-bodied man. It irrelevant regulation did support. its rule simply defined nonabsent 'parent' having purpose discouraging illicit sexual relationships putting 'informal' families par ordinary families. concluded insufficient justification, it 'inconceivable discourage immorality illegitimacy device absolutedisqualification children.' 326, 2138. For, light held, language legislative history, term read include 'only those duty support.' U.S., 327, broader definition fail economic security Congress' primary goal. Id., 329—330, 2139—2140. Thus 333, 2141. 15 Department Health, Education, Welfare (HEW) codified Smith issue instant case.5 key specifies 233.90(a). (1970). validity California computing payments lived stepfather 'an adult male role spouse' (MARS), consideration should given MARS. 554, 1283. HEW supra. said '(i)n contribution, consider 'resources' either nonadopting MARS whatever nature 559—560, 1286. short, precludes treating breadwinner 'unless bread set table.' 559, III 16 clearly insofar houselhold, so. Section 352.31(a)(3), '(w)hen (iv) 352.30(d).' Plainly some impermissible means 'applying resources.' 352.30(d), when less rata. Respondents themselves concede 'be excused providing cost.' Brief Opposition Pet. Cert. 9. 17 Yet like 'MARS,' construe barring Those compel reversal 18 argue, however, grounds. argue evidence room exceeds needs. That, how applied. moves in, regard considerations. out returned original amount. practice reveals reduction, otherwise leaves. Thus, varies demonstrates keyed, plainly imply, family.6 19 Another, somewhat related, justification asserted welfare, homes. stay reduced, takes further action.7 victim thus suffers But accomplish policies aimed depriving 2138; 21 ordered. 22 Judgment reversed; Three-Judge remanded. 23 REHNQUIST, dissenting. 24 I think nonpaying-lodgers reasons stated Judge Hays reach issues constitutionally impermissible, forth dissenting Hurley Van Lare, 177 affirm reverse 74—453. Petitioner Hurley's friend, Taylor's sister, Otey's 23-year-old son. Effective July 1974, 74—5054, 352.31(a)(3) amended living, responsible, subdivision (d) 352.30 Part.' Even prior amendment, gender See n. 1, apparently reductions makes reference gender. action Southern York. 72 Civ. 3423. Otey Eastern 73 699. certified status before it, consisting 'all residents assistance, have grants terminated, suspended denied, threatened termination, suspension, noncontributing NYCRR §§ 352.31(a)(3)(iv) App. 99, 144. 365 186 (SDNY 1973). unreported. As originally phrased, numbered 203.1. 556, 1284, Indeed seem implausible beyond peradventure space. might sleeping couch already overcrowded apartment. 'Proration lowers money but diverting basic grant pay rent. (T)here poor often find worth sacrifice income.' Recent Cases, Law—AFDC Proration Shelter Allowance, Harv.L.Rev. 654, 657 (1975). Note, Income Attribution: Man-In-the-House Grant Reductions, 83 1370, 1373—1374

Category: 1