*1 Individually and on behalf HURLEY, Rose Hurley, children, Doreen minor of her Plaintiffs, al., et Individually his
Barry LARE, VAN of the Acting capacity as Commissioner Department Services Social York, al., et Defendants. State Individually TAYLOR, Be and on
Annie child, minor, dependent Mar half her Otey, garet Taylor, Individu Charlotte minor, depend ally on Behalf of her Otey, child, and on behalf Kevin ent situated, similarly persons other all Plaintiffs, Individually, VINE, ca and in his
Abe LA pacity the New as Commissioner Department Ser York State of Social vices, Shuart, M. Individual and James ly, capacity his Commissioner County Department of of the Nassau Services, Social Defendants. 699.
Nos. 72 Civ. 73 Civ. Court,
United States District
S. and E. York. D. New Aug. *2 1208, 1211, Lavine, 497 F.2d
(2d 1974). Cir. actions have been consolidated issues of the constitutional consideration three-judge 28 U.S.C. §§ court. Wyman, Gaddis Cf. *3 (S.D.N.Y.1969), F.Supp. aff’d Bowens, Wyman per nom. curiam sub S.Ct. U.S. urged New York that the is Legal Society “lodger” regulations (1) an create Aid of Westchester State Plains, County, Y., plain- presumption offensive to White for N. Schwartz, rights Hurley; priva- process; (2) tiffs Martin A. invade due cy Y., deny Kahn, Plains, association; N. and Lawrence White free S. and protection equal of the laws. For the of counsel. below, set forth we conclude reasons County Law Nassau Commit- Services regulations question un- that the tee, Inc., Hempstead, Y., plain- N. for constitutional. Taylor Otey; Leonard S. tiffs and designed by Clark, Y., Hempstead, program N. of counsel. The AFDC was help Congress and “to maintain Lefkowitz, Atty. N. Gen. of Louis J. encourage strengthen life,” recip- and to defendants; City, Y., New York personal . . inde- to “retain . ients Atty. Hirshowitz, A. First Asst. Samuel pendence with . . . care consistent Margolin, Gen., Constance B. Judith protection” dependent children. of and Attys. Gen., Gordon, of counsel. Asst. enforced, As the state 601. 42 U.S.C. § HAYS, Judge, and Before Circuit goals. regulations corrosive of these WEINSTEIN, BAUMAN, District generous spirit of The nation’s concern Judges. poor, with its concomitant desire developmental equalize opportuni- to ty WEINSTEIN, Judge. District young generation impover- a ished, has been thwarted. Unless complain on Plaintiffs behalf of a tendency clear in such checked there regulations a 10,000 class some that the strip wel- are before us to regulations automatically reducing State vestiges recipients fare last dependent aid to with families children worth, personal to force their sense of (42 601-644) (AFDC) if the U.S.C. §§ group them, a used describe words recipient noncontributing houses edge existing extinction, “lodger” are unlawful both constitu- life, people on as without without “live statutory grounds. Separate tional and humanity.” passion, beyond M. C. rights brought civil actions were Turnbull, (Si- People Mountain Southern and Eastern Districts of New 1972). ed. mon & Touchstone Shuster 1983; York. 42 U.S.C. 28 U.S.C. § § 1343(3) ; Fed.R.Civ.P. I. FACTS In each action the District Court sus- CHALLENGED REGULATIONS. A. plaintiffs’ statutory tained claim with- considering out provides constitutional issues. program The federal AFDC Hurley Lare, Van matching assist with funds to states (S.D.N.Y.1973); “needy Lavine de- . . who has been child . (unreported), Slip Op. (E.D. parental support prived 73-C-699 rea- or care N.Y.1973). Appeals death, The Court of re- continued absence son of versed and home, incapaci- remanded physical the cases “for or mental convening three-judge parent of a ty court to con- of a . . .”42 U.S.C. § regulations sider the (a). Among constitutional issues. New York housing space less own use are distributed needs its funds under which AFDC consequently money challenged N.Y.C. needs less here—18 are the two recipi- space. pay for 352.30(d), less The second alterna- reduces a R.R. which § recipient presumption tive is that a fam- allowance if ent’s shelter lodg- “lodger,” noncontributing ily able to house houses 352.31(a) (3) (iv), which not if the could reason- 18 N.Y.C.R.R. er—even recipi- ably a female man with subsist less treats ent but not married to —somehow “lodger.” money pay her as share needs less its Apparently These read: of this rent. the rationale could, responsible non-legally sup- “A [for should, would, pay and therefore his port persons] the aided relative proper her of the rent if forced share person household unrelated recipient family’s a reduction receiving pub- applying nor allowance, shelter buttably that, for it assumes—irre- lic be included assistance shall *4 male, at he a least if is a budget to a the be deemed be — and shall “lodger” “available income and re- has lodger boarding lodger. 352.31(a)(3) sources.” 18 N.Y.C.R.R. § In event does a not contrib- (iv). per month, ute least $15 at the fami- ly’s including shelter allowance fuel hearing Under no to heating, a shall be share rata how, if, or determine a reduction will regular shelter allowance." 18 adversely particular dependent affect 352.30(d). [Emphasis N.Y.C.R.R. § minor children can be had. There can income and resources shall be added.] ent is assume in accordance is not married . [*] ->:(cid:127) n “(iv) “When a female [*] -x- responsibility When the man is with a with -x- applicant -x- man following: for the woman . his available to unwilling -x- whom applied recipi- * she to the state companion be no whether the or will particular contrary to the facts. Whether unit “lodger” der the together, hearing contribute regulations. money be a case who “lodger’s” presence whether this to decide sister, are all helps towards hold the undisputable whether child, “lodger” rent, or adult saves any can un- children, or her and there are no chil- B. THOSE AFFECTED BY THE acknowledged dren of which he REGULATIONS adjudicated father, he be shall as a treated accordance with backgrounds plain- of the named 352.30(d).” section 18 N.Y.C.R.R. § sufficiently tiffs have been set forth 352.31(a)(3). prior published opinions. See 497 F.2d Ostensibly New (2d York enacted 18 N.Y. Cir. 352.30(d) pursuant duty C.R.R. to its (S.D.N.Y.1973). agencies Local welfare program under the federal AFDC to de- threatening have reduced or are to re- recipient’s termine by actual need tak- duce the shelter allowances re- AFDC any “into consideration other income cipients regula- on the basis of these any resources of child Hurley or relative tions: Mrs. and her three chil- claiming aid dependent to families with dren from to because she $150 $115 children.” 602(a)(7). U.S.C. husband; lived with a man not her Mrs. preventing Aimed it as state wel- and her two children from $165 going fare funds from where incapac- she because allowed her $110 needed, regulation not stay two al- her; makes itated sister to with and Mrs. presumptions. ternative Otey and her minor son from $145 First, presumes fami- she because allowed an $96.65 adult un- ly able noncontributing to have a employed apartment. sleep son money Typical state would save situations which Whether the of the factual ignore applying suc- the male to leave—or himself were must officials welfare cessfully regulation apply grant, as that related for welfare mechanical probably view by D, trial. not clear. at the could—is who testified Mrs. health, her social minor children reside of the one of her two mother’s She and apartment char- she would be an workers informed her that Mount Vernon Davidoff, by a distin- entitled to other assist- Paul homemaker and acterized children, guished planner, “far below a ance. The effect urban “daddy,” for decent accommoda- refer man as of his modern standard now They leaving certainly size.” of that cannot assumed tions for a be ap- AFDC assistance have received be beneficial. proximately the last and one-half six Mrs. D’s case is illustrative of other years. or heard from has seen She situations where a mother on welfare July, 1965; when she her since husband houses adult male Legal attempted Aid a divorce obtain companion. poor do case, go she forward with could not cohabit on a bed of roses. In the D’s testified, not afford she could because sickly young case the two adults and two past necessary disbursements. Over children abandoned live their father hospitalized years been Mrs. six D. in substandard and use accommodations surgical and other times some dozen purchased broken furniture — her illnesses and treatment. Because of company to which Mrs. D had been convalescence, plaintiff has periods of worker; steered a welfare and the *5 many family carry to out not been able children and mother receive a bare sub- obviously functions; she household and sistence allotment for food other ne- and beyond aged her seems is not well and cessities. years. put perspective D’s case was as typical by Professor of family Herbert Gans has A taken friend male University, Columbia sociology in the whose work up Dur- the D residence household. poor the is of well known and ing periods illness and con- D’s of Mrs. highly regarded. He the rea- described valescence, her and her he took of care prevalence arrange- son for the of such food, shopped for washed children, among poor ments as follows: family’s clothes, family’s cooked performed meals, and cleaned house people very “Poor often in- live a himself, He, has other household tasks. existence, only of secure in terms including extreme disabilities various money they have, but amount high presently pressure he is blood and they long about uncertainties how legal He under no ob- work. is unable to ligation it. will have and, support to “So, quite you frequently get pat- do support. fact, provided no financial among people, poor they tern if can’t presence local welfare of- Because of his they or either work can’t find work informed Mrs. ficials D: temporarily permanently, or of mov- “Quality reports of control 1/15/72 relative, tempo- awith either resides with that Mr. indicated [M.] rarily permanently, because there Therefore, you your family. we and simply any money to isn’t establish your prorating rent % to continue to maintain one’s own $175=$131.40.” then, typically, And household. pub- lodgers, help proposed people out D’s then become reduction in Mrs. grant ways in lieu lic assistance leave the various would paying rent, helping raise and two children with insuffi- mother house, purchase taking care children, cient those necessities funds doing things. think clothing requisite variety I of life—food and — explanation. living. major that’s one minimum standard of welfare —welfare perhaps want you, and the ease that job quite tions, don’t want “There are * going and so their dealing forms, -x- their get often — poverty poor people they workers, go involved dealing with the * problem go you know, on welfare and itself simply say we are on is -x- with the and what temporary who either feel with welfare, social is is a full-time -x- temporary. filling being workers regula- [*] don’t have hope and out understand.” very important phenomenon class won’t do As Dr. Gans with temporarily only is “One if I don’t do it for people people somebody in this that part of this making it problem.” don’t do much of case pointed out, permanently, me room in their house helping phenomenon is in him when I or her grounds that “This is a and don’t of shelter am now, middle again faced that just people . . . . Other help is this need mutual pride independence, have the noted, housing, explains, why Dr. Gans called, say they is sometimes want already inadequate, which is is shared to make it on own their however with others: going is to be.” area, “[Especially the New [in] poor people of the household is a woman.” He went on to add: [prevalent] problem, they they pens much comes able, help, if call on a room if ple bail more get you have kids because this is can survive in a been found in studies all over the close friends. world “And “[W]here crises, insecurity people get very dependent on each other to tide them over [,] This your building are each other you hospitality suddenly help somebody is “doubling then survival very generous generous more this exists not because uninhabitable, somebody so that among poor people mutual to the necessarily you out with a somebody your risky. . there get ... will gets hospital, really you have, who obligation, to . than other because up phenomenon landlord crisis. burns others, be sick, couple pattern And so what more altruistic or when you extension of help helped the if this where if one of can they poverty evicts only way you down relatives and the and this has If is not avail- of dollars to people provide you particularly people, of mutual return. in rely ability you poor the head know if poor have a you during among on to help- don't your hap- help peo- but be- is man out of the house. As tified : such as we have before us is to force the particularly ciety men and women happens “Quite “I am ble for help, but no divorce.” tradition of lawyer, vorced, (b) cause difficult in need.” The effect of “[D]ivorce other that I discussed earlier. sacrifice because then ample begin with. so fice because become more they rooms, “When (cid:127)>:(cid:127) exchange they and told get so that person talking generally (a) often if until # poor people somebody live in minimum economically small they obligation the it costs simply physical separation again it costs to — crowded, obviously. recently when that [*] there has been a the poor community. apartments help enforcing is a relationship always [on] else comes poor money [*] *6 you make very money of mutual you it was marginal Welfare get [about] when Dr. You to [*] fragile obligate been perfect this men with small free Gans tes- impossi- between get you make a get useful in so- get . sacri- what legal very long one, help But are are . be- ex- di- . Stanley Illinois, 92 S.Ct. 405 U.S. economically, (a) men don’t have (irrebutta egos very (b) money, their L.Ed.2d much preventing well, presumption unwed fa they might just say ble sensitive custody due just violative of you pay ther’s child I will move ask me to if process) ; Wohlgemuth, you out and that would be end Stewart on (irrebutta (W.D.Pa.1972) essence, relationship would of—in terminating presumption ble welfare to whatever the rental be sacrificed college violative of money benefits students was. “ Parham, process); F. due Owens v. lodger a man f is [I] (irrebuttable (N.D.Ga.1972) Supp. 598 woman, he with a becomes reducing presumption shelter allowance lodger variety functions serve ground members of household bear family, helping raise the chil- expenses rata share violative taking dren, care of I think the house. Minter, process); due Boucher v. relationships if are such that (irrebutta (D.Mass.1972) F.Supp. 1240 money, him woman most asked terminating presumption al ble it, if he he cases doesn’t have even stepfather lowance where lives same say well, you put if had it process). house violative of due just basis, out and on that I will move deprived then the woman of the re- RELIED THE PRESUMPTIONS lationship part with the man which is BY THE STATE UPON fatherly life functions per- kind of that often space “lodger" Less needed A. if forms.” present. presumption that a II. THE LAW family able to house a A. THE DUE CLAIM PROCESS needs less for its own use universally “is true Supreme again As the Court lodger may be an older child fact.” noted this Term Cleveland Board of single sharing a or bunk bed with 632, 644, LaFleur, Education younger sibling, or a disabled relative 791, 798, sleeping on the couch. If (1974), declaring invalid a companion, he adult male mother’s pregnant incapacitated women were sharing may “ own bed. be the mother’s ‘permanent teaching, plausible None of these factual circum long have been disfavored fairly imply stances the Due Process Clause of the realistically space. ” could in less subsist Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.’ *7 Moreover, even if we were assume There is no warrant for automatic deni family house noncontrib- that a able to a right al of a of an basis irrebut uting lodger space its needs less presumption, presump table “when that use, many present own conditions necessarily universally tion is not families could locate habitable small- fact, true in and when the State has rea housing quarters. expert, er Plaintiffs’ making sonable alternative means of Davidoff, gave Paul Mr. uncontradicted crucial determination.” Vlandis City testimony that New York Kline, 441, 2230, 412 452, U.S. 93 S.Ct. area, poor metropolitan live in hous- 2236, 63, (irrebut 37 L.Ed.2d 71 ing predominantly that substandard presumption nonresidency table of stu inadequate space, in terms invalidated). also, dent g., See e. United that, therefore, highly unlikely it is that Agriculture Dep’t Murry, States family on welfare could find and move 508, 2832, apartment. into a liveable smaller (1973) (denying eligibil 767 stamp food ity on basis presump vacancy of irrebuttable The zero almost rate for low- tions unconstitutional); housing large of lack of need parts rental of New instances, merely supports Mr. Davidoff’s con most units built State new Romney, existing g., replace See, e. Talbot v. units removed from the clusion. (S.D.N.Y.1970) 458, Report 3, supra, stock.” Interim p. No. at long drop (vacancy waiting public in 1965 rate lists for 3.2% housing 1968); Realty Parkwood Co. well known. to 1.2% Marcano, 690, 353 N.Y.S. 77 Misc.2d apparent, therefore, It is even if (N.Y.C.Civ.Ct.1974); 623, 2d family housing noncontributing lodg- h Housing Housing, Detailed Census of er could subsist without the 34-167, Characteristics: New York 34- apartment, family probably smaller 171; York, of New Executive De State quarters. could locate decent smaller Housing partment, Division of and Com family’s event, expens- In that rental
munity Survey Report Renewal, on high es would remain as were Housing (1969) ; Lynn, Rental J. C. lodger came; before the there would be Housing Recent Trends Westchester no diminuation financial need. 7, (Westchester Planning County Oc challenged If not for the Papers, Report casional Winter and the irrebuttable Housing Temporary on and Rents thought beyond make, we would have Living Commission on Costs and State public debate that a assistance Economy (1974); Economic 72-73 might choose house Inc., Organization, Consultants Residen many than reasons other Analysis County, tial for Westchester presumed living space. excess of For Supply: Growth of Demand and 1990, 1970- recipient might example, agree out of (1970), Report Interim No. generosity familial kindness and to shel- Report Interim Low No. ter a might member or relative who housing recipi cost available to welfare lonely otherwise suffer. aOr negative ents is further constricted raising mother her fatherless children community minority attitudes toward deep, house a friend out of a hu- groups housing (Interim and subsidized supportive, compan- man need for adult Report 5, supra, p. 47; No. at Interim ionship. regulation encourag- A welfare Report 3-4) supra, pp. No. at and the ing a woman Mrs. D’s circumstances financing lack of institutional available “lodger” to remove her exacerbates the buildings currently housing recipi disintegration experi- already familial City York, ents. Housing New Urban poor. enced the urban Dynamics Dilemma: The short, re- City’s New York Rent Controlled Hous cipient family able to house a noncontri- (Prel. undated). Negative 551-53 buting lodger needs less its apartment attitudes of landlords and own use is neither nor uni- public recipi owners toward assistance versally true fact. The evidence be- availability. City ents also limits fore us it has no shows in fact for basis York, Housing The Urban Dilem many AFDC families. ma, supra, pp. 555-56, 564-66. put The welfare at more “lodg- Less B. need where financial disadvantage shrinking aof in the ever present. er” housing market since she or he lacks Similarly, second, alternative, pre- “contacts” and entries into the market *8 system. family recipients sumption Fewer than that a able to 10% housing through Department noncontributing “lodger” obtain house a —even ipso Social Services Westchester if the Coun- does not facto ty. Report (1970), space supra, Interim No. 7 less for its use—needs own less pp. xii, money pay own, rata, “Urban renewal and its share of housing public construction of have had rent is neither nor uni- impact versally little lodger pays on the number of units true. Unless the rent, available to family’s low income households. of the “share” rental
175
“lodg-
Board
Education v.
expenses
See also Cleveland
are not affected
646,
791,
LaFleur,
632,
presence.
414
94 S.Ct.
U.S.
er’s”
52,
799,
(1974).
L.Ed.2d
64
39
conclusively
may not
But
the state
pay
presume'that a
will
his share
presumptions
Irrebuttable
rent,
compulsion
of the
process
they ef
offensive to due
because
grant, merely because
reduced shelter
fectively deny an individual the essential
theoretically
ethically
he
should
right
procedural
challenge
pur
O’Neil,
The Price
could.
R.
See M.
ported
factual basis of
determination
(reasons
Dependency
(1970)
253-254
affecting
adversely
liberty
his own
eligible
many people
do
why
for relief
property.
“property”
In this case the
(Ho
it);
Piven
A.
not seek
F. F.
& R.
right
question
recipi
is the AFDC
ward, Regulating
(Vintage
Poor
165
statutory entitlement to a shelter
ent’s
(“degradation
1972)
ed.
at the hands of
commensurate with actual
allowance
relief
.
. deters actual
officials
against
need. Thus the rule
irrebutta
aid.”).
seeking
potential
from
workers
aspect
proce
ble
is an
prohibits
law
a conclusive
“[F]ederal
dural,
substantive,
process.
due
See
support.”
v. La
441,
Kline,
455,
Vlandis v.
412
93
U.S.
vine,
1974).
1208,
(2d
497 F.2d
1215
Cir.
2230, 2238,
63,
L.Ed.2d
S.Ct.
37
73-74
We know from the evidence
us
before
joined
(Marshall, J., concurring,
family “lodgers”
that some AFDC
do not by Brennan, J.);
Note,
see also
The Su
pay anything
rent.
towards
preme Court,
Term,
1972
87 Harv.L.Rev.
57,
(1973);
Burson,
n. 21
Bell
70
v.
Certainly
cf.
“the State has reasonable al
535,
1586,
402
91
29 L.Ed.2d
U.S.
S.Ct.
making
means of
the crucial
ternative
Goldberg
(1971);
Kelly,
90
254,
v.
397 U.S.
(Vlandis
Kline,
determination”
412
1011,
90 S.Ct.
v.
371
298
evade the
lusory
not make
il-
does
it
Sterrett,
F.Supp.
1973);
Gaither v.
346
and has no
effect
its invalidi-
1070,
(N.D.Ind.), aff’d,
ty.
409
1095
U.S.
93
688,
(1972);
v.
L.Ed.2d
X
34
660
S.Ct.
B.
McCorkle,
(D.N.J.
SEX
F.Supp.
DISCRIMINATION
333
1109
per
aff’d
curiam
En
sub nom.
clear that New York’s
gelman
23,
Amos, 404
v.
92
U.S.
S.Ct.
lodger
statutory
policy
a distinc
makes
181,
(1971);
177
recipients:
IY.
groups
those who
CONCLUSION
of welfare
and
house
352.30(d)
18 N.Y.C.R.R.
and
Section
§
objec-
purported
The
not.
who do
those
352.31(a) (3) (iv) are invalid
ex-
to the
§
constitution-
is a
distinction
tive of this
parties
opinion.
tent stated
this
The
since, as
have
ally appropriate one
we
forty-eight
shall settle an order on
hours
may
out,
seek to allo-
pointed
notice.
resources where
welfare
cate its scarce
ordered.
So
related issue
needed. The
are most
mak-
is a
basis
there
factual
of whether
Judge
HAYS,
(dissenting):
Circuit
legislative
judg-
least
at
rational
dissent.
I
housing noncontrib-
ment
that
families
challenged regulation,
The
18 N.Y.C.
lodgers
uting
have
diminished
352.30(d), is not
R.R.
unconstitutional.
§
allowance,
must be resolved
up
presumption
It
no “irrebuttable
sets
by
ac-
individualized determinations
universally
necessarily or
of the due
with the mandate
cordance
Kline,
true in fact.”
v.
Vlandis
412 U.S.
process
In the circumstances
clause.
441,
2230, 2236,
452, 93
37 L.Ed.2d
S.Ct.
protection
case,
equal
claim over-
(1973).
63
analytically
process
laps
with
due
is, therefore, unnecessary to
Taylor Lavine,
1208, (2d
claim.
In
F.2d
v.
497
protection
separate equal
1974),
articulate
the Second Circuit consid-
Cir.
ground
validity
352.30(d)
of decision.
ered the
of section
light
section
406
Securi-
Social
E. MOOTNESS
ty Act,
606(a)
(1970),
42 U.S.C.
§
Taylor
233.90(a).
§
45 C.F.R.
controversy
affects
Since
352.30(d)
court held that section
does
many
families and this
a class
AFDC
an
not create
action, there is no need to decide wheth
406(a)
contribution offensive to section
particular
plaintiff
er a
named
is still
regulation.1 It reasoned
or the federal
being adversely
by
affected
the chal
prorating
shelter costs between
lenged regulations.
Lavine,
Taylor v.
AFDC-eligible
non-eligible
members
1974).
1208,
(2d
n.
497 F.2d
3
Cir.
AFDC
a household insures that
funds
Where there are numerous class mem
only
are disbursed
to individuals who
who
bers
suffer
same harm com
their need for
have demonstrated
assist-
plained
plaintiffs,
the named
regu-
ance.
It found that
New York
subject
like treatment
in the
reasonably justified by
lation
consid-
future,
does
action
moot
become
severability of indi-
erations such as the
justicia
them
as to
and there remains a
needs,
divisibility
space,
vidual
See,
g.,
controversy.
ble
e.
Richardson
and the
of scale that
result
economies
24,
Ramirez,
39-40,
418 U.S.
94 S.Ct.
combining
small
into
units
2655,
(1974);
onstrate is to welfare— testimony in- shelter allowance is Mrs. the D’s indicates that such AFDC ” applying include his share . . . was Mr. M’s motive not for for creased ought Taylor Lavine, proud 1215. F.2d aid—then be too indirectly accept state aid the Taylor holding controls the through eligible recipient. the AFDC non-contributing lodg- present A case. noncontributing lodger A like Mr. hasM. by er, majority’s M.,Mr. must like the public his eats assistance cake with- necessity'either have the means to make demonstrating out his need. recipient the contribution to rata recip- majority the states that aid household, or he must lack such means. Hearing” “Fair ient’s 18 N.Y.C. financially lodger If the is able con- R.R. al- 358.1-358.27 is “reasonable §§ maintaining cost tribute to the of the determining ternative the means” for household, surely New York does not of- lodger willing pay amount a is or able to by abating process fend due the shelter housing. toward the cost of But recipient pro allowance the AFDC glosses statement over the diffi- obvious according lodger’s rata If the share. culty determining the means or intent lodger financially the not able to con- person put of a who has not his affairs share, permits tribute his New Department before the Social Services eligibility separate him to establish his by applying public for assistance. In public for assistance. haveWe been as- Supreme none process the recent due Court require sured persons York does not by majority cases cited did go of demonstrated need to the reasonable alternative means of fact- lodger without shelter. Should the es- finding entail intrusion into the affairs by eligibility, tablish his it is admitted any person apply who did not for parties all that a household like the Mrs. governmentally seek a administered ben- D-Mr. M. household would receive right. efit or shelter allowance increased over the 352.30(d) Section does “exacer- by amount received Dthe household disintegration bate al- [ familial ] alone.2 ready experienced by poor.” the urban It is thus clear New York upset It does the estab- regulation “presumes” lodger that a patterns cooperation lished between the will and means to contribute his people of limited and uncertain means. housing expenses her fair share toward long coop- group So erating each member of a lodger separate unless the demonstrates aas household establishes his el- eligibility public Any assistance. igibility public funds, cooperating “presumption” lodger’s means will increase the shelter allowance due may lodger’s be refuted at the initiative any procedure event, whole. in the forum same in which the AFDC implicitly majority, sanctioned recipient initially required was to estab- requiring to submit his af- lish a need for aid. The “conclusive fairs to the New York Social Services presumption” majority denounced Department in the context of the AFDC “presumption” is the same that attaches recipient’s Hearing,” surely “Fair no every society: member of our that he disintegra- less conducive to “familial pay way is able to his own until and un- requiring tion” than to dem- contrary. less he demonstrates the If applica- onstrate his need on his own eligible public tion. assist- apply, ance but does not his silence can- assailing rationality While sec- put not be 352.30(d), door. today’s majority If the tion state’s em- locally regulations, eligibility public Under administered lish his assistance there rough propor- eligible person allowances increase would an be additional in the eligible persons tion household, to the number of and the shelter allowance would recipient accordingly household. Were Mr. M. to estab- be increased. unique irrationality. It creates braces may persons receive class demonstrat- without state aid
benefit prefers It ing any aid. need for such lodgers households in AFDC lodg- lodgers. prefers other
over all the eli- households over in AFDC
ers gible themselves, recipients since AFDC *12 must bear burden
the latter demonstrating eligibility. In our their simple
complex society are no there identifying households
means allocating assistance, of state among indi- limited stock resources a need have demonstrated
viduals who 352.30(d) for such assistance. Section attempt by make New York to
is a valid ought up- to be
such an allocation and it
held.
GEORGE TRANSFER AND RIGGING COMPANY, INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff,
UNITED STATES of America Inter- Commission, state Commerce
Defendants.
Civ. A. No. 71-1114-Y. Court,
United States District Maryland. D.
Argued March 1974. May 2,
Decided