Document: 397 U.S. 552 90 S.Ct. 1282 25 L.Ed.2d 561 Genever LEWIS et al., Appellants,v.Robert MARTIN, Director of the State Department Social Welfare California, al. No. 829. Argued March 3 and 4, 1970. Decided April 20, Anthony G. Amsterdam, Stanford, Cal., for appellants. Francis X. Beytagh, Jr., Washington, D.C., United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave Court. Jay S. Linderman, appellees. Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered opinion 1 Appellants are mothers children who receive welfare assistance under California law.1 At time these actions were commenced, law provided2 that payments to a 'needy child' 'lives with his mother stepfather or an adult male person assuming role spouse although not legally married her'—known in vernacular MARS—shall be computed after consideration is given income MARS.3 The conclusively presumes needs reduced amount available from man house whether it fact actually used meet dependent children. 2 Following our decision King v. Smith, 392 309, 88 2128, 20 1118, Health, Education, (HEW) promulgated regulation reaffirming its earlier rulings ceremonially may treated unless there proof he has made actual contributions.4 Even where but real adoptive father obligated support state law.5 These suits appellants brought three-judge District Court have regulations declared invalid. That court dismissed complaints, holding HEW 312 F.Supp. 197. cases here on appeal we noted probable jurisdiction. 396 900, 237, 24 176. 4 Security Act defines child * been deprived parental care reason death, continued absence home, physical mental incapacity parent, living with' specified relative. § 406(a), 49 Stat. 629, 42 U.S.C. 606(a). This Aid Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) program which discussed Smith. 5 federal statute provides agencies administering AFDC plans 'shall, determining need (of eligible child), take into any other resources child) well expenses reasonably attributable earning such income.' 602(a) (7) (1964 ed., Supp. IV). 6 directive was implemented HEW, effective July 1, 1967, which, then worded, provided part: 7 '(O)nly are, fact, applicant recipient current use regular basis will taken payment.'6 8 We stated supra, at 319, 2134 n. 16, those 'clearly comport Act. And noted, shortly new regulation7 pertinent 9 '(a) A plan aid services needy families must provide determination parent only relation child's natural stepparent general applicability requires stepparents stepchildren same extent parents required their 10 '(b) inclusion family, presence 'substitute parent' 'man-in-the-house' individual than one described paragraph (a) this section acceptable finding ineligibility availability State. (I)n all establishing financial eligibility payment, net considered, considered household contributions.' (Emphasis added). 11 In words, explicitly negate idea needs, (i.e., adopted law) MARS presumed providing support.8 12 said Smith can granted 'only if 'a continually absent home.' U.S., 313, 2131. If 'parent' within meaning Act, matching would '(t)he regulation, requiring contributions MARS, reduces expectation Congress mere hope.' F.Supp., 202. disagree. traversed entire spectrum question find unnecessary restate legislative history relevant statutes. concluded 'intended term 406(a) include persons legal duty support.' 327, 2138. went say: 13 'It clear, expected 'breadwinners' secured employment congressional most explained kind breadwinner mind think beyond believe paramour deserted benefit mother's whom support. 14 'By parity reasoning, intended situation remain notwithstanding impropriety.' Id., 329, 2139—2140. 15 reasoning led us invalidate Alabama's father' regulation.9 Like leads hold, contrary Court, valid. add might conclude near consensual family makes reliably certain household. may, obligation 'general applicability' make reality solid assumption estimates funds calculated. 16 Any lesser merely device lowering benefits without guaranteeing regularly reduction based, say, approximate placed normally assumed parents. reading certainly cannot impermissible. 17 Our held necessary condition qualification 'parent'; did also suggest always sufficient condition. nothing inconsistency Act's basic purpose 'needy' children, except 'breadwinner' himself. agency charged apparently matter current, practical realities, relationship home less stable least additional tie ceremonial marriage, likelihood MARS' contributing children—even do so—is sufficiently uncertain marriage tie, prevent viewing him bread set table. Nothing record shows administrative judgment does correspond facts. give deference due administration see, e.g., Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. FCC, 395 367, 381, 89 1794, 1802, 23 371; Zemel Rusk, 381 11—12, 85 1271, 1278, 179. contribution, consider 'resources' either nonadopting MARS—whatever nature 18 remand foreclosed arguing assumption-of-income provisions consistent applied MARS; limited demonstrating retained stepfathers showing regulation. 19 Whether posture case California's laws inconsistent standard reach. therefore reversed remanded so adjudication made. It ordered. 21 Reversed remanded. 22 BLACK, THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins, dissenting. my dissenting Rosado Wyman, 397, 430—433, 1207, 1227—1228, 442 (1970), I pointed out many lawsuits against authorities recipients controversy between Federal Government government. presents precisely situation. Solicitor General informed (HEW)—the vested insuring States abide requirements—has determined 11351 Institutions Code regulations, 45 CFR 203.1. when suit (MARS) dependent, shall computing entitled. however, refuse assume contributions. admits conflict contends requirements two governments thus substantial. exactly situations comprehensive remedial scheme resolving disputes governments. See §§ 602, 604, 1316 ed. Under power, subject notice hearing requirements, terminate refuses conform policies. case, termination credible threat future compel resolution underlying issue lawsuit forcing (1) amend existing (2) challenge HEW's nonconformity courts IV), (3) withdraw federally assisted program. Generally, procedures allow resolve difference agreement lawsuit. As dissent 434—435, 1229, objective realized imperative integrity undermined premature recipients. reflect unmistakable intent primary jurisdiction over technical difficult issues should exclusive ones until they exhausted. Accordingly, view error decide case. strange indeed me never party interests deeply involved. note caution, however. no power Constitution force coerce disobeying own valid while still books. My concern regard arises belief State, some express constitutional prohibition, authority fix determine property relationships obligations among boundaries. hope today interpreted compelling violate order obtain money Government. When action challenging process considering effect statute. now clear preparing rule provision requirements. vacate jugment free proceed settle Califoria provided. For reason, above, prematurely brought. 26 Chief BURGER, 27 Unlike Dandridge Williams, 471, 1153, 491, exhausted here. remains bar 430, 1227, (dissenting Black). join filed BLACK. Some sue behalf themselves, (MARS), others similarly situated. There intervenors represent families, another MARS. Cal.Welf. & Inst'ns Code, (1966). On September 3, 1969, Governor signed 11351.5 became November 10, 1969. leaves unchanged implementing insofar apply stepfather, repeals old 'an spouse.' law, 'shall contribution cost himself independent arrangement.' that, Department, present 'all facts connection sharing *.' governed Cal.State Dept. Welfare, Public Services Manual 42—535 (effective Nov. 1967), 44—133.5 1967). id. 42—531 44—113.242 criminal sanctions fails see Cal.Penal 270; 11476—11477 203.1(a). Handbook Assistance Administration, pt. IV, 3131.7. form provides: '(ii) payment: (c) currently considered.' 233.20(a)(3)(ii), 34 Fed.Reg. 1395. An exception whose deemed essential well-being included budget unit calculation need. 602(a)(7) IV) 'A shall, need, relative claiming (living relative) determines aid, so-called 'essential person' covered 233.20(a)(2)(vi), 1394. 'Under Alabama 'able-bodied man, single, substitute mother' three different situations: 'he lives cohabitation'; visits (the home) frequently cohabiting mother'; frequent co-habits elsewhere.' irrelevant. irrelevant contribute What determinative simply 'cohabits' mother.' 313—314, S.Ct., 2131—2132.

Category: 1