Harrell v. Tobriner

al., Plaintiffs, et Minnie HARRELL Plaintiff-Intervenor, Clay LeGrant, Mae

v. al., Defendants. TOBRINER et Walter N. Plaintiffs, al., BARLEY et Vera M. al., et Defendants. N. TOBRINER Walter Plaintiffs, al., et Gloria Jean BROWN Plaintiff-Intervenor, Clay LeGrant, Mae al., et Defendants. Walter TOBRINER N. 1579-67, 1497-67, A. Nos. Civ. and 1749-67. States District Court United of Columbia.

Nov. 1967. Probable Jurisdiction Noted

March See 88 S.Ct. 1053. C., Marlin, Washington,

David H. D. Silver, Washington, and Laurens H. D. C., plaintiffs. Corp. Counsel, Duncan, T. and

Charles Suda, John A. John Earnest H. Corp. Counsel, Asst. for defendants. BAZELON, Before Chief Circuit Judge, FAHY, Judge, Circuit Senior Judge. HOLTZOFF, District

OPINION Judge.

FAHY, Circuit intervenor,1 all Plaintiffs now to slightly plaintiffs, be referred to as differing applied factual situations public under the District of Public Act of Columbia Assistance Chapter 2, Title D.C.Code Defendants, responsi official who have bility matter, applica denied the ground tions. The sole of denial was plaintiffs minor and the children they sought on whose aid had behalf complied require not residence with the (a) (b) ments 3-203 D.C.Code § margin (1967), insofar set forth in pertinent case,2 to this and with the regulations promulgated pursuant relief declara statute. Plaintiffs seek against tory judgments injunctions of such resi enforcement defendants complaints requirements.3 dence proceed theories, first, on two Sec tion 3-203 discretion the de vests a disregard one-year fendants resi requirements they dence second, discretion, and, exercised such 1. See note 3 infra. plaintiff 3. Minnie Harrell case co-plaintiffs they nor her neither she public Eligibility year § 3-203. as- had resided in the District when sistance. applied. she In the of Gloria Jean case Brown, Public al., assistance shall awarded be et behalf of three who sues any needy or children, on behalf of individual had not the children resided (a) year application who either has resided the Dis- here when for them was year immediately pre- Barley trict for one made. In the Vera M. case of ceding filing applica- application the date of his denial of her was on the assistance; (b) ground tion for such at St. Eliza- her residence immediately Hospital was period born within one beths which other- for a preceding application aid, adequate for such was more than could not wise parent regula- if or other relative with under considered because living “gained” whom the child is resided could tions in the District for one immediate- insti- while one was confined ly preceding birth; (c) competent other- tution. deemed She has been categories September wise within one of since but is without established obtain financial resources sufficient * * * chapter: prevents home, care in a foster Report the mittee in its on the Act stated is no such discretion that one-year there congressional purposes of Sec- that one constitutionally invalid. tion 3-203 three-judge categories (c) Court was

This Make uniform all pursuant 1-year for convened to 28 U.S.C. § (S. eligibility. composed provisions and was under the Cong., Rep. 844, 1st of 28 2284. No. U.S.C. 87th § (1961).) Sess. argu- 1967, September 11, after On ment, granted plain- of we the motion pro of The administrators the injunction preliminary pen- tiffs consistently interpreted gram the of dente lite or until the further order legislative history thus as the statute accompanied the court.5 We our order is, Congress intended, indicates Findings of Fact Conclusions language “public shall be the Law, setting findings of forth in de- one-year meet awarded” to those who plain- tail tiff, factual situation of each the assistance conditions means that prevails re- which still in essential granted those conditions to be unless spects. on The matter is decided now reasonable This are met. interpretation consistent summary judgment motions for sub- by charged those defendants, plaintiffs mitted both administering duty is en enabling merits, us to decide the there Rusk, great weight. Zemel v. titled being genuine no of material fact issues 1271, 14 L.Ed.2d 381 179; hearing. requiring evidentiary 16, Tallman, 380 U.S. Udall v. I 616; States 13 L.Ed.2d United Ct.5. agree Associations, Trucking We with defendants American v. grant Section 3-203 does defendants disregard one-year Moreover, independently inter- discretion 1345. we Congress requirements language residence plaintiffs. to pret used duty support This there- construction is manner. becomes like only by language validity the chal- ed not of the stat decide the fore to legislative history. lenged parts con- ute but also as so the statute The Senate District of Columbia Com strued.6 ber, public assistance, leaving of Colum- without of the District St. lie Welfare individually bia; Gray, and as Elizabeths. case of intervenor Donald Olay Mae Divi- LeGrant neither she nor her the Public Assistance Chief ap sion, Department children had resided here a when of Public Welfare plications Columbia; made. and Vivian them were District of Intake, Jodon, As- Public Chief

4. § 28 U.S.C. 2282: Division, Department Pub- sistance interlocutory permanent in- An District of Colum- lic Welfare junction enforcement, op- restraining the enjoined, be, are, bia, hereby any eration execution of Act of Con- pendente lite or further order until repugnance gress for Constitution court, denying as- grant- of the United not be States shall any plaintiffs by reason sistance by any judge ed district court or there- one-year application of unless therefor Title Section heard and determined a district court regula- (1967) and of Columbia Code judges of three under 2284 of this section Judge [District tions thereunder. title. noted on the Holtzoff’s dissent was operative 5. in its The order reads: order.] defendants, That N. Walter Tobriner, ap- individually parties questions President and as 6. None of ground plication of the Board of Commissioners of Section Columbia; District of B. Duncan John “Act of the Code is not an Mathe, individually Congress” meaning E. and Robert of Section within the as members of the of Commis- Board In this see Hobson v. 2282. connection Columbia; Hanson, D.C., F.Supp. sioners of Flem- the District individually Thompson, Nestor, ming Winifred G. Department as Director of Pub- the con- 4 L.Ed.2d is not sions, responsi have no to en- approaches its we choice but

A court paramount force upon command of the bility passing the constitutional no Constitution. We are to do sworn of an aware * * * approach less. do interprets We well to also Consti cautiously, though prede- Congress’ as this task all our This is so even tution. or- manifested, pres cessors have counseled. But the judgment judgment merely legis deal case, be shirked. passage of cannot ent by explicit than treatment lation rather In line with the ad caution thus question. More the constitutional of over, certainly monished, applicable to us Goldberg stated Mr. Justice Supreme Court, less than to the we Mendoza-Martinez, Kennedy the Court challenged portions should construe the 144, 159,83 S.Ct. 37 of Section 3-203 so as to a serious avoid 644: 9 L.Ed.2d reasonably question if able validity of an Act of Con- Since Rumely, to do so. United States 345 v. begin involved, analysis gress is we 543, 73 L.Ed. 770. S.Ct. 97 we are now mindful that the function But it clear to us seems discharging gravest most is “the impose one-year intended to duty is this Court called delicate requirements conditions, as similar to Blodgett Holden, perform.” upon to v. prevailing in conditions numerous other 105, 107, 72 48 S.Ct. 275 U.S. jurisdictions. There evidence Holmes, (separate opinion of 206 L.Ed. congressional depart intent from a J.). responsibility ful- This we here legislative widespread pattern rather powers respect all for the fill with pattern support this area. This lends recognition Congress, but of the interpretation defendants’ 3- Section of our Constitu- transcendent status precluding 203 as a discretioñ on their tion. disregard requirements. Our agreement 86, 103-104, interpreta Trop Dulles, with defendants’ In v. 356 U.S. requires tion 590, 599-600, us to reach constitu Mr. 2 L.Ed.2d 78 S.Ct. question. tional mat Chief Justice Warren has stated the it must ter as be considered: weight legislative pat Any provisions gives of the Constitution defendants’ constitutional tern adages distinguished however, position, are not time-worn or hollow vital, living They statutory interpretation, we think shibboleths. their gov- principles stem authorize limit considerations which overcome They powers equal protection of primarily ernmental in our Nation. government. guaranteed are the rules of the Fourteenth When the laws juris constitutionality applicable of an Act of this Con- Amendment gress challenged Court, in this Process we of the Due diction reason apply not, If we those rules. do the Fifth Amendment.7 Clause of the words the Constitution become Notwithstanding frequent use good more little than advice. recently condition, such a residence de- appears it federal courts When an Act of has it before Con- come validity. gress provi- federal conflicts Nine with one cision as to its trary, state, comparable though to a there the issue of constitu- not a problem. considering tional arose and this state in judicial pro- was decided under review equal protection offends cedures established the statute under Denial of arose, Amend of the Fifth which the determination Due Process Clause enjoin jurisdiction, ment, applicable direct suit such as have to we regulations operation Equal of a statute and well Protection Clause as the Fourteenth, In we in terms thereunder. this connection bear Sharpe, three-judge Bolling in mind also District v. the States. 884; Schnei § Court of 28 U.S.C. 74 98 challenge Rusk, applicable to of state-wide der v. 84 Columbia, legislation. District L.Ed.2d 218. applicants cases, separate will lesser judges, those in three jobs recently applicants dissenting, burdens than without judge consid- 17-2d, year’s Section questions or one residence. in- ered brief, equal protection Shapiro, Thompson violates the F. volved. v. purpose (a three-judge if its were Supp. because even District clause Court protect Connecticut); valid, finances [to of the District of Green clearly not, Welfare, Department states] F. v. Public Supp. (a three-judge unreasonable. classifications are District Delaware); Smith Id. at 338. Reynolds, F.Supp. (a three- holding court, In invalid Green the judge Eastern Dis- District Court of the one-year requirement for the Delaware Pennsylvania). Thompson trict of In assistance, test under said that the requirements, and Green the residence Equal was whether Protection Clause respectively, of Connecticut Dela- on residence was the classification based reasonably ware, held were unconstitutional. In purpose related to the Reynolds Smith v. a final decision has citing Doud, statute, Morey reached, not been but enforcement of 457, 1 L.Ed.2d 1485. Pennsylvania such a purpose pointed court then out that enjoined preliminarily on constitu- “ ‘to program grounds. tional happiness promote of all the welfare Thompson the court first concluded State, by providing public people of the provision arbitrary the constituted an needy and dis to all of its assistance classification the Four- violation of tressed; admin that shall be assistance prohibition against teenth Amendment’s humanely promptly due istered abridgment privilege state im- the regard family preservation of life for the munity ” of a citizen of United States the * * *’ F.Supp. at 177. 270 enjoy liberty to the to travel interstate. purposes in mind court With these the heavily upon The court relied Edwards one- the considered reasonableness People California, State 314 U.S. year to in relation 160, 164, 62 L.Ed. 119. The S.Ct. 86 holding, purposes, those general upon court also relied a more these that to It evident to us liberty travel, upheld citizen living less in Delaware families Supreme cases, passport Court in the public as- the denial than one including Dulles, 116, Kent v. carry out the stated fails to sistance purposes 1204, 1113, 126-127, L.Ed.2d 78 S.Ct. Assistance Public 745, Guest, and United States v. to frustrate in fact tends Code. 759, L.Ed.2d S.Ct. pre- residency requirement them. Thompson court said: prompt of the to some vents assistance right to travel and included exists needy and to and distressed State’s right within its is the dimensions “hu- antithesis extent De- establish nying in Connecticut. necessarily results It also mane.” gratuitous plaintiff even family solidarity pressure on her benefit her exercise of because given circumstances Nor unit. right effectively impedes say acceptable answer anit right. exercise per- they one are here until F.Supp. needy at 336. state’s not a sons are discrimination Thompson distressed. Second, decided the court residency length finds thus Equal on based Clause of the Protection justification no constitutional violated: Fourteenth Amendment was itself. * * purpose * declared the classifications of given consideration first year’s job have not residence or rea- We are three-judge cas- light purpose the above of 17- sonable in § showing they decisions again recent are es no because 2d because there is subject precisely implies same sonable classification action con- application. legitimate We sistent with decisions of more remote interests of ” * * * they certain, State, however, com- port principles established principal purpose A of Section 3-203 Although has the Court Court. obviously provide public is to particular situation dealt with needy. Moreover, immediately reveal its other areas decisions preceding provides section that the entire applicable principles, them we now and to public chapter shall be admin- turn. provide istered so as maximum Florida, McLaughlin In v. State of cooperation agencies with other render- 13 L.Ed. U.S. ing services order “to maintain Equal interpreting 2d our task strengthen family help appli- life and to follows: Protection stated Clause.is public recipients cants for assistance and self-support determine to attain The courts must reach and or self-care.” D.C. question (b)(1) pur- classifica- whether Code 3-202 These § poses keystone legis- reasonable in a statute are tions drawn constitute the ** light purpose *. lation. A bona fide Dis- resident trict of Columbia for six months who is Rash, Carrington indigent and without the means which 675, restated this 13 L.Ed.2d support herself and her children is language. exactly same test less need assistance than City Rock, Bates v. of Little 361 indigent for a full here year. purposes legisla- The basic 2d involving a case First Amend- need, those in assistance to tion — rights ment association, the Court de- strengthening family maintenance and that, clared life, self-support achievement of and self- When it is shown that state action faithfully more served care —are not significantly impinge up- threatens withholding applicants aid until constitutionally protected freedom Indeed, lived here for months. twelve duty it becomes the of this to an entire denial of assistance for determine whether the action bears qualified recipients to otherwise relationship reasonable to the achieve- may only values which statute erode governmental purpose ment of the as- promote. spread tries to The over justification. serted as its year’s public as- of the evils which time- may mean that to sistance seeks combat Gulf, Ry. Colorado & Santa Fe available, aid, will when it becomes Ellis, 165 U.S. separa- prevent too to late: Too late 41 power L.Ed. (1897), 666 of classi- family or tion of a into foster homes recognized permitted fication was Villages; Junior sickness too late to heal Amendment, the Fourteenth but exposure; too late due to malnutrition or equally Court added that: “it is true help boy succumbing to crime.8 to from such classification arbi- cannot be made trarily.” 3-203 two classes creates Section specifically, Raich, persons: More in resided in Truax v. those have of Columbia for one the District (1915), longer, here the Court stated that “rea- who have resided those housing, high Recent have confirmed: tuber- studies standard rates robbery, Burglary, mortality, rates and serious assaults infant low culosis family ownership single in- occur in areas characterized low of home come, dependen- high physical deterioration, use, dwellings, mixed land cy, concentrations, density. population racial Com- ethnic President’s homes, mothers, working and Ad- low Enforcement broken mission on Law Challenge skill, Justice, The levels of education and vocational ministration high unemployment, high proportions Society in a Free Crime males, single and sub- overcrowded Although which the year. difference in treatment for less than one imposes upon challenged recognized requirement Court has public There “legislature those need assistance. classifica- is free to make that, escape proposition from application no of a which is tions comprehensive carrying legislative purpose,” forward a are relevant character, program restrictions emphasized this the “ultimate test it has relationship having reasonable dif- no is not whether the classes program purposes are basic fer whether the differences between but subject the Con- pertinent attack because them to the immune obligation gress legal respect not under which classification was Thomp- inaugurate County, program. Asbury Hospital made.” v. Cass cases, son, Green, to which Smith respects, sup- de- have in other L.Ed. 6. If a six-month resident we referred one-year given port position. nied this the assistance resident, each circumstances which contend that also Defendants otherwise within the because it the restriction reasonable statute, the former is denied jurisdiction designed protect equal law, protection of clear- seeking more an influx ly no different treatment reasonable might generous than assistance legislative purposes. relation to the basic Congress made available elsewhere. disqualifying seen,10 finding As we have that effect. legis- plaintiffs engrafts upon thus one-year re reason for the provision. lation same an invalid Report given quirement reasons which led the courts uniformity. As Committee Senate cases, Thompson pendente and Green however, had suming, case, comparable lite in Smith to hold purpose advanced protective mind the provisions invalid with- as classifications his defendants, that the are reminded we purposes aout relation reasonable to the origin character of the localized torical legislation apply to our cases. Elizabethan was the Ill These laws enshrined Poor Laws.11 “settlement,” arguments from which notion We consider now Only urged concept descended. support the resi- were entitled requirement. settled there dence those who were community. No from a relief to receive gratu is said large part influence doubt due itously providing English sub perhaps a of these laws— be held to constitutional standards. of number influence —a conscious contrary. decisions are In Sher a legislatures adopted of the idea state Verner, bert 398, 404, v. pre aas period of residence minimum 965, Supreme 10 L.Ed.2d eligibility. requisite But Court “unemploy held that the fact that twenty-five pointed out more than Court compensation ap ment benefits ” ago years that pellant’s ‘right’ merely ‘privilege’ but theory limiting poor does not save a statute of the Elizabethan laws such 9 rights longer infirmity.” years, no “constitutional fits the facts. Recent particularly past decade, There is no indication in our cases that Congress unequal protection by growing recognition desired marked society eligibility the laws. that in an viewed industrial the task provision justified. needy judicial providing prob Our to the assistance lem is to has determine reasonableness ceased to be local character. Note, Act, 9. See also 11. Eliz. Harv.L.Rev. The Poor Relief 43 2; Act, 1662, 1599-1602 c. The Poor Relief 14& c. 12. Car. Supra, p. 10. California, People ground Edwards v. State constitutionally was “a im- 160, 174-175, permissible separate basis for state treat- 86 L.Ed. 119. ment.” The court continued: difficulty accepting protection public Another purse, protective assumption giving worthy consti- abstract, matter how support challenged pro- permissible tutional to the not a basis for differen- vision, speculative tiating is the character between who otherwise assumption standpoint. possess from a factual the same status in their rela- Deputy tionship In Commissioner of So- to the State of Delaware. York, cial Welfare the State of New Assuming prevent that a period of which has not had a minimum program abuse of the nearly century stated that would be valid —a case of abuse is not be- preceding per two cent challenged provision fore sweeps us—the recipients of all had before it all who have than re- less lived in New York less than quired residence, including bona fide res- year.12 In Moreland Commis- jurisdiction idents who had come to this York, sion on Public New Welfare entirely reasons disassociated from a lengthy study after a of the entire fabric desire to obtain relief. This is too broad public assistance, stated that it light resulting to be sustained in opposed to residence on the inequality of treatment: ground [designed present laws “the [A]ssuming, purpose argu- for the prevent pro- are sufficient abuse] only, prohibition ment the basic taxpayer penalizing the tect the without constitutional, it does follow that people unfortunate.” “To assume there is no constitutional limit to the ac- are influenced to move or not to move means which be used to enforce it. cording availability help on a dy- relief basis is to misunderstand the Oyama California, State of human namics behavior.” This 633, 646-647, especially A in the United true States. 249; concurring opinion Mr. see committee has stated Trop Dulles, Justice Brennan always mobility “[geographical at 78 S.Ct. at he dis where people.”15 been a habit of the American cussed the need of to achieve open desired ends alternative methods Even some citizens do objection. to less greater enter a state in order to obtain language Thompson, particularly aid, effect, possibility welfare of this case, to our it is said: alone, is not in the circumstances suffi require ap- cient to the court to sustain the f here a time limit there'were [I] against plied all, purpose residence condition. As sim equally for the case, fraud, investigation ilar prevention contention the Green interposed court indigency the decision of the Su adminis- or other reasonable preme People undoubtedly need, in Edwards v. would trative California, supra, saying State valid. Commissioner of Connecticut’s “ * * * Kasius, Happens 12. in a What State With- at aid is not 28: welfare Requirements, people move, out Residence in Resi- a * * lure ón * migration Laws: dence Road Block to Human to where liv- states (1956). ing high despite Welfare 19-20 is attractive strict requirements.” (Emphasis residence York, 13. State of New Moreland Commis- original.) Welfare, sion on Public Welfare Investigating 15. Na- House Select Comm. (1963). State New York See 27-28 Migration, Analysis tional Defense Hyde, also The Trouble with Residence Bearing Material the Economic So- on Laws, (1958). Public 16 Welfare 105 Aspects cial of the Case of Edwards v. Kasius, supra, Cong., People California, 14. note at also 20. See State 77th Report, supra Moreland note Commission 1st Sess. 2 one-year frankly approved no resi- residence re- testified that Welfare any requirement quirements of states. fact is that is needed for dence merely 602(b) purposes. provides, this Section Health, connection, Secretary Green, F.Supp. at 338.16 And see approve Education and Welfare shall not payments taint- to the desire avoid where any plan basis which denies aid insufficient or based on ed with fraud eligibility requirement of more were information, said which the court year. than justify legitimate ends, did not course legisla- “par- possibility one-year As to the requirement, residence ticularly consequences ture intended confine assistance view ” ** * jurisdiction F.Supp. need, domiciliaries provides one-year pro- an ob- residence at Whether or not a narrower 177. jective legislative status, designed prevent would test such abuse vision upon depend its Green court held: valid would of be course terms.17 residency requirement the one prevents many applicants from obtain- choice of twelve months de ing though they are assistance even plaintiffs equal protection of nies clearly living in with an in- Delaware because, the laws in manner inconsis ** indefinitely; tention to remain legis purpose tent with the basic open question “wheth- court left lation, it bars from assistance them constitutionally confine er a state could granted purpose, to others. basic That pro- public the benefits of stated, simply aid is to members grams own We to its domiciliaries.” community who in need. That are upon not called to decide also are pur serves other question, disputed for it poses administration, or dis —ease plaintiffs bona fide domiciliaries couragement jurisdic of movement to the for reasons dis- the District who came help tion —does not defendants when re- to obtain associated the desire consequence primary is to defeat lief not elsewhere available.19 legislation. purpose of Other means secondary accomplish purposes suggested Finally, it is sought. especially This when true one-year provision is in perpetuates the discrimination con program falls with whole validated the designed ditions result hold No such it. We otherwise. cure.18 Thompson, to follow was held It would and Smith cases. is also said defendants Green that Con- impute gress 602(b), an intention in 42 U.S.C. where the reasonable § Congress. Moreover, 203 is basis for Section the federal to state contribution Code, forth, Chapter programs 3 of the of Title is set Clearly referred which we have 16. federal courts to administrative convenience is not harmony adequate support views in and of in- are more in itself fringement right. this matter. Forssenius, Harman v. Report, Moreland Commission See 50; L.Ed.2d Schneider supra 13, at “Administrative- note 28: Rusk, * * * investigating ly, cost of 12 L.Ed.2d 218. enforcing residence laws costs cases 17. The reliance defendants in this con money than is saved.” more upon Heydenreich People nection ex rel. Lyons, plaintiff regulation 374 Ill. N.E.2d under which 19. The assistance, Barley (1940), 132 A.L.R. 511 not take M. was denied does into Vera necessity avoiding residing in institu- account consti on her based tion, reasoning infringement by channeling de- of our tutional falls with the plaintiffs, directly as other so to meet more cision to the sought light especially the factual situa- abuse to be avoided. More Barley over, plaintiff great respect outlined as for the Illinois tion of court, 3, supra. the more recent decisions of the footnote governmental chapter objective,” Bolling 223 of conclusive- the Section ly Sharpe, demonstrates entertained explicit: (1954), L.Ed. 884 such intention. and that in Section to deter digents settling in the District any provision chapter the or If of this objective, Columbia such an Ed any person application or thereof People California, wards v. State invalid, re- circumstance is held 86 L.Ed. 119 appli- chapter mainder of and the per- of such other cation af- shall be sons circumstances HOLTZOFF, Judge (dissent- District thereby. fected ing). support Views respectfully I dissent from conclu- one-year advanced condition are well majority sion of the District Judge brother, by dissenting prescribing Columbia statute a residence Clarie, dissenting Thompson. We requirement eligibility of one for readily acknowledge no absolute there receiving for assistance is uncon- certainty Equal about the reach of the stitutional, transgressing Equal Protection law. Clause this area Protection of the Laws Clause judgment be “But ordeal cannot Amendment, Fourteenth and as inter- supra, Trop Dulles, shirked.” fering my with freedom of travel. at en- S.Ct. at 600. areWe opinion the enactment is a valid exercise couraged judgment to make the we do not legislative power. Thompson, Green decisions in Each of the three consolidated actions salutary Smith, but the over-all now before Court was instituted entering action into the applicant for programs welfare 3- which Section Columbia, request whose part. 203 is This national movement to- was denied local Welfare authori- ward assistance where is need- ties, ground ineligible on the that she was ed, problem, and the human terms of the had because she not been a resident permit greater court somewhat lati- the District for one Columbia at least deciding tude this difference year. instance, plaintiff In each seeks treatment of who those in our midst judgment setting aside ac- the adverse protec- unequal are in need amounts to tion of local Public authori- Welfare tion of laws if treatment than ap- ties; requiring pass them to on the respect less were to some matter regard plication for relief without living critical their conditions. declaring requirement; statutory provision imposing the resi- appropriate judgment An will be en- dence unconstitutional. be ruling tered based on our one- of Section in- The District Columbia statute 3-203(a) (b) of 3-203, our Code invalid are cases is volved D.C.Code § application plaintiffs provisions in like pertinent those of which read parties circumstances. Counsel for follows: requested agreement to seek on the Eligibility public assist- 3-203. § taking form judgment, into considera- ance. any changes parties tion who are shall awarded “Public assistance reorganization defendants due to any needy individual to or on behalf Government of the District of Columbia. (a) Dis- has resided in the who either year immediately preced- trict one BAZELON, Judge (concurring). Chief application ing filing the date his Judge assistance; (b) I opinion concur in FAHY’S only emphasize protec- year immediately pre- would equal born within requires aid, statutory ceding application tion classification for such reasonably “proper parent related to or other relative with whom quently, dependent living insofar aid chil- in child is resided concerned, require- immediately year pre- residence dren one District for (c) by birth; ceding otherv/ise District of Columbia or ment exacted categories expressly by authorized the Social within one grants Security by chapter: Act, under which Federal this established ” * * * purpose. [Emphasis supplied.] for made to the States are complaints do While the actions these (a) constitutionality of clauses The expressly not provision attack the this (b) attacked above statute is Security Act, nev- Social actions. ertheless, necessary by implication, a plaintiff is In two of these cases the ruling of Columbia stat- that the District dependent The children. a mother with is unconstitutional must also strike ute for funds out of which dependent down its wake the disbursed children is Security authorizing en- Act Social (including Colum- District of States requirements. actment of local such bia) part provided the individu- are imposing specific residence Statutes grant part a al States and in receiving prerequisites for relief have Government, Federal authorized many for a existence States Security Act, Subchapter IV, en- Social long They not restricted to time. are titled, Aid for “Grants States dependent children, in broad aid scope a but Needy Families with Chil- Services to generally relief are dren”, seq. In 601 et order 42 U.S.C. § payment usual resi- of all kinds. The eligible grant for for a Federal to be requirement year. Without dence any attempt is one purpose, required a submit State making at exhaustive plan Health, Secretary of Educa- enumeration, partial survey shows containing Welfare, tion and certain among following States, others, im- 602(a). specified provisions, 42 U.S.C. § pose of at least (b) of contains Subsection that section receiving year qualification one as a following requirement: Maryland, any type: West Vir- relief any “(b) Secretary approve shall Carolina, ginia, Carolina, North South speci- plan which the conditions fulfills Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Ne- (a) section, fied in except of this subsection Colorado, Kansas, Texas, Utah braska, any approve that he shall Oregon. Virginia imposes such imposes plan as a condition types of condition for relief. several eligibility for aid to families with de- accepted provisions appro- Such are children, pendent require- a residence priate indispensable, prudent, respect to ment which denied aid with administering any system of features (1) any residing child State needy persons. obvious relief year has resided in immediately preceding the State one purpose to mini- of such restrictions is application imposition and mize likelihood aid, (2) for such who was born though abuses, they result even at times preceding immediately within one hardship to some individuals. application, parent or other if the expe- wisdom, desirability, policy, living relative whom the child diency of conditions are not within one has resided immediately preceding the State for purview judiciary, but birth.” legislature. The be determined powers pri- words, Security vested of Government In other Social body Legislative receiving marily expressly in an elective States authorizes they dependent grants and an elective Executive. Were Federal children, for aid to require- impose to be shifted whole courts, holding composed eligibility of- of members relief, ments for tenure, require- by permanent we would limitation fice that such residence govern- popular year. form of Conse- cease to ments shall not exceed it, may oligarchy supplant lightly would eration. Statutes set ment. An not be by judiciary theory that aside matter benevolent. how they limi- some constitutional contravene majority If of the conclusion principle It is tation. a basic that there sound, necessary consequence would strong presumption is a of constitution- be be 'that local statutes must all such ality every legislative as to enactment. specific resi- deemed invalid that no clearly presumption This must be over- may dence constitution- be come a declared before statute be eligibility ally imposed as States validity presumption invalid. sys- payments. relief welfare form, potent not a mere but a rule that tems of would have most States actively applied by must be the courts. reorgan- transformed, revamped, be Again, by Cardozo,1 as was “The said ized. presumption more should be While the number and stat- nature of pious formula, than a to be sanctimoni- relating legislation utes to welfare that ously repeated opening opin- at the of an would be rendered invalid under the rul- forgotten ion and at the end.” ing majority need not deter declaring courts all of them un- developed Chief Justice Marshall clearly constitutional, they if jus- expounded fact in a the doctrine if transgress limitation, some par- constitutional controversy ticiable instituted nevertheless, the number having standing and extent ty sue, is deter- it they such statutes and the applicable fact mined that an statute accepted an feature of welfare the issues conflict Constitution with the generally, pause. should lead the court should be determined accordance Doubts should be resolved in favor of declared the Constitution and statute validity, upsetting invalid, instead Marbury Madison, all over the v. Cranch. country plans nevertheless, well-established He, local called 2 L.Ed. 60. administering relief funds. pre- for caution in the exercise of this rogative be and announced should it judiciary Members of the must not be of incom- exerted if conviction influenced their own views of the strong. patibility He said was clear and expediency, wisdom, desirability Peck, legislation, in Fletcher v. their Cranch. own to- attitude charity. They ward limit them- L.Ed. 162: considering objectively selves to and sole- question, “The a law be whether ly power the constitutional to enact repugnancy void consti- for its being challenged. statute that As was times, tution, is, question at all said Cardozo The Paradoxes seldom, ought delicacy, much which Legal Science, “Legislature well affirmative, ever, to decided in the be interpreter court guardian is an and a court, in a when case. The doubtful 121). (p. constitutional immunities.” impelled by duty to render determining justiciable While cases judgment, unworthy would be brought and controversies before station, it be could unmindful by persons having standing Courts obligations solemn station sue, the courts slight a conflict be- imposes. case im- But is not on tween perti- plication vague conjecture, that the nent provision, legislature must have pronounced be to have is to recourse the Constitution as su- powers, acts to transcended its and its preme ignore law of the land opposition be considered as void. The statute, thereby adjudging the statute law between the constitution and unconstitutional, power judge should be such that feels render such strong a decision must exercised clear and conviction their caution, circumspection incompatibility and delib- with each other.” Science, Legal p.

1. The Paradoxes of ; Harris, in Brown He this doctrine United reiterated States 77 290; Maryland, 12 27 L.Ed. Wheat. v. State Cemetery, Close v. Glenwood L.Ed. 678: 408; said, truly “It has Atchison, Topeka R. Fe R. & Santa leg- every presumption is in favor 609, Matthews, 96, 104, 19 174 U.S. S.Ct. act, the and that whole burden islative 909; Power 43 L.Ed. Middleton v. Texas proof con- of on lies him denies its Light 152, Co., 157, & 249 39 U.S. stitutionality.” 527; Young, 227, 63 L.Ed. & O’Gorman the summarized' Chief Justice Waite Co., Inc. U.S. v. Hartford Fire Ins. 282 following manner, principle the same 251, 257-258, 130, 75 51 L.Ed. 324. Sinking-Fund Cases, 700, 718, 25 99 U.S. Supreme principles the Court The L.Ed. 496: guide it- primarily for as a formulated required duty, our “It when deciding questions self judicial regular proceed- of course controlling binding and fortiori Congress ings, of to declare an act Ap- of Courts District Courts and legislative pow- void if not within the years early the Re- peals. of From States; er dec- of United this but through the first half of except laration should never be made Century, Court Nineteenth Every possible pre- in a clear case. consistently rigidly these adhered to validity sumption of favor of validity upon of passing doctrines in statute, until this continues legislative Thus, between enactments. beyond contrary is shown a rational Congress Acts 1860 two of 1790 and government doubt. One branch-of by the Su- declared unconstitutional were cannot the domain of encroach on an- them, was preme of which One Court.2 danger. safety other without Madison, Marbury stricken down v. depends institutions in no small 60, Cranch was a L.Ed. degree on a strict observance of this importance minor of the Judicial Code salutary rule.” jurisdiction relating Su- Coming times, down our own Mr. preme Court. Justice in Hardware Stone Dealers’ Mu- A attitude toward shift tual Fire Insurance Co. of v. Wisconsin began legislative validity measures al., 151, 158, Glidden et Co. 284 U.S. subsequent after War and Civil 69, 71, 214, empha- 52 S.Ct. L.Ed. Amend- the Fourteenth enactment sized that when deals with legislation in ment. time to time From subject leg- scope is within the held field was social and economic power, presumption islative “the of con- repugnant Due Process invalid stitutionality indulged.” is to be Equal Clause Protection Clause or Dairy In United States National v. These Amendment. Fourteenth Products, 83 S.Ct. provisions into to enact were deemed 9 L.Ed.2d Mr. Justice re- Clark right freedom Constitution principle strong pre- ferred that a using privilege one’s contract and sumptive attaches to an property governmental inter- without Congress. beginning During decade ference. enunciating of Acts of applying the number Cases this high point.3 legion. following to a invalid rose doctrine are are a declared invariably were decisions few Almost of them: Trustees of Dartmouth College protests against emphatic con- Woodward, reached v. Wheat. 629; Legal dissenting opinions of members Cases, L.Ed. tained in Tender minority, 287; in the Wall. who were Munn the Court regarded as en- Illinois, State of who have been but p. Jackson, Jackson, Struggle 40. 3. H. Id. H. Robert Robert Supremacy, p. 40. Judicial far-sighted. alone lightened, sideration progressive and always dissenting opinions part of Court had disavowed form this Their upon history right judgment to intrude its of our constitutional classics questions policy or morals. and constitutional law. pronounce when York, 198 New In Lochner State of regulation necessary prohibition 937, in 539, 49 * * necessary if it ever regulating the hours which a statute During bakery numerous era held were labor invalid there contract, dissenting opinions interfering expressions of a the freedom culminating celebrat- tenor a forceful similar Mr. Justice Holmes wrote dissenting opinion Mr. Justice dissenting opinion, has been often ed which Butler, quoted worthy repetition. States v. Stone United 546): p. in which (p. 1, 56 S.Ct. He said 25 S.Ct. Adjust- Agricultural the Court held the upon an eco- “This case is decided His to unconstitutional. ment be large part theory a nomic which ringing frequent reitera- deserve words country If it does entertain. not 78-79, 87, said, (pp. tion. He agreed question a I were whether pp. 325, 329): 56 S.Ct. study theory, that I desire to should making up power long to of courts declare further and before “The subject my to that But I do not conceive statute unconstitutional is mind. strongly my guiding principles duty, I of decision to be because two agreement disagree- ought my or to from believe absent which never be right nothing judicial ment has to do with consciousness. One is only majority embody opin- with the to their are concerned courts power statutes, their to not with ions in law. settled various enact is con- that state wisdom. other that while decisions of court The regulate may power and state laws unconstitutional stitutions exercise legis- legislative many ways branches life we as which the executive might judicial injudicious, government subject to lators think of the as this, you tyrannical, restraint, upon our own like as check Herbert which, equally Hth [Emphasis supplied.] liberty Amendment does Spencer’s to contract. with this interfere Social Statics.” not enact * * * The Mr. government “Courts are self-restraint.” exercise of ^[******] power that must not only agency be own assumed sense to again govern.” [Emphasis spoke capacity Mr. out have Justice Holmes against emphatically protest supplied.] majority Hammer decision of minority many of these cases The Dagenhart, 38 S.Ct. time time intimated Supreme L.Ed. which unconsciously majority influenced were Court invalidated an Act personal predilections own their prohibiting transportation in interstate The situa- economic matters. social and goods manufactured commerce moment became of tion sufficient

factory employing his In child labor. of the United States Presidents two dissenting opinion, Holmes Mr. Justice ways. register protests in different p. 534): part (p. said, in suggested Roosevelt President Theodore remedy, thought Franklin D. President propriety “I had As a another.4 power Roosevelt recommended exercise admitted to time at of coincidence about exist matter some was for the con- cases Supremacy, pp. Struggle interesting for Judicial 4. For two active accounts Wheeler, seq.; participants controversy K. Yankee and Burton in the involved et seq. West, pp. proposals 319 et in the of President Franklin Jackson, Roosevelt, D. see Robert H. therefore, that, Franklin tions are invalid proposal of President when immunity Congress, extend to torts should defeated in Roosevelt was groups So, excepted too, certain list. reverse seemed Court employees, overruling persons, such as attitude, going some Government as far scope been held to outside reference be prior to which decisions Surely, Act. Tort made, Co. v. Federal Claims Hotel Coast West excep- it cannot be contended that Parrish, that, likewise Justice tions invalid Mr. Chief which by judicial opinion. therefore, Gov- Hughes prevailing construction wrote employees are entitled ernment in American A new era Act. tendency Claims Tort history of the Su- benefits Federal arrived. leg- preme welfare social annul invalidity discernible No basis prevailed islation, for several had grants welfare in a limitation drastically ended, and was decades was of the State. relief funds residents progressive supplanted trend. a more fact, majority opinion so concedes. pendulum hoped will It is however, compelled not legislature, swing inaugurate another back and determining matter leave cycle personal, said that when it particular person is or is whether judg- predilections of social and economic officials. to administrative resident unconsciously es influence decisions administratively a course would be Such legislation, constitutionality —even slow, inefficient, as well ponderous and may though predilections be differ- perceived expensive. as No reason ent. simple may why Congress provide a not statutory permanent provision distinguishing my opinion for In formula challenged clearly persons other in these cases from residents the State any legislative power. sojourning Re- happen in it at valid to be exercise payments one lief and welfare Gov- for one Residence time. rights They grants. are not numerous ernment are such a test. There are legal obligations. legis- payment privileges on conferred in denied lative branch Government residents of but which are a State right providing grants persons boundaries. has a select other within objects outstanding example and the the residence for which An spec- voters, they imposing a That it whom shall made. for grants length to make to members within State. chooses ified group occupations it is under limited one not mean that are at times does Certain grants may obligation examples an to make similar to residents. Numerous group, another even members be cited. may though group be similar second question arose A somewhat similar worthy. equally A to the first Nestor, Flemming Congress fact fortiori 1367, L.Ed.2d 1435. The Social grants made to members authorized to be cutting Security provision Act contains group, empower one does age insurance off old benefits them to members courts to extend any disability from insurance benefits group. the second deported person from the who has been any specified meeting legal United Even connection with States grounds, 402(n) obligations, 42 U.S.C. and moral § challenged objects provision was of this make distinctions between upheld persons. Supreme example, by in that case. The For the Federal Section, constitutionality even Tort of this waived Claims though con- of a sovereign immunity it related benefits United tributory to which excepted, insurance scheme States suit tort. how- payment, periodic ever, specified Surely, it had made certain torts. insured grants, consisting as excep- of mere instead of would not be contended that migrants becoming for discussing a Mecca case here. payments relief from other where States as question Court wrote 1373): are smaller. This is reasonable p. (p. 611, 80 S.Ct. follows legitimate purpose. permissibility judging “In * * * 402(n)] cut-off survey payments [§ in some A of relief standpoint, it is not within from this States, compared neighboring authority to whether determine of Colum- District with those made Congressional judgment expressed bia, clearly reason for demonstrates the equitable, in that section is sound possible of Colum- of the District fear comports well or ill it might whether confronted with bia that it purposes of the Act. ‘Whether applicants prospective invasion in the wisdom or unwisdom resides States, it if were relief from other Title forth in set scheme benefits qualification. For the residence II, say. The answer ending for us to is not during example, the fiscal inquiries come grant to such must average monthly June Congress, concern not the Our courts. dependent children aid here, often, power not with family is with Columbia * * * Particularly when wisdom.’ $123.59; $168.08; Virginia, it was withholding non- of a we deal with a Maryland, $153.22; West it was benefit under a social wel- Carolina, contractual Virginia, only $98.14; in North this, program average such as we fare per person. The it was $24.24 recognize Clause that the Due Process age grant of old thought interpose can be a bar $67.20, as com- District of Columbia was patently if the statute manifests a ar- Maryland; pared $48.16 with $60.29 lacking classification, utterly bitrary Virginia; in North West $58.06 justification.” grant in rational monthly average Carolina. The of aid to disabled was $81.72 Equal of As concerns Protection the compared with Columbia, as District of the Clause of Fourteenth Laws the Virginia; Maryland; in $75.57 $77.82 Amendment, it needs no citation Virginia; $64.36 West $45.77 to establish that reasonable authorities Carolina. North a of that classifications not violation infirmity the found Admittedly, The provision. second it majority opinion is that the statute to differentiate between reasonable freedom with pur- limitation interferes residents and for the non-residents throughout right travel pose making The to payments^ travel. The relief priv- concededly one-year realm is one simple method is a ileges a citizen distinguishing immunities of two between Clearly the District groups. Legislature United States. The not have does States, any taking one of adopt ponderous system or to Columbia a power block to applicant would be without as to to determine evidence each residing any person within entrance of applicant a bona whether fide way directly States, any United or resident As heretofore the State. travel between stated, to interfere with a method of administration right does of this might bog The existence States. well relief down the whole however, Congress, from system delays, expenses not bar and frustra- railroad, or imposing airline Legislatures a tax on may rea- tion. have valid making thereby travel limiting payments bus tickets and to relief sons costly. constitute It specific does more for a residents the State right of with period. invalid interference we would minimum Whether any State, to approve travel State matter of the same course as a Columbia, to to the policy expediency State immaterial. The voters, requirements impose purpose manifest of occupa- specified pursuit of prevent particular or for the to or District State reasoning B, Group applies the result is that the to bers of same The tions. eligibility invalid. to becomes scheme entire payments. Courts not accord benefits relief Group to B the Act members of People of The decision in Edwards practically amending Con- the statute. California, State gress may say if cannot well we clearly 119 is 62 distinguishable. L.Ed. grants Group limit our A, members invalid The statute held grants if at all we shall made it a criminal offense in that made case Group InB. must include members bringing bring in to assist go words, subject back other any indigent person was who the State Congress, deal- entire statute and the enact- of the State. This not a resident ing assistance, D.C.Code § interference ment created direct 3:201-223 must be deemed invalid. right opinion of the of travel. clearly pointed out Court Dorchy v. Mr. Justice Brandeis being all that was determined Kansas, State of attempt by propriety of an State a case that indigent prohibit transportation non- authoritative, has often cited as question of relief to residents and the governing principle as summarized the page At was not newcomers involved. follows: page S.Ct. at inherently provision, unob- “But stated: jectionable, separa- cannot be deemed “ * * * upon not now called we are that, appears stand- ble unless it both anything to determine other than given ing alone, legal can be effect propriety attempt of an a State legislature intended and that the prohibit transportation indi- stand, in case others territory. gent non-residents into should included in the act and bad held obliga- The nature and extent of its fall.” tion to relief afford to newcomers contains fact not here involved.” severability not decisive. clause is very important There is another merely proof from the burden of shifts aspect subject under discussion. plaintiff defendant on the If the exclusion of question whether the balance jurisdiction for at resided operative statute can remain down, least is stricken the one is excised invalid. plan not a entire relief falls. This is 44, 71, Wallace, In Hill v. 259 U.S. provision statute one of case where the the Court 66 L.Ed. the that so disconnected from balance is stated: provi- the rest can stand even if one the “ * * * undoubtedly pro- such a sion be held invalid. Here the to courts furnishes assurance vision requirement part en- is of the scheme sepa- they may properly sustain that Congress. by it that If is held acted the partly provisions of rate sections Congress may provide for the not welfare doubt without hesitation act invalid payments one or another without kind they have been would as to whether including sojourned persons who have Legislature had adopted, if even the year, jurisdiction for less than one invalidity part. been advised not that if does follow exclusion power give court it does not But payment may annulled be made sup- [Emphasis the act.” amend Congress ex- whom has those plied.] pressly passes If excluded. making grants if exclusion In this instance to members an Act persons who have not resided Group that Con- A and Court holds year, jurisdiction gress constitutionally for at least one may do so that intention extending mem- stricken the benefits down without group I am not should receive the benefit unmindful fact that a this majority requirement the Court Act, the would similar in Dela- amending expanding recently Act and ware has been held unconstitu- Court, part three-judge scope. tional exclusion Department Welfare, warp of the statute and Green v. of Public and woof F.Supp. 173; separable and likewise that clause. the Court strikes trict of Columbia bility the Court doctrine clause as follows: Railroad discussed 758, 767-768, The conclusion is withstanding stitutional dependent upon one another.” vor separable, altogether by the “The In Carter to hold wholly rewrite a statute and in no presumption which would otherwise be indulged, act which “Such a able command. legislative intent, It In Railroad Retirement the Act clause operates as an legislative way statutory and the effect Co., ineffective. divisibility measure the effect of succinctly of an intent as follows: declaration v. Carter Coal 44 S.Ct. alters they must not be different part effect of a aid needy uphold declaration, down the Dorchy limiting viewed aid to construction but is presumption inescapable entirety ** rule summarized determining individuals who give it an effect provides another that unless Board v. reversing not an inexor- as a whole.” Co., arises Kansas, 264 the severa- ^[*] severability L.Ed. 686. we cannot it shall be the Court mutually But in order benefits part sought uncon- a rule in fa- Alton Dis- not- compulsory scrutiny The statute nificance. carefully into the United States fruit of would ute of Its beneficent means for its Committees. fits of the With due deference and scheme. question striking alone. hensive, come to the attention of either Court. who comes into the State without visible within one provision basing eligibility on residence two suasive. vincing ferent over, akin to that quirement. Connecticut Clarie’s detailed studies the President. courts, F.Supp. Connecticut the Connecticut statute is from the Social epochal invalidate Neither than the on the dissenting opinion down the residence long far-reaching, considered Apparently In the Connecticut case the decisions It was framed on the support old welfare introduced social It excludes from the bene- statute involved severability Security social and economic after contributory age customary decision, majority Thompson It was thorough a vote Delaware statute Committees insurance arrival. numerous here progressive on a entire respect do not seem applies thoroughly point did not and whether was is somewhat view. is a consider residence re- studies large any person two plans more con- insurance quite case, statutory for these and for persons. held un- Shapiro, compre- created for aid to one. Judge More- scale. basis not a stat- per- sig- dif- nor per- unemployment have resided in the District of Columbia accorded insurance year, security indepen- for at least one the entire statute manent economic nullified, persons had because did not dence to millions who legislate grants anyone make to become lived in dread as what was eligibility age requirement, em- does not meet the of loss of them in old case pub- qualification annulled, ployment lengthy period. and if this for a legislation, entire Act falls. The Court lic assistance features children, dependent provisions construction extend the such as aid to legislation, cre- included in in this were it. The involved only remedy legislation. insurance would be ated as auxiliaries new constitutionality The basic schemes. was sustained the Act Helvering leading case Davis, 1307. No feature stat- pres- until

ute been invalidated time. ent stands, majority If decision of the dependent provisions chil- for aid to thrown confusion and dren will be into destroyed. possibly The entire assis- of Columbia nullity. Such tance likewise becomes regretted. an outcome must be ASSOCIA AMERICAN COMMUTERS TION, Inc., Gallop, Julian Luis A. Herz, co-chairmen, Christ S. Deborah guardian ad man her father litem, Gallop, plaintiff Mar A. Luis Herz, guardian ian her father E. Herz, litem, plaintiff ad Julian S. Diefenbach, William S. Bert Silbert Smith, Plaintiffs, Lewis LEVITT, Individually Arthur and as Comptroller of the State of New al., York et Defendants. No. 67 Civ. 2534. United States District Court S. D. New York.

Dec.

Case Details

Case Name: Harrell v. Tobriner

Court Name: District Court, District of Columbia

Date Published: Mar 4, 1968

Citation: 279 F. Supp. 22

Docket Number: Civ. A. 1497-67, 1579-67, and 1749-67

Court Abbreviation: D.D.C.