Legal Document

436 U.S. 725 98 Supreme Court Reporter 2068 56 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 658 Arthur Federal KF105 F3 QUERN, etc., et al., Petitioners,v.Venus MANDLEY al. Joseph Atlantic CALIFANO, Jr., Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, Petitioner, versus Venus Nos. 76-1159, 76-1416. Argued Nov. 30, 1977. Decided June 6, 1978. Syllabus This litigation originated as a challenge to the validity Illinois' Emergency Assistance Needy Families with Children (EA) program under Title IV-A Social Security Act (SSA). The Appeals, reversing District Court, first held that was invalid because it limited eligibility for such assistance more narrowly than § 406(e)(1) SSA, which makes federal matching funds available state EA emergency aid intact families children if threatened destitution, regardless cause need. In later appeal involving proposed alternative program, Appeals 403(a)(5) authorizes funding is exclusive source therefore new "special needs" Illinois operate its Aid Dependent (AFDC) funded 403(a)(1) in place withdrawn must, de facto extend all persons eligible 406(e)(1). Held : 1. There nothing policies or history statute indicate should not be judged solely requirements an AFDC without regard §§ 406(e) 403(a)(5). Pp. 735-736. 2. permissible part alone. A plan meet certain needs recipients—specifically actual loss shelter due damage eviction—is necessarily improper simply addresses nonrecurring need could alternatively provided program. 737-739. 3. Neither 402(a)(10) AFDC, EA, criteria mandatory, nor 406(e), defines permis sible scope purpose funding, imposes mandatory standards on elect participate precluded from receiving either limits 406(e). 739-747. 545 Reporter, 2nd 1062, reversed remanded. George W. Lindberg, Chicago, Ill., petitioners Number 76-1159. Keith Jones, Washington, D. C., petitioner Michael R. Lefkow, respondents both cases. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered opinion Court. 1 These cases require examination interplay between option mandate within system cooperative federalism created by public programs Act, 42 Code KF62 601 seq. ultimate question decided whether State may ever receive needy families, general (AFDC)1 specific provisions (EA),2 statute. 2 * establishes several different rubric "Grants Services Children." order any must adopt "state services children" approved Department Welfare (HEW) meeting set forth 402 Act. 3 core system. As observed one earliest forays into IV, categorical "the category singled out welfare . 'dependent child,' who defined 406 age-qualified 'needy child has been deprived parental support care reason death, continued absence home, physical mental incapacity parent, living with' listed relatives." King Smith, 392 309, 313, 88 2128, 2131, 20 1118. State's expenditures plan, are reimbursed Government according formula 403(a)(1). 4 added IV omnibus Amendments 1967. Public Law 90-248, 206, 81 Statutes-at-Large 893. It described Senate Finance Committee report "a optional [to] authorize dollar-for-dollar provide temporary great variety situations faced emergencies." S.Rep.No.744, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., (1967); U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1967, Pages 2834, 2838. To include provision at flat rate 50% expenses authorized 5 Unlike "dependent children." Instead, term "emergency broadly money payments other kinds basis "to avoid destitution arrangements" "needy age 21 resources." 606(e)(1). Thus statute, their 6 Illinois, however, elected much narrower scope. only (1) were result homes court-ordered eviction reasons nonpayment rent; (2) applicants determined presumptively immediate clothing household furnishings. 7 1973 instituted class action against officials behalf "AFDC recipients, seeking declaratory judgment violated law defining 406(e)(1), injunction restraining defendants administering allegedly unlawful program.3 Northern unreported inconsistent law. Seventh Circuit this judgment, ruling "Illinois no longer conduct [§ 406(e)] some given not." Mandley Trainor, 523 415, 423 (Mandley N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions ). 8 After Appeals' returned plaintiffs submitted final requiring conform further promulgate regulations consistent interpretation opposed substantive terms order, but also filed motions dismiss complaint altogether ground case had rendered moot decision withdraw entirely motion affidavit Chief Fiscal Officer stating would immediately cease activities requests reimbursement pursuant 'Emergency Assistance' Act" "no additional [would] drawn balance current fiscal year." 9 opposing dismiss, argued even though request 403(a)(5), intended nonetheless virtually identical seek They contended course equally unlawful. took position presented raised original lawsuit, plaintiffs' indeed When declined amend allege violation 403(a)(1), entered dismissing "for lack controversy." 10 again reversed. Cir., 1062 II Noting "admit[ted] they [were] conducting same label 'special assistance' formerly conducted assistance," Id., 1068, change arrangements did raise issues beyond pleadings, render moot. appellate court viewed situation, still claiming, always had, federally violating using On merits agreed assistance, 11 Because lengthy and, view, wrongful delay implementation mandate, then considered sua sponte defendants' objections after remand, directed remand enter minor modifications. provide: 12 "Defendants enjoined, so long receives claiming (however designated) section enjoi ed means limiting enjoined denying member plaintiff [who definition 406(e)]."4 addition HEW 13 "enjoined approving plans limit 403(a)(5)."5 14 broad ordered raises two distinct statutory questions: qualify particularly 403(a)(1);6 adopts define 406(e).7 We granted certiorari, 431 953, 97 2672, 53 269, consider these important questions affecting nationwide administration major 15 readily conceded, holding upon way obligates continue like governs dispensation funds. See Townsend Swank, 404 282, 292, 92 502, 30 448 (BURGER, C. J., concurring result). And while Congress attach strings offer does accept all. 16 acknowledged own "strings" provisions. If recipients payments" proper broader have application. believed, "totally eviscerated" evade them resorting effect, compels conclusion needs, kind contemplated plan8 cannot needs." 17 Even assuming premise impose follow. is, whatever reason, "evasion" funding. merely election do something quite instead. Since clearly offers sense "eviscerated" when chooses forgo offer. 18 legislative contrary intent. found highly significant description "new" [f]or time," 113 Cong.Rec. 36319 (1967) (remarks Sen. Curt s). But, we already observed, critical distinction former depend parent home. enactment extended previously form assistance.9 context, fact hardly implies understanding met existing program.10 Indeed revealed observation "frequently unavailable today." 165 Page 3002. (Emphasis supplied.) 19 nothing, therefore, special-needs Accordingly, B recognize specified items" "standard need." standard dollar figure each reflecting amount deemed necessary essential food, clothing, shelter.11 Rosado Wyman, 397 397, 408, 90 1207, 1215, 25 442. "yardstick" measuring financial level benefits actually paid function Ibid. At least early 1966 recognized properly items AFDC.12 "are usually those all, individual basis." Dept. HEW, Rehabilitation Service, Payments Administration, Characteristics Plans xiii (1974). (AFDC Survey). Whenever special exist, budgeted total Frequently regular recurrin expense, medication medically indicated diet, case. contrary, 1974 Survey, supra, reveals cover wide circumstance items," including one-time replacing appliances,13 home repair,14 catastrophic loss.15 Similarly, particular, event befalls some, reflected adjustment whenever occurs. 22 By emergencies expressed view included agency charged course, entitled substantial deference. New York Dublino, 413 405, 421, 93 2507, 2516, 37 688. Moreover, well-established principle "undisputed power need" programs. U.S., 334, S.Ct., 2142; Dandridge Williams, 471, 478, 1153, 1158, 491; 1215; Jefferson Hackney, 535, 541, 1724, 1729, 32 285. n. 11, supra. 23 approval, see 8, there knowing comply respects But clear III 24 Although focused prohibit operation substance, enforce 's participating live controversy over issue, 7, now turn. Section four considerations. First, unlike specifies time limitation: period exceed days 12-month period. Second, describes whose furnished: relatives. Third, circumstances provided: where resources, "avoid child. Finally, method cash medical remedial care, als "such Secretary." summary, family once period, almost means. 26 declaring prohibited narrowing way,16 relied line Court's mapping reach clear. Each free monetary benefits. 2141; 1158; 1729.17 narrow categories people aid. Beginning consistently make 406(a) Carleson Remillard, 598, 1932, 352; 448. Lewis Martin, 552, 1282, 561. foundation 402(a)(10), requires "plan "aid dependent shall furnished reasonable promptness individuals." 602(a)(10). 27 interpretive principles applied well. 28 short answer that, since face applies separately designated children," making States. 29 language nevertheless concluded treat "in way" "part scheme," rooted "same Congressional concern the] deprivation brought ." I, F.2d, 422. Congress' choice precise complex glossed generalities. central, organizing element relationship participate. Thus, reflects basic 406(b), XX social services, 402(a)(15) 1397 seq., (1970 ed., Supp. V), them, AFDC-Unemployed Fathers (AFDC-UF), established 407. 31 402(a) lists "must provide." Some apply whole. generally administration. E. g., 402(a)(1) ("provide effect political subdivisions State"); 402(a)(5) SUCH METHODS OF ADMINISTRATION AS secretary [and] ."); 402(a)(9) safeguards restrict use disclosure information concerning ."). Others, refer specifically 402(a)(7) shall, determining need, take consideration income resources relative children"); 402(a)(11) prompt notice collection furnishing respect deserted abandoned very meaning 406(b)—and means, different. true will governed parts refers references meaningless inadvertent. every suppose exclusion 402, particular 402(a)(10)'s imposition standards, deliberate, wholly nature 33 adopted amendment 206(b), nowhere comparable AFDC. latter, 406(b) "money [a] child" support, relatives, regularly attending school. 1118 ("deprived support"), 352 ("continued h me"), ("regularly school"). 34 hand, meets facing destitution. structure thus parallels 406(b)—i. e.,, persons, available. separate provision, parallel 406(a), used describe persons.18 language, can reasonably understood imposing uniform program.19 35 differently fully purposes enacting AFDC-UF extension, comprehensive maintenance, rather designed allow quick, ad hoc responses needs. primary "encourag[e] move quickly crises, supplying promptly appropriate services," hope "would many preclude necessity having go [AFDC] less permanent 23054 Mills). awareness difference surrounded trappings ongoing cash-payments short, assure needed children, focus maximum effort self-support flexible tools accomplish objectives." matter historical fact, left discretion shaping preventing lasting dependency. Und r 406(d) program20 "considerable latitude providing nonwelfare grounds 'former potential' recipients." S.Rep. 93-1356, (1974), 1974, 8133, 8141. declared enacted 1975, State, far practicable conditions furnish goal achieving maintaining economic prevent, reduce, eliminate dependency V). magnitude decision-making authority fashioning service Congress." 8138.21 36 token, breadth potential EA—to faces risk destitution—argues inference potentially literal application required create open-ended susceptible meaningful programmatic control believed retain "substantial control" through ability paid: 38 "It able choose amounts 491, declare ineligible come 406(e)]. expense appropriations helping number although moderately present." 422-423. 39 740, fundamentally misconceives burned down helped "moderate" grant insufficient crisis. Director stated his Legislative Advisory Aid, untenable tension integrity system: 40 "But [expenditures suggested Appeals] results divide among expanded group individuals, reducing meaninglessly small amount. prospect, continues unlimited expenses, payments, payment (and possibility legal subsequent payments)." 41 intent furthered what believes effectuated natural reading give relevant For foregoing reversed, remanded proceedings opinion.22 43 ordered. 44 BLACKMUN related 606(b), provides pertinent part: "The 'aid children' to, type 606(a), [specified relatives] residence maintained relatives (A) eighteen, (B) twenty-one (as accordance prescribed Secretary) student school [or] vocational technical training 606(e), "(1) 'emergency following, excess subsection (a)(1) involved child, arise refused good employment employment— "(A) kind, specify of, he living, "(B) Secretary; "but 602 title includes assistance. "(2) paragraph migrant workers thereof designate." alleged Equal Protection Clause Fourteenth Amendment Code. While none questioned subject-matter jurisdiction, sponte. jurisdiction claims 1343 1983 constitutional insubstantial. 419 troublesome, ibid. express theory light intervening 1331, which, eliminating requirement $10,000 "against States, thereof, officer employee official capacity," 1331(a) (1976 ed.), confers Andrus Charlestone tone Products Co., 604, 607-608, 2002, 2005, 570. child: "(i) 21, "(ii) 406(a)(1) "(iii) "(iv) "(v) employment." "file governing accord 45 Regulations 233.10(a)(1)(ii)(A)." originally "include, inter alia, definitions 'necessary destitution' 'lack resources' compatible approaching destitution." thought "it salutary regulation," "order regulation." 1073. claim pleadings agree arrangement voluntarily mooted prior determination being operated T. Grant 345 629, 73 894, L.Ed. 1303. granting bound moot, entire proceeding nullity. binding prevent returning old And, good-faith representation intention doing might led deny injunctive relief, Hecht company Bowles, 321 321, 64 587, 754, deprive successful plaintiffs, public, legality practice. 632, 897. correctly erred alive note status "HEW clarify Program [since] aspects feel superior prefer, allowed, maintain present scope." (This Exhibit Plaintiffs' Answer Defendants' Motions Dismiss.) passed jurisdictional bar directing entry resolving dispute enjoining record contain proposal drafted approval. assumed, parties agreed, program: i. e., arising applicants. "For time, match before. days, qualifications." Curtis). 166 (1967). import clearer, expression pre-existing post observations single carry little weight. Los Angeles Water Power Manhart, 435 702, 714, 1370, 1378, 55 657. "great deal discretion" setting "some 'standard need' others account." 1216, Handbook Part 3131(3) (1966). Current "[i]f [the must] (a ) recognized, included, (b them." 233.20(a)(2)(v) (1977). Minnesota. Survey 59, 100. Arizona, Connecticut, Guam, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Hampshire, South Dakota. 27, 46, 69, 73, 100, 125, 179. California's "replacement sudden unusual [the] family." 19. North Dakota, Rhode Island covered "catastrophic" events items. 147, 171. invalidated narrowed (or eligible) recognizing recipient's eviction, applicant's effects. Other imposed restrictions eligibility. Some, example, exclude theoretically grant, reasoning pay double failed budget properly. Note, Meeting Short-Term Needs Poor Families: Children, 60 Cornell L.Rev. 879, 888-892 (1975). apparently reaches limitations. operates fit prohibits "approving 406(e)." controlling elements, determine retains expenditures. Cf. 539-541, 1727-1729. contrast, AFDC-UF, reference key child." 407(a), 607(a). indicates treated incorporating terms. problem workable somewhat amorphous could] addressed rule-making," 422-423, rulemaking order. 5, not, implementing Compare 407(a) (AFDC-UF). Batterton Francis, 432 416, 2399, interpret leaving requirements. 233.120 Secretary's contemporaneous considerable delegation Secretary, he, definite—and mandatory—the generalized wrote infra. 606(d), "family services" "services preserving, rehabilitating, reuniting, strengthening family, assist members attain capability personal independence." repealed replaced 93-647, 2, 3(a)(5), 2337, 2348. based "lengthy regulatory area [which] made neither effective controls States." 8138. respondents' state-law claims, 3, remain open remand.

Classification Label: 1