*1 indеpendent juris- reasons considerations, dictional such as Shirley Williams, LAMPTON and Luethel jury likelihood ing divergent legal confusion treat- individually and on behalf their mi relief, theories children, nor and on behalf of all other justify separating persons would similarly situated, Plaintiffs, Fed.Rule and federal claims for trial. 42(b). so, jurisdiction Civ.Proc. If BONIN, individually, Garland L. ordinarily United should be refused. capacity his as Commissioner of Pub Gibbs, Mine supra, of America v. Workers lic Welfare of the Louisiana State Board 726-727, 86 S.Ct. Welfare; of Public Adams, Camille in (Footnotes omitted). dividually, capacity and in his as Chair man of the Louisiana State Board Welfare; McKeithen, Public John J. in The motion under consideration dividually, capacity and in his as Gov against seeks bar claims Heinsheimer ernor and Ex-Officio member of the customer tortious interference with Welfare; Board of Public relationships, The acts libel and slander. Morel, Lawrence Gruenberg, Howard J. on which these based are the claims Grady Madden, Mary Winters, Lou Jo very providing same acts the basis seph Hair, Jr., D. Sittig, John B. engaging con the federal claim of ain Milam, Jr., Matt individually, spiracy these to restrain trade. Under capacities as members of the Lou appropriate all isiana Welfare; it is State Board of circumstances Public Culver, and Doris individually single judicial pro tried in claims be ceeding. Directоr of Depart the Orleans Parish called No reason Welfare, ment of Defendants. why manner this court’s attention this proceeding productive of Civ. A. No. 68-2092. economy, “judicial and fair convenience United States District Court litigants.” Nor has ness to the Louisiana, E. D. why all reason been advanced show disposed New of in not be Orleans claims should Division. We therefore conclude this suit. April 15, 1969. is motion to dismiss Heinsheimer’s denied. Dissenting Opinion April 21, 1969. De
In Memorandum Contra to Dis
fendant Heinsheimer’s Motion
miss, 13, 1968, plaintiff re filed June
quests fee of it be allowed counsel payable by Heinsheimer
$250.00 ground repetitious of is motion this in this
earlier motions filed and decided complained repetitive matter
case. The the fact
of is defendant’s utilization citizenship diversity be there is as an and Heinsheimer
tween Peerless
argument dismiss. the motion to motion decided this is Since Complaint than rather
Amended repetitious of complaint,
initial con We therefore earlier motions. request plaintiff’s clude that compelled reimburse Heinsheimer be regard fee incurred
the counsel motion denied.
Jeffrey Schwartz, A., T. Richard A. B. Orleans, Buckley Glass, and Robert New La., plaintiffs. Gremillion, Atty. Gen., P. Wil- Jack F. Roberts, Henry Schuler, 2nd, liam P. J. Orleans, La.,
Jr., Attys. Gen., Asst. New Dept, Pepper, Horace Gen. La. Counsel La., Welfare, Rouge, Public Baton defendants. Judge, WISDOM,
Before Circuit COMISKEY, District CASSIBRY and Judges. Judge. COMISKEY, District brought This action was to combat an attempt Department the Louisiana Welfare to make reduction Aid 10%' Dependent Children unexpected an rise ADC According budget. a limited Bonin, Garland L. the Commissioner Welfare, Public rise in sudden ADC case load preme from the Su- resulted King Smith, Court’s decision in L.Ed.2d ruling Act, (23); had the effect 42 U.S.C. compelling temporarily make ADC that the defendants be previously permanently enjoined to families excluded reducing from receiving amount recipi- to ADC policy, pursuant man in the house ents. complaint Plaintiffs amended their *3 payments which had withheld from to ask that the Court render a declara- parent tory judgment families in which declaring and a mem- 9, that Act No. opposite ber sex were not married Schedule Item and the reduc- 10% together but either lived grants man and wife as tion in ADC are of violative Sec- household, and maintained a common or Rights tion 601 of the Civil Act of had continuous intimate relations even Subsequently, U.S.C. 2000d. in a § they supplemental did not maintain common house- plaintiffs complaint, sought hold. declaratory judgment that Sec- (23) Security tion of the Social Plaintiffs, Negro two receiv- mothers Act, compel U.S.C. will ing grants Dependent under the Aid to participating pro- in the ADC program, brought Children this suit gram to increase re- to ADC the United District soon States Court cipients July 1, after after Bonin’s announcement of 10% temporary restraining A order was brought cut. The suit a class ac- granted enjoining the defendants plaintiffs, tion on their chil- behalf of putting proposed reduction into dren, similarly persons and all other sit- 10% effect, which order has been extended to uated. The defendants in this case are this date. Bonin, L. of Garland the Commissioner Public Welfare of Louisiana State Welfare; of Board Public Camille Ad- I. HAS THERE BEEN A VIOLATION ams, the Chairman of the Louisiana EQUAL OF THE PROTECTION Welfare; J. State Board of John Public CLAUSE ? McKeithen, of the State the Governor of Plaintiffs’ first contention is that de- Louisiana; Culver, the Director Doris violating right fendants are their Department of Public Parish Orleans equal protection law because Morel, Welfare; Howard and Lawrence being reduced, are Mary while Grady Madden, Lou Gruenberg, J. under other assistance cate- Joseph Hair, Jr., Winters, D. John D. gories being are not reduced. Title 46 of Milam, Jr., Sittig who are and Matt the Louisiana Revised Statutes establish- Board of the Louisiana State members general categories public es these Finch, five H. Robert Public Welfare. Needy (1) Aid to the assistance: Blind Health, Secretary and Wel- Education (ANB); (2) Disability (DA) Assistance fare, amicus a brief as has also submitted (aid permanently totally to the dis- curiae, being do invited to so after abled) ; (3) Age (OAA); Old Assistance Court. (4) Dependent (ADC); Aid to Children plaintiffs original complaint, In their (5) (GA). General Ex- Assistance three-judge court (1) asked that a cept category, for the General Assistance judg- declaratory convened; public pro- all of these declar- favor rendered in
ments be grams large are funded in measure with ing proposed reduction 10% Security federal funds under Act No. Schedule Act. Reg- Acts, Legislative 13, Louisiana Item Legislative prohibits re- Act No. 9 of the Session, ular grants, Acts, Regular Age Session, 1968, ap- Assistance was an in Old ductions Equal propriations concerning Depart- act unconstitutional are ment of Fourteenth Public Welfare the fiscal Protection Clause year commencing July 1, 1968, under Sec- invalid and end- and are Amendment ing portion June of the Social 1969. The of this categories by up all of assistance Act, four Item attacked these Schedule they plaintiff enacted for part were stated reads as follows: furnishing financial assist- Age As- “Provided further that Old needy individuals. ance regular grants of sistance maximum lengths go great to show Plaintiffs cut or $89.00 shall $83.00 categories are any amount, listed above that the four reduced cut unless such closely effect approved Legis- related that so reduction pro merely parts same different Thus, lature.” gram. plaintiffs assert that favoring Plaintiffs contend that public “are four Age Old Assistance over the other cate- operation but conception, purpose and gories public assistance is violation groups of *4 program four bene one with equal prоtection of laws. Plaintiffs * * ficiaries argue also that the decision the Lou- Department isiana of Welfare to reduce argue plaintiffs that since then recipients not while closely categories related are so the four reducing payments to the non made OAA identical, purpose the is and since public recipients blind, assistance —the equal plaintiffs deprived defendants disabled, general and the assistance they pro protection of laws when recipients deprives plaintiffs of —also Age Old Assistance hibited reductions in equal protection of the laws. they grants cut ADC when alone and making cuts in argument similar Equal without Plaintiffs’ under the public blind and disabled upon to the Protection is centered Clause (plaintiffs recipients legislative do contention assistance that act upon the question General center their attention and the reduction in ADC 10% category is not because Assistance constitute unreasonable discrim- So under the against needy Federal funds financed inations children. The say Act). Security that plaintiffs point they Plaintiffs cial also raise the Security Act’s being against purpose of the Social are discriminated categories need, they mostly Negroes, provisions is point on all four are be together distinction there is no rational can be bettеr and discussed with plaintiffs’ the needs plaintiffs’ needs and claim tween defendants have public recipients assistance. Rights the other violated Section 601 of the Civil argue, essence of plaintiffs “The Act of Thus complainants’ U.S.C. 2000d. § claims Plaintiffs contend that in order for equal protection of deprived them Act constitutionally 9No. and reduction to be 10'%- t¡he consti there is relevant law is permissible, must the need of between tutional distinction rationally purpose related to the of the aged, indigent the indi need of Security provisions public Social on Act’s indigent blind, gent need of the or the Security assistance. The Act con- Social need side, disabled, on one categories provisions tains on four indigent other.” child public Age Assistance, assistance: Old Dependent programs Aid to Families Chil- all of these But the fact dren, Blind, Aid to the and Aid to the not re- designed need is to relieve Totally Permanently purpose Disabled. It is that the It obvious is markable. plaintiffs’ purpose program belief that all to re- any public of these four can be summed not mean does But this lieve need. up pub- plaintiffs Thus, in one need. one word: in connection done actions original argue setting judged that the statutes must lic assistance “Supplementary Law,” 1. Plaintiffs’ Pre-Trial “Memorandum 2. Plaintiffs’ * * * Equal plaintiffs.) (Emphasis Memorandum of Law on page Adults Protection as Between and Chil dren,” page being terms what is tinuing done in parental relation protection, care and public to all other programs. there is appropriated authorized to be year for each fiscal a sum sufficient Furthermore, the relief of need carry purposes out part. of this only statutory is not purpose The sums made available under this programs question. non-ADC though Al- making pay- shall be used for the first listed ments to submitted, States which have setting up statutes Old approved had Secretary, Age Assistance, Blind, Aid to the plans for aid and services to Permanently Totally Aid to the Dis- needy families with children.” abled, is to enable states to furnish needy individuals, assistance to there are Thus, primary purpose ap- of ADC purposes listed in these statutes. propriations, appropriations unlike Thus, says ap- 42 U.S.C. 301 that funds categories, the other simply three propriated Age for Old Assistance are to enable the states to furnish assistance purposes also be used for the of fur- needy True, children. these funds are medical, nishing assistance to certain purpose, be used for this but the en- aged who are not individuals abling of states to furnish assistance to age encouraging of old assistance and needy children is a means to the real age help the cipients statеs old assistance re- *5 primary purpose: purpose “the of en- capability to or retain for attain couraging dependent the care of children provisions self-care. There are similar in their own or in homes of homes in 42 U.S.C. which deals with Aid § * * * help relatives to maintain and to Blind, and 42 which U.S.C. § * * strengthen family life It is is concerned with Aid to the Permanent- ly enough dependent children be Totally and Disabled. given simply assistance; financial important But even more the fact purpose Security chief of the Social Act that 42 which U.S.C. sets out § dependent section on children tois see purposes appropriations for for which that such children are raised used, from the ADC are to be is different parents family or relatives atmos- corresponding relative to statutes phere. point Plaintiffs out that in categories, relief other three in that the Security when the Social Act was enact- of not listed a statu- need as such is ed, primary statutory purpose tory purpose. provides: 42 601 U.S.C. § simply to to fur- was enable states needy nish financial assistance to chil- encouraging “For dren. But we must consider the Social dependent care of in their own children Security today, Act itas exists not as it or in homes enabling the homes relatives thirty-four years ago. was written finan- each to furnish and agree cial assistance and rehabilitation Furthermore, we cannot practicable services, plaintiffs other pub as far as that the four State, under the in such to Security conditions lic assistance found the Social needy dependent children conception, purpose oper and Act “are in parents program relatives with whom groups or ation one with four * * help Although are strengthen family maintain of beneficiaries help categories may life and the four have some com parents provisions or objectives, to attain retain relatives mon each cate self-sup- capability gory separate maximum for the is embodied in title of independence port personal con- Security the Social Act.4 Each of of con- maintenance sistent with the titles is different from the others. Each 1, supra. 1-6) 306; Act, 3. See Note of the § 301-§ U.S.C. Dependent Aid to Families with Chil- Age dren, (Sections 401-410) As- and Medical Old Assistance Title IY of the Aged, (Sections Act, 610; Title I sistance for the § 601-§ U.S.C. Aid to the plan utory exceptions Security for for one cate- title calls a state Social plan Act, gory only, is to be inde- which state pendent plans the other of the Security title the Social “[E]ach category plan for each titles: A state Act on stands its own. Insofar as the Secretary approved must be State is free to set its own standard Health, if it Education and Welfare need and determine the level of requirements of its meets the title. Sec- benefits, may powers it exercise its Act, Security of the Social independently programs. for each 604(a) provides if the U.S.C. § may It have one of need for standard plan Secretary disapproves of a state aged, blind, for the another and a Dependent the Aid to Families with Similarly, may for third ADC. program, he must withhold fed- Children payment different for each levels cate- to the state eral program, changes one gory parts or limit of that independently changes, be made particular plan not affected pro- changes, or lack of in another disapproval. nothing in There is Section gram.” authorize conse- which would ****** nonconformity plan quences of this pay reduction in “Louisiana’s any applied plan. corresponding ments reduc without a damaging plaintiffs’ ar- Even more tion in its other financial assistance gument of Title XVT enactment was the programs does not violate the Social Act, 42 U.S.C. regula Security Act or the Federal Up time until that in 1962. 1381-§ tions.” impossible a common to have weight places great Court categories. But then four given to the Social construction XVI, au- Title enacted *6 by Department of Act stаtes, option, to have a at their thorized Welfare, Health, Education and plan public single to assistance agency responsibility federal has disabled, in aged, blind, lieu and administering pro carrying out and its X, I, plans separate under Titles three interpretation expressly visions. placed “The dealing with aid titles XIV, the and by charged on statute those signifi- it is most But these individuals. given weight must be its administration considered cant that while of constru courts with the task faced enough categories adult similar three Rusk, ing Zemel v. 381 the statute.” adopt permit a common the estates 1271, 1278, 11, L.Ed. 1, 14 U.S. 85 S.Ct. them, include Aid not did 179 2d XVI, Dependent in Title so Children plan and keep the ADC states must still foregoing reasons, For the we separate, combine program if even plaintiffs not have succeed hold that the plan. categories one into three showing sufficiently ed in that ADC is closely public accepted from related to the three adult a brief The Court categories question so as Secretary Health, Education and assistance comparing actions taken Se- of the Social warrant nature Welfare program taken under the to actions curity therein ADC certain sections Act and pur- categories Equal under the regulations issued three adult certain HEW and holding Health, opposite Secretary An Protection Clause. The thereto. suant result of the undesirable could lead to states Welfare Education and express forcing except stat- a state to withhold benefits for certain brief Finch, Secretary 1001-1008) (Sections
Blind,
H.
X
Brief
Robert
Title
1206;
Health,
Welfare
Act,
Aid to
Education
1201-§
42
§
U.S.C.
Disabled,
Curiae,
pages
Totally
Permanently
7-8.
Amicus
1401-1405)
(Sections
XIV
Title
Act,
1351-§
42 U.S.C.
recipients
public
bitrary.’
under one
Lindsley
assistance
v. Natural Carbonic
give
Co.,
because it is unable to
Gas
78-79,
31 S.Ct.
recipients
pub-
337, 340,
same
in all
benefits
lines
say
provision
lacking
that this
is so
Equal
der
Morey Doud,
Protection Clause.
purely
reasonable basis as to be
463-464,
U.S.
arbitrary.
1344, 1349,
1 L.Ed.2d
% n
Likewise,
say
we cannot
that the 10
Supreme
(1957), the
Court said:
grants by
reduction in ADC
the defend-
testing
a discrimina-
“The rules
utterly
ants is
without a rational basis.
follows:
summarized as
tion have been
We are convinced
cut was
10%.
“
equal protection clause
‘1.
solely
satisfy
due
to lack of state funds to
does
of the Fourteenth Amendment
in the ADC
power to
take from the State
category.
presented
The evidence
does
*7
police
classify
adoption of
in the
not show that
reduction in ADC
10%
laws,
a
of the exercise of
but admits
grants
any
ordered for
reason other
re-
scope
in that
of
wide
discretion
living
than the
of
within
gard,
done
and avoids what
is
category.
amount allotted for the ADC
—(cid:127)
any
ba-
reasonable
when it without
is
an amount which had to be divided
arbitrary.
purely
and thereforе
sis
is
among
larger
recipients.
number of
having
rea-
some
classification
A
Supreme
recognized
right
Court
against
not offend
sonable basis does
of the states to determine the allocation
merely
it
is
clause
particular pro-
devoted to
funds
nicety
be-
made with mathematical
gram by
of
the amount
funds available
ine-
in
practice
results
some
in
cause
King
Smith,
in
such a
v.
in
quality.
the classification
3. When
318-319,
any
question, if
in
called
such a law is
20 L.Ed.2d
when it
reasonably
con-
can be
of facts
said:
it, the exist-
sustain
ceived that would
question
“There is no
the time
that States have
facts at
of that state
ence
allocating their
considerable latitude in
assumed.
must be
enacted
the law was
Depend-
AFDC
to Families
[Aid
the classification
who assails
4. One
resources,
carry
ent
since each
the burden
Children]
must
in
a law
such
upon
free to set its own standard
showing
is
not rest
it does
essentially
ar-
of need
to determine
level
and
basis,
is
reasonable
‘
in
the man
it de-
home” law and
of funds
“suitable
benefits
the amount
law,
policy.
home”
program.”
House”
The “suitable
to the
votes
“no
provided
as-
LSA-R.S. 46:233
suddenly
recipients
the number
Since
granted
a child
sistance shall
category,
only in
ADC
increased
had an
mother,
with its
if the mother has
Department of Public Welfare
Louisiana
illegitimate
receiving assist-
child after
well have conсluded
officials
Department
ance from the
fare,
of Public Wel-
rights of the
have violated
satisfactory
proof
unless and until
grants
cut their
disabled to
blind
public
parish
welfare has
board
increase in
when there was
similar
showing
presented
that the mother
covered
number
relationships and is
has ceased illicit
maintaining
Certainly,
programs.
and disabled
blind
for the chil-
home
a suitable
extremely vulnerable
are also
individuals
Ninety-five per
of the chil-
dren.”
cent
employability
lack of
because of
disqualified
home
dren
under the suitable
persons
must
the difficulties
Negroes.
law were
the “suitable
caring for themselves.
encounter in
rescinded,
home” law was
but Louisiana’s
reasons,
foregoing
there-
we
For
policy
“man
in the house”
remained
9,No.
Sched-
neither Act
fore hold that
Supreme
effect until after
Court
Legislative
9, Item
ule
policy
struck down a similar Alabama
Regular Session, 1968,
Acts,
nor
10'%'
King
Smith, supra,
U.S.
deprived
grants,
reduction in ADC
Under the “man
S.Ct. 2128
equal protection
the laws
plaintiffs
family
policy”,
in the
was dis-
house
Amend-
of the Fourteenth
in violation
qualified
receiving
from
ment.
opposite
parent
a member
together man
sex either lived
as
and wife
ALLEGATION
PLAINTIFFS’
OF
household, or
a common
and maintained
DISCRIMINATION
RACIAL
even if
relations
had continuous intimate
they
common house-
did not maintain a
Act
next
No.
contend
Plaintiffs
It
sudden
hold.
was thе
reduction
10%
eligible recipients
a result of the aban-
as
against
plaintiffs be-
discriminate
policy
house”
donment
the “man
Negroes.
they
mostly
ra-
cause
Such
cut ADC
which resulted in the
say
plaintiffs,
discrimination,
10%-
cial
grants.
contrary
Amendment’s
to the Fourteenth
Clause,
Equal
claim
Protection
point out
the ADC
Plaintiffs
also
Section 601
that it
violates
overwhelmingly Negro
recipients are
Rights
1964, 42 U.S.C. §
Act of
Civil
pro
(80%)
the ADC
and contend that
provides:
2000d, which
against
gram being
discriminated
shall,
person in
United States
identified as Ne
“No
because it is
a whole
ground
race, color,
gro program.
or nation-
participa-
origin,
al
excluded
*8
plaintiffs’ contention
We first consider
of,
in,
or be
the
be denied
benefits
portion
prohibiting
Act
that the
of
No.
any
subjected
under
to discrimination
Age
grants is a
in
Assistance
cuts
Old
activity receiving
program
Federal
discriminatory
racially
provision because
assistance.”
financial
plaintiffs
“white
of
refer to as the
what
categ
past pol-
Age
point to Louisiana’s
ness” of the Old
Assistance
Plaintiffs
program
ory.7
evidence
However,
of
icies in the ADC
an examination
reduction
of
Act No.
reveals that as
that
relevant statistics
10%.
racially
grants
recipients
only
discrimina-
are
of
March,
in ADC
OAA
52%
point
tory.
specifically
Negroes
white,
Plaintiffs
constituted
were
while
* * *
January,
Statistics,
Welfare
of Law
6. Louisiana
7. Plaintiffs’ “Memorandum
March, 1968,
February
ADC,”
page
Table
at
Discrimination
in
33-d.
age
recipients.8
stand
We also
our
taken
of old
reiterate
48'%
great
opinion
plain-
far
it
true that there is a
earlier in
that
While
is
receiving
Negroes
percentage
as
No.
er
tiffs have not shown that either Act
grants
program,
9 or
we
in
was
sistance
the ADC
cut
10%
completely
plaintiffs’
accept
cannot
contention
without a reasonable basis
arbitrary.
purely
so as
is a
to be
Nor have
OAA
“white”
because 52%
enough
recipients
closely
more
a bare
shown that
than
ADC is
—no
majority
public
related
white.
other
—are
programs
question
require
so as to
equal
recipients
treatment to the
of each
plain
do
that the
We
not think
categories.
of these
showing
tiffs have made
sufficient
prohibition
racial discrimination in the
ARGUMENT
PLAINTIFF’S
UNDER
Act
our de
No.
so as to warrant
402(a)
(23)
SECTION
OF THE
claring
Equal
under the
it void either
SOCIAL SECURITY ACT
Protection Clause or under the Civil
statutory
Plaintiffs next launch a
as-
Rights Act of 1964.
sault on the
reduction
the ADC
10%
grants, arguing that this cut was in vio-
argue
also
cut
Plaintiffs
the 10%
lation of Section
by racial
motivated
Act,
42 U.S.C. §
discrimination. Plaintiffs’ reference
provides:
which statute
and the
Louisiana’s “suitable home” law
“A State
aid and services
policy
present
“man
house”
does
needy families with children must
some
circumstantial evidence
* * * provide
July
reduction
the re
could have been
10%
the amounts used
to deter-
But, again,
sult of racial discrimination.
mine the
needs
individuals will have
easily outweighed by
this evidence is
fully changes
to reflect
glance
another
For
the statistics.9
since
costs
such amounts
the non-OAA
which
de
established,
any
were
máximums
allegedly favoring
fendants
can
are
also
imposes
that the State
on
amount
“Negro” programs.
be identified as
paid
of aid
to families will have been
Only
Needy
Blind
Aid to
39%
proportionately
adjusted.”
(Em-
recipients
white,
are
while
are
61%
phasis added.)
Negro. Only
recipients
46%
Disability
white,
glance
cursory
Assistance
are
Even a
at this statute
while
in the
non-white. Even
reveals without
doubt whatsoever
54%
program,
go
General Assistance
entirely
July
which
it does not
into effect until
funded
State of Louisi
clearly
1969. Section
says
ana and
much the
which
not been as
that the State does not have to ad-
just
object
plaintiffs’
attacks as the
recipients
needs of ADC
or the
categories,
payable
non-ADC
white máximums
them
until
43%
Negro.
argue
From
the evi
all of
time.
legisla-
Plaintiffs
that the
57%
time,
history
dence submitted
hold that
at this
we
tive
of the statute shows that the
plaintiffs
carry
long
period
have failed to
between the
proving
signed
burden of
date
1968)
discrimination
favor
(January
law was
against
group
goes
of white
date
in-
Negro
Although
group
recipients.
give
effect was to
the states
time
*9
greater percentage
necessary
is true that a
of the make the
studies of cost-of-
Negro,
changes
does not
legislate
ADC
are
this
and to
accord-
ingly.
majority
that
interpretation
alter
recipients
fact
But
from this
legislative history,
all the non-OAA
may
well
Negroes.
correct, plaintiffs
draw the dubious
6, supra.
6, supra.
8. See note
9. See note
explicit
fed
are satisfied if the
words
State
“the lack
that
conclusion
Nothing
complied by
maintain
date.
compulsion
than
that
to do less
eral
grants
may
that
or
until
said about
the States
do
levels
what
their 1967
at
*
*
402(a) (23)
Indeed,
date.”
not do before that
§
*.
date
compulsion on
provides an affirmative
before, we
consider
As
said
we
actively
towards
to
work
Louisiana
July 1,
Secretary’s
respect
inter
for the
able
increases,
to lower
and not
Act,
pretation
Security
of the Social
process.”
charged
responsibil
he is
since
with
ity
administering
provisions.
its
agree
rea
this
cannot
We
statutory
problem
faced with
“When
construction,
soning.
that
It
be true
great def
this Court shows
signing
long delay
between
of the
given
interpretation
erence to the
of its effectiveness
and the date
the act
charged
agency
the officers
statute
study give
to
to
the states time
Tall
Udall
with its administration.”
legislate
cost-of-living changes and to
801,
man,
1,
792,
16, 85
S.Ct.
U.S.
simply
not
does
pursuant thereto. But
(1965).
347
Texas,
living costs,
rising
nor to
Act,2
requires a state
Security
which
necessary adjust
which has made
ADC
to:
May 1,
Texas
ments effective
1969,
July 1,
provide
by
Welfare,
Department of Public
State
by
to deter-
amounts used
28,
(Feb.
D-430
Memorandum
Office
will have
of individuals
mine the needs
majority’s
Furthermore,
1969).
changes
fully
reflect
reading
of the stat
date
the effective
living
amounts were
costs since
very lan
is not in
ute
accord
any
established,
máximums
Congress
guage
used, for had
wished
imposes
amount
aid
the State
only
provision applicable
after
make
pro-
paid
have been
to families will
certainly
July 1, 1969, it
most
adjusted.
......
portionately
rather
the term “effective”
have used
requires
“by”,
me,
the states
in other
than
as it
fact did
To
this statute
provisions
later than
payments no
1967 Amendments.3
ADC
increase
July 1,
402(a)
Clearly, then, although
in accordance with
section
July 1, 1969,
change
(23)
compulsory
since
cost of
is not
until
in the
passage,
existing
payments
operative
establish-
was
it is
as of the date of
level of
and,
pay-
ed,
any
January 2, 1968,
prohibits
reduction
in the sense that
brethren,
my
adjustment
appropriate
To
ments
that date.
be satisfied
an
‘by July
any
however, “it
time
these dates.
is obvious
between
new
1969’ can
mean that the
state
Congress adopted
un-
Doubtless
necessary
plans [providing
increases]
procedure
usual
to meet
order
go
as of that date
must
into effect
urgent need of
families for in-
added),
(emphasis
and that
before”
creased financial
as soon as
(23)
402(a)
therefore have
section
can
practicable. Although
the ADC
no
on the states’ freedom deter-
effect
large
federally funded,
is to a
extent
grants until
mine
levels of ADC
provide
is the
states that
the balance
taking
issue
date. Without
payments,
funds and set the
level
clearly
majority’s logic,
which is
be-
proposal
federal
for increased
yond
might
reproach,
better reveal
we
requires corresponding
legislative
premise upon
it is
the mistaken
which
adjusting legislatively imposed
action
majority’s
For the
assertion
based.
bald
appropriating
máximums and
whatever
402(a)
(23) obviously has
that section
might
necessary. Be-
additional funds
July 1,
operative
effect before
legislatures
only every
some
cause
meet
was not so
to the House-Senate
obvious
year
and would not hold sessions
Committee,
reported
Conference
which
during 1968,
possible date
the earliest
provision noting
out the
that it could be
comply
all
which
states could
with a man-
adjustment
appropriate
satisfied
an
July 1,
dated increase was
1969. Con-
July 1, 1969”,
Rep. No.
Conf.
gress
“before
thus established this
as the
date
Cong.,
(1967), U.S.
90th
1st Sess.
compliance
outside
deadline
with sec-
Cong.
Nеws, pp.
& Ad.
Code
402(a) (23).
Cong.Rec.
S.
Cf.
(1967)
(emphasis added), nor
(daily
20, 1967);
ed. Nov.
Department
Education,
Health,
Cong.Rec.
(daily
S. 17017
ed. Nov.
Welfare,
in its amicus
1967).
.maintains
Recognizing, however, that
comply
brief that a state could choose to
need for increased
im-
402(a)
(23)
with section
earlier than
years prospective,
mediate and not 1%
July 1, 1969,
time-span
thus limit
402(a) (23)
framed section
segregated
schools
213(b)
section
the Social
during
period
tlie interim
set aside
Amendments of
81 Stat. 898.
compliance
requiring
with the mandates
g.,
205(a)
3. E.
of the Social Se-
increases
levels.
result
curity
Amendments of
Stat.
should be the same in both.
This
amendment
added section
(23)
(Supp.1909).
Security Act,
2. 42
§
Ü.S.C.A.
to the Social
(Supp.1969).
section was added to the Act
C.A.
*12
decreased)
practicable. More-
appropriate in-
soon
as
as
permit
to enact
states
pre-
though
1969,
intends
1,
over,
the statute
July
still
even
com-
creases before
increases,
1969,
be
July 1,
no state would
ply
requirements of
statute.
the
with the
encouraged
implement such increases
to
free to reduce
indeed
If the states were
living
keeping
increment
(thus
the cost
1, 1969,
July
Con-
payments before
ADC
gress
minimum),
there is now
at a
because
inconsis-
actions not
condoned
direct,
simpler,
and more
more
much
objective
policy
to
ultimate
tent with its
effects
limit the cost
method tо
effective
possible,
payments as soon as
raise ADC
simply
be-
reduce
of the statute —
pro-
contrary
purpose for
to its
but also
July 1, 1969.
fore
iy2
viding
delay
year
the
to allow
of the
to
states time
statutory
act
Congress compelled
sum,
furtherance
the
In
when
Applying “reason
command.
payments to increase ADC
states
understanding
reach the
to
and common
1,
by July
food, clothing, and shelter
legislature”,
by
Rath-
results intended
the
to
1969,
allow them
it did
intend
States,
bun United
355 U.S.
v.
by
impact
increases
of these
the
avoid
161, 163,
ments crease in $7.50 assistance,11 S.Rep. categories.9 90th No. all in level proposed John W. Gardner and Under Sec- fol- HEW 7. amendment The text the retary Wilbur Cohen documented the J. lows: inadequacy payments, (A), provide] plan of assistance es- must “[each state pecially program, meeting (in July 1, the ADC and at- for effective conjunction principally to tributed this the states’ de- that other income with responsibility. disregarded, limit sire to their financial for fu- aside set Hearings, pt. (testimony needs, plan at and other under ture Gardner) ; Hearings, pt. 1, need, resources) John W. determined as all Cohen). (testimony applica- of Wilbur J. 255-259 standards with in accordance determining plan for ble provision required 10. The Committee eligible need, receive of individuals provide that: for ADC dependent children aid to families “by July 1, 1969, and at least annual- (and no lower such shall standards ly thereafter, the amounts used determining for the standards than State to determine needs of indi- January 1, 1967) and in effect on need will viduals have been to reflect July 1, 1968, (B), for an an- effective changes fully living costs since (to and such standards nul review of any established, that amounts were Secretary) prescribed the extent imposes máximums that the State on updating to take such standards for paid the amount of aid to families will changes living costs;”. account into adjusted.” proportionately Hearings Before the on H.R. 12080 (emphasis added). Comm, Cong., Finance, 90th Senate emphasized Except language for (1967). pt. 1, at 635 1st Sess. was deleted the Conference Committee, provision parallels Age programs this Assist- 8. are: Old These by Congress. enacted Assistance and Medical ance 301-306; Aged, Aid to U.S.C. §§ provision required 11. The Committee 1201-1206; Blind, Aid to §§ U.S.C. plans non-ADC must: Totally Disabled, Permanently and “provide used for standards 1351-1355; to the Aid U.S.C. 42 Aged, §§ determining applicants the need of for such Disabled or Blind or recipients of such for and extent Aged, for the Aid Assistance and Medical plan, assistance under 1381-1385. §§ U.S.C. assistance, amount óf maximum on the proposed Testifying support of the Secretary bill, House to the additions Cong. living adjustment July 1, Cong., (1967), Code before U.S. 1st Sess. (1967), Id. News, pp. & Ad. change designed all non- to assure Notwithstanding these Conference from the benefit modifications, it Committee is manifest pro passed these The increases.12 Senate the intendment the Finance Com- amendment,13 sent visions without mittee and the survived least Senate Conference the bill to a Senate-House respect provision, to the ADC the differences. to iron out Committee Congress undoubtedly meant what it the manda In the Conference Committee said when it re- tоry adult $7.50 quired payments. the states to raise ADC replaced dis was a $7.50 Clearly provision course discretionary regard provision of income inception the Senate Com- (This state, with the states. allows a passage mittee on until its final Finance disregard chooses, of income $7.50 by Congress conclusion. allows computing budgetary when deficit. Congressional abrupt That shift previous figure per was $5.00 thirty- policy, approximately which for month.) Cong., Conf.Rep.No. 1030, 90th years five had allowed the states com- Cong. (1967), 1st & Sess. U.S. Code plete freedom determine the level of Ad.News, pp. 3179, 3208-09 No grants, unaccompanied by was change similar made in the ADC was reports, extensive committee floor de- provision; mandatory up remained bates, and cost estimates is immaterial But states. Conference when, here, Congressional purpose pro Committee did leave Senate clearly make such a shift is otherwise requiring unscathed, vision increases interpreta- discernible. “A restrictive adjustment given merely the annual cost of tion should not be a statute deleted, leaving only one-time cost depart thus has chosen to Cong. in- that an 1st will have been so modified Sess. U.S.Code & Ad. *16 pp. 2834, (1967). in amount of assistance and crease News 3006-07 See Cong.Rec.S. (daily be less than income will not also 113 16642 ed. * * * per per 16, 1967) (remarks individual $7.50 month Nov. of Senator Ribi- coff) ; Cong.Rec.S. (daily of assistance and above such amount 113 17036 ed. 22, (remarks 1967) under the stand- other income available Nov. Randolph). of Senator applicable ards and maximum 31, plan 1966.” on December only proposed 13. Senator McGovern recipients many (23). in of aid 12. of the amendment to section Since It per social also receive would have the adult substituted a $4.00 month living security benefits, per payments the cost of had individual increase in ADC used, adjustment living in- the intended for the mechanism been cost in need payments in standards. crease assistance The announced pay- who are for those individuals the amendment ments, been offset was to raise ADC by considerably in increase so- which dual beneficiaries lower than security provided programs, by H.R. benefits those in the adult percentage (eleven cial same security (Social percent) benefits are con- $7.- as the programs. serve to reduce 50 sidered income and the adult 113 Cong.Rec. budgetary deficit, 21, (daily re- means a which S 16963 ed. Nov. By assuring 1967) (remarks grant.) Mansfield, duced Senator per recipient $7.50 who introduced each an increase the amendment on behalf McGovern). words, total amount of of Senator month his In other income, provision designed this avoids the amendment and other was to insure Naturally, offsetting effects. in all states —even those where employed marginal living not have this device need increases in the cost recipients ADC had to assure increased occurred —ADC obtained guaranteed program, percent ADC the same because most eleven in- security benefits. crease in do not social their assistance receive living program provided Thus, recipients. cost of for the adult this adjustment proposed rejected. HEW could be The amendment was Id. at S Cong., 744, S.Rep. 90th No. retained.
358
* *
United
*.”
States
the event the
from custom
meet
State
able
689, 693,
Sullivan,
need in
full
v.
under the
stand
ard,
(1948).
may
331,
However
L.Ed. 297
92
make ratable re
may be,
significant
departure
ductions in
subpara
accordance
graph
(viii)
and
duty
paragraph.*
out
court “to search
this
legislature,
Nevertheless, if
intent of the
a State
follow the true
maintains a'
words,
system
máximums,
adopt
dollar
that sense of
and to
context,
proportionately
máximums must be
with the
ad
which harmonizes best
justed
updated
to the
promotes in
fullest manner
relation
legis-
objects
standards.
apparent policy
the same. United States
lature” remains
promulgated
regulation
HEW
this
(No.
Winn,
28 Fed.Cas.
January 28,
guide
1969, to
the states in
J.),
(Story,
16,740) (C.C.D.Mass.1838)
compliance
their
with section
quoted approvingly in Johnson v. South-
(23) to “make
clear thаt while
Company,
ern
Pacific
U.S.
update
standards,
States must
355
Whisnant,
máximums,
Corporation
required
387
ceptance
would it
v.
1968).
changes
At
(5th
in need
Cir.
standards as well And
778
?
F.2d
conclusion,
finаlly,
Congress
HEW
had
tempting
meant
to avoid
to effect
“significant”
shift
effects that
from the use of máximums
four
submits
percentage reductions,
under
even
would it
would have
have so
the statute
involve beclouded its
These
intent
a maze of in-
construction.
narrow
of indi
creases
number
and reductions?
(1) expansion of the
eligible
be
for ADC
viduals
clear, therefore,
It is
HEW
need,
standard
the increased
cause of
regulation permitting a ratable reduction
(3)
standards,
(2)
need
more realistic
in the standard of need is violative of the
máximums,
(4)
increase of dollar
controlling
statute,
federal
conse-
encouragement
to use
states
quently
King
Smith,
is invalid.
v.
392
arbitrary per
equitable and less
more
309, 333,
2128, 2141,
20
U.S.
S.Ct.
centage
dollar
than
rather
reductions
(1968).
fully
L.Ed.2d 1118
IWhile
am
ADC
the cost
to reduce
máximums
cognizant that the views of an adminis-
Hardly significant and ob
program.
agency
given
trative
should be
due def-
incidental,
viously
these effects cannot
statutory interpre-
erence when issues of
camouflage
positive
used
arise,
Tallman,
tation
Udall
U.S.
ADC
the level of
statute to raise
of the
payments
1, 16,
792, 801,
consistent government imposed by the federal tions voluntarily partici upon those states federally-funded prog
pating in enjoin I the reduction.
ram.21 King Smith, supra. v. plaintiffs on the As I would decide I do of section
basis argu- plaintiffs’ constitutional reach
ments.
Larry J. YOUNG
v. BENTLEY.
Sue G. A. No. 36-68.
Civ.
United District Court States Pennsylvania, W. D.
Erie.
May regulation question state law or 21. “There of course inconsistent Government, unless barred such federal terms and conditions Federal prohibi- King controlling to that extent constitutional invalid.” some Smith, 309, 333, tion, impose terms and condi- n. money 2128, 2141, upon n. allotments L.Ed.2d tions disbursed, and that to the States shall