Document: 413 U.S. 508 93 S.Ct. 2832. 37 L.Ed.2d 767 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE et al., Appellants,v.Lula Mae MURRY al. No. 72—848. Argued April 23, 1973. Decided June 25, Syllabus Appellees challenge the constitutionality of § 5(b) Food Stamp Act 1964, as amended in 1971, providing that '(a)ny household which includes a member who has reached his eighteenth birthday and is claimed dependent child for Federal income tax purposes by taxpayer not an eligible household, shall be ineligible to participate any food stamp program . during period such dependency one year after expiration period.' This provision was generated congressional concern over nonneedy households participating program, abuses 'college students' 'children wealthy parents.' The District Court held unconstitutional, finding it went far beyond goal, operated inflexibly deny stamps households, containing no college students, had established clear eligibility remained dire need, only because 18 years or older someone dependent. Held: deduction taken benefit parent prior rational measure need different with tax-deducting lives, administration allows hearing show irrelevant household. Section therefore violates due process. Pp. 511—514. 348 F.Supp. 242, affirmed. Keith A. Jones appellants. Ronald F. Pollack, New York City appellees. Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered opinion Court. 1 7 U.S.C. 2011 seq., 84 Stat. 2048, been applied these appellees so lead three-judge hold unconstitutional. 242. We noted probable jurisdiction. 410 924, 1366, 35 590. 2 Appellee Murry two sons ten grandchildren her Her monthly $57.50, comes from ex-husband support sons. expenses exceed income. By payment, however, $11 she received $128 stamps. But now denied (who remarried) grandchild dependents 1971 return. That claim, plus fact eldest son 19 old, disqualified under Act.1 Alderete comparable straits five children, live their mother, dependents, oldest being old. Beavert's case similar. Lee mother entire per month $23 derived public assistance. children her. bills are $249, $148 goes food. husband household; he deserted supplied family support. sons, ages 20 18, return, result wife's Nevarez straits. 3 Joe Valdez old married; wife have child. He lives wholly on assistance His application rejected father Ben him receives debt unable help Joe. 4 Broderson married 16-year-old they small Their $110 consisting wages at service station. cannot get father, gives 5 Schultz resides girl friend latter's children. kind but where lived. stamps, were discontinued when parents refused give aid. She soon got married, dependency. 6 These brought class action enjoin enforcement Act; and, noted, court granted relief. members solely contain persons 'dependents' federal taxpayers themselves makes 'tax dependent' years: (1) (2) next 12 months. During periods time creates conclusive presumption dependent's' needy access nutritional adequacy. 8 Acting Administrator Nutrition Service Department Agriculture admitted this that: 9 '(I)n initially determined participation basis dependency, there factual issues presented challenged hearing, other than issue whether (a most cases, already will disclosed its application). If states member, is, conformity Act, regulations, instructions FNS governing State agencies, ineligible.' App. 83. 10 Thus, denied, available dissent implies. As stated 'an irrebuttable contrary fact.' F.Supp., 243. Moreover, return filed, say 1973, 1972. When claim made passed. Therefore disqualification apply 1972 11 about program.2 legislative history reflects parents.'3 But, said, goal operation inflexible. 'Households student, Stamps still remain otherwise if appears dependent.' Tax seems relation 'need' following year. It doubtless much easier administrative point view simple 'dependency' test automatically—without without witnesses, findings fact—terminate household's Yet, we recently Stanley v. Illinois, 405 645, 656, 92 1208, 1215, 31 551: 13 '(I)t may argued unmarried fathers seldom fit Illinois undergo inconvenience inquiry case, including Stanley's. establishment prompt efficacious procedures achieve legitimate state ends proper interest worthy cognizance constitutional adjudication. Constitution recognizes higher values speed efficiency. Indeed, might fairly Bill Rights general, Due Process Clause particular, designed protect fragile value vulnerable citizenry overbearing efficiency efficacy characterize praiseworthy government officials less, perhaps more, mediocre ones.' 14 difficulty concluding assume indigent declared even assumption our problem end. Under indigency happens living. Members present used past though remaining deduction, completely destitute, one, number. conclude rests often fact. lacks critical ingredients process found wanting Vlandis Kline, 412 441, 452, 2230, 63; supra; Bell Burson, 402 535, 91 1586, 29 90. 15 Affirmed. 16 STEWART, concurring. 17 1964 twin promoting agricultural economy alleviating hunger malnutrition among 'the America.' 2011. currently whose comply work requirement, 2014(b), (c), entitled purchase enough provide those nutritionally adequate diets. In Congress became concerned possibility receiving response enactment Pub.L. 91—671. While curbing assuredly purpose, statute given rise questions companion, United States Moreno, 528, 2821, 782. amended, 2049. section renders age himself What little suggests sole reason prevent receipt daughters more affluent families. 116 Cong.Rec. 41979, 41981, 41993, 42021; cf. Dandridge Williams, 397 471, 483—484, 90 1153, 1160, 25 491. Rather requiring individualized determination particular linked relatively needy, chose instead utilize presumption. non-indigent results complete termination benefits relevant subsequent months well. 2014(b). matters fraudulent, what amount actually was,1 welfare learned it, living Fourteenth Amendment, Connecticut establishing permanent, nonresidency qualifying reduced tuition rates university. 63. said case: 21 'In sum, since purports residency allocating fees university system, forbidden individual resident permanent irrebutable nonresidence, necessarily universally true fact, reasonable alternative means making crucial determination. Rather, standards require allow opportunity evidence showing bona fide in-state rates.' Id., 2236. 22 See also Morrissey Brewer, 408 741, 2593, 33 484; 551; 23 Similarly, I think, led appellees' them prove law.2 Accordingly, concur judgment 24 MARSHALL, join wish briefly believe analytic underpinnings opinion. One aspect fundamental fairness, guaranteed Fifth individuals similarly situated must receive same treatment Government. Jackson put Government 'must exercise (its) powers discriminate between inhabitants except upon some differentiation related object regulation.' Railway Express Agency York, 336 106, 112, 69 463, 466, L.Ed. 533 (1949) (concurring opinion). corollary requirement that, order determine indeed situated, 'such procedural protections situation demands' provided. 481, 2600, 484 (1972). Specifically, decide whether, considering private affected governmental sought advanced, provided claims general law aimed certain lower incidence needlessly harm him. Cf. Reed Reed, 404 71, 251, 30 225 (1971); 63 (1973). short, interests very important can promoted well-designed procedure, requires act basis, propositions serving rebuttable presumptions burden-shifting devices. That, import 551 26 Is this, then, case? Appellants argue could rationally thought could, succeeding probably sufficient funds offset would denying truly limited chosen make available. statute, view, preventing abuse do Even if, appellants urge, interpreted validly see Reply Brief 2—3. think adopted method reasonably calculated eliminate program. concluded half parent, purchasing outside contributions. 27 course, quite mechanism guarantee abusers eliminated it. All needed way person presently claiming does loss benefits.* Reasonable rules stating claimant before question easily devised. deal here rule seriously affect ability genuinely diet households. face readily alternatives did choose reducing 'fairly regulation,' enacting case. 28 analysis, combines elements traditionally invoked usually treated distinct classes involving equal protection. fairness should rigidly cabined. Sometimes statutory classification advance legislature's properly device, while times litigant falls within justify application. There reason, believe, categorize rudiments fairness. Instead, assess then each instance required categorical permitted Constitution. BLACKMUN, dissenting. today holds happily drafted surely attracts sympathetic review. Its purposes, conceded laudatory. And, indeed, are, seeks widespread nonindigents consequent denial full Court, invalidates for, apparently, reasons. first calendar tied subject's lack year, connection. second, although clearly articulated, all disqualify presence apparent Court's special emphasis asserted Valdez, Broderson, Schultz, parents, according affidavits, gave 'no support' 'any aid,' use words, ante, 511. 32 For me, neither persuasive. read 509 n. 1, ineligibility claimed' follows. They latter thereto, indicate. confess practical awkwardness relating know until files close. Despite least, acceptable, rewrite pragmatic as, done. Furthermore, 'year after' Congress, resources, recoups later sustained earlier improperly claimed. My second centers meaning 'who purposes,' Act. mere intended. obvious me 'claimed' context meaning, assertion sensible construction statute. clear, description situations, 510—511, claims. satisfy requirements 151(e)(1) Internal Revenue Code 1954, 151(e)(1). Valdez' facts accurate. Broderson. Schultz. 34 Each aspects, chooses analyze prefers, instead, resolve convenient nullification handled appropriate directed ascertainment actual facts. shown 'receives Ben.' true, automatically Ben's improper consequence whatsoever. So respect whom status, affidavits least questionable. I, therefore, vacate remand development underlying light 1954 Code, entry new ascertained. 36 REHNQUIST, THE CHIEF JUSTICE POWELL concur, grounds recent revision whereby sustains challenge. Referring conceives aim limitation, 'a parents," inflexible' 513. 38 Notions dispensing impose limitations 'go goal' 'inflexible,' heretofore embodied 914 (1970), approach area legislation indistinguishable involved. words 39 'while apparently recognizing validity concerns, nonetheless regulation 'is invalid overreaching,' 297 468—that Equal Protection '(b)ecause cuts too broad swath indiscriminate group AFDC eligibles .." 484, S.Ct., 1161. 40 Applying Amendment action, reversed held: 41 '(T)he concept 'overreaching' place social economic field, affecting freedoms Rights, violate disparity grants payments largest approve invalidation reminiscent era power strike down laws 'because unwise, improvident, out harmony school thought' .. 42 economics welfare, merely classifications imperfect. 'reasonable basis,' offend simply mathematical nicety practice inequality.' Lindsley Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 61, 78 (31 337, 340) 55 369.' 484—485, 43 placing availability involved reasoned sense word employed majority, 511, 512 STEWART concurring opinion, 516; decision conceived exist previously administered seriousness warrant substantive limitation enacted. qualitative difference between, hand, holding unconstitutional inquiries fault, (1971), fitness unwed (1972), accepting majority's characterization (1973), residency, duly enacted prophylactic dispensation cure systemic abuses. Mourning Family Publications Service, Inc., 411 356, 1652, 318 (1973); Ginsberg 390 629, 643, 88 1274, 1282, 195 (1968). 44 evidence, extent permits invalidate Congress. Williamson Optical 483, 487—488, 75 461, 464, 99 563 (1955), said: 45 'But every logically consistent aims constitutional. evil hand correction, correct it.' Accord, Ferguson Skrupa, 372 726, 83 1028, (1963); Flemming Nestor, 363 603, 611—612, 80 1367, 1372, 1435 (1960). 46 majority concludes 'deduction lives.' Ante, p. 514. judged foregoing purpose basis. declares '(a) ny household.' both dependent's large characteristics indicate willing able significant To sure, perfect correlation part exceeding raise above standards. correlation, irrational. supra.* Nor deprived extends Since returns filed carryover enforcing unless establish adjudication procedure independent existing collection structure. Such system own delays, inefficiencies, inequities. circumstances acted irrationally judging person's previous 47 Finally, operate fraudulent well lawful not, suggested 243 (DC 1972), render A false subjects civil criminal penalties, proceed obey law. 48 holdings convince placed affirmance provides part: 'Any pursuant chapter period. .' (Emphasis added.) Regulations provide: "Dependent' 271.3(d) subchapter, guardian apart guardian.' CFR 270.2(q). 18th certified 271.3(d). exemption (1970 ed. Supp. I), reads: 'An $750 (shall allowed) (as defined 152)— '(A) gross taxable begins less $750, '(B) (i) affained close begins, (ii) student ..' And term 'dependent' support, .: '(1) daughter 152(a)(1). Household based current circumstances, needs. certifications coincide certification periods. §§ 271.4(a)(1) 271.4(a)(4) (ii). nonpublic last normally three 271.4(a)(4)(iii). Longer 'if likelihood changes status.' 271.4(a)(4)(iii), (b), (d). 41979. leaves below standards, consideration terminate benefits. 5-person example, $120 month, $121 divorced spouse. older, spouse dependent, Yet hypothetical situation, $241, whereas Agriculture's earn up $440 Fed.Reg. 7724. points how totally arbitrary operation. achieved. demonstrate neediness qualify, accept employment, id., 2014(c). provisions strengthened believes fraud taking place. penalties effect acquisition, use, transfer 2023(b), (c). * available, interpretation advanced appellants, contend dependents. relationship 20. 2836. 3(e) 2012(e), 'The 'household' mean unit agencies administering defines 'economic unit' common shared resources basic needs regard willingness contribute.' (Reply brief 72—534, O.T.1972, 19, Dept. 782.) dispense units' rather individuals. (1970). definition units

Category: 1