Legal Document

398 U.S. 275 90 Supreme Court Reporter 1582 26 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 218 George K. WYMAN, etc., et al., Appellants,v.Edna ROTHSTEIN al. Number 896. Argued April 27, 28, 1970. Decided June 1, Philip Weinberg, New York City, for appellants. Edward V. Sparer, Philadelphia, Pa., appellees. Peter L. Strauss, Washington, D.C., States, amicus curiae, by special leave of Court. PER CURIAM. 1 Appellees commenced this action in the federal District Southern challenging on equal protection and statutory grounds § 131—a Social Services Law, McKinney's Consol.Laws, chapter 55, which provides payments to welfare recipients Nassau, Suffolk, certain other State counties lesser amounts than provided residents City should Welfare Administrator determine that adequate cause exists differential. A three-judge court was convened it found appellees' likelihood success their constitutional claim warranted issuance a preliminary injunction against what be payment violation Equal Protection Clause Fourteenth Amendment. The unnecessary consider claims. We noted probable jurisdiction. 397 903, 910, 25 85. 2 Subsequent decision rendered its Rosado versus Wyman, 397, 1207, 442 (1970), wherein we held called upon pass validity State's program should, before reaching issues, first any pendent claims are presented, notwithstanding pendency negotiations between Department Health, Education, Welfare. 3 In light foregoing, judgment is vacated case remanded an opportunity propriety granting interim relief accordance with conventional equitable principles basis claims, or, if question reached, continuing present Court's Dandridge Williams, 471, 1153, 491. 4 It so ordered. 5 Vacated remanded. 6 Mr. Justice MARSHALL took no part case. 7 BLACK, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins, dissenting. 8 When appellees, Secretary process determining provisions under attack consistent standard requiring uniform statewide application state plans. See Security Act 402, as amended, 81 Statutes-at-Large 877 seq., 42 Code KF62 602 (1964 ed., Supp. IV); 45 Federal Regulations 233.20. Although agency has not yet made final decision, appears from brief submitted curiae HEW determination do conform Act's requirements. Accordingly, today remands consideration involves live controversy 430, 1227, my belief such controversies resolved proceedings two governments involved, Act. See, e.g., §§ 602, 1316 IV). For reason, & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions would vacate remand directions complaint dismissed.

Classification Label: 1