Legal Document

434 U.S. 100 98 Supreme Court Reporter 327 54 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 324 IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENTv.Marlene G. SMITH. Number 76-1291. Dec. 5, 1977. PER CURIAM. 1 Petitioner challenges a ruling of the Idaho that denial unemployment benefits to otherwise eligible persons who attend school during day violates Equal Protection Clause Fourteenth Amendment. Code § 72-1312(a) (1973) states "no person shall be deemed unemployed while he is attending regular established excluding night . .." The held this provision impermissibly discriminates between those and petitioner could not constitutionally deny an such as respondent whose attendance at daytime classes would interfere with employment in her usual occupation did affect availability for fulltime work. We grant petition certiorari reverse judgment Court. 2 holding below misconstrues requirements field social welfare economics. This has consistently deferred legislative determinations concerning desirability statutory classifications affecting regulation economic activity distribution benefits: "If classification some 'reasonable basis,' it does offend Constitution simply because 'is made mathematical nicety or practice results inequality.' " Dandridge versus Williams, 397 471, 485, 90 1153, 1161, 25 491 (1970), quoting Lindsley Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 61, 78, 31 337, 340, 55 L.Ed. 369 (1911). See also Massachusetts Board Retirement Murgia, 427 307, 96 2562, 49 520 (1976); Mathews De Castro, 429 181, 97 431, 50 389 Jefferson Hackney, 406 535, 92 1724, 32 285 (1972). issue here passes test. It was surely rational Legislature conclude far more plentiful than nighttime work and, consequently, hours imposes greater restriction upon obtaining full-time night. In world limited resources, State may legitimately extend only are willing maximize their potential by restricting school. Moreover, serves predictable convenient means distinguishing likely students primarily part-time workers secondarily thus ineligible compensation without necessity making costly individual eligibility which deplete available resources. fact imperfect desiring substantially impaired not, under cases cited supra, render statute invalid Constitution. 3 Reversed. 4 Mr. Justice BLACKMUN, concurring. 5 Department ruled became state insurance when she "enrolled summer school" (Pet. Certiorari 3) attended from 7 a. m. 9 m., Monday through Friday. These early morning instruction obviously preceded working retail clerk, respondent's occupation. & N Immigration Nationality Decisions have thought, light impinge day, might regarded "night school," within meaning (1973). That court, however, chose do so instead, rested its decision difficult precarious federal equal protection analysis. Correct analysis, seems me, necessarily redounds petitioner's, rather respondent's, benefit, therefore am compelled, albeit somewhat reluctantly (because respondent, counsel proceedings, will never understand why law against respect), join Court's opinion summarily reversing court. 6 BRENNAN, whom MARSHALL joins, dissenting part. agree my Brother STEVENS there no basis granting case. add that, record presents serious problems mootness been addressed neither party's addition, question whether argued properly presented below. these additional problems, our summary reversal indeed "create unfortunate impression interested upholding power vindicating rights." Post, 105. 8 Nonetheless, if before us, must committed error. Ohio Bureau Employment Services Hodory, 431 1898, 513 (1977). mean, course, lose benefits. As BLACKMUN notes, on remand well want consider purpose passing better served construing phrase include classes, like apparently intended provider, Boise University, allow both (or seek work) go If construction adopted, court invalidates 72-1312(a). generally Brennan, Constitutions Individual Rights, Harv.L.Rev. 489 STEVENS, 10 defining jurisdiction review final judgments rendered highest State, Congress sharply differentiated rejected claim vindicated. former category mandatory; latter, discretionary.1 11 Our case discretionary category. ordered pay resident, resting interpretation Since create conflict involve national importance, inappropriate order full briefing oral argument. 12 Even though error use Amendment providing resident Federal requires, believe sufficient justification exercise jurisdiction. much too busy correct every called attention thousands petitions filed each year. Whenever we attempt summarily, danger either committing ourselves confusing clarifying law.2 risk aggravated losing litigant poor hire lawyer, true case.3 random spasmodic efforts errors rights. 13 For reasons, although quarrel majority's analysis merits, think wise Title 28 KF62 1257 provides: "§ 1257. courts; appeal; "Final decrees had, reviewed follows: "(1) By appeal, where drawn validity treaty validity. "(2) any ground being repugnant Constitution, treaties laws States, favor "(3) writ certiorari, title, right, privilege immunity specially set up claimed statutes of, commission authority exercised under, States. "For purposes section, term 'highest State' includes District Columbia Appeals." Cf. Hammer Oregon Penitentiary, 276 Or. 651, 556 Pacific Reporter, 2nd 1348 (1976), vacated remanded, 945, 469, 306 (Stevens, J., dissenting). Respondent originally submitted pro se letter opposition certiorari. Through itself, brief eventually behalf professor College Law.

Classification Label: 1