Meyers v. Juras
327 F. Supp. 759
D. Or.
1971
Check Treatment

*1 1625.1(c), Regulation (N.D.Ga.1966). have supra, that local boards indicates Phyllis Young, Sharon Lee MEYERS keep duty advised affirmative

some individually mi- of their behalf registrants. The Third similarly children, of thе status others and all situated, Plaintiffs, that: has held v. “* * registrant indi- [W]hen individually JURAS, Andrew and in his unclearly, a de- cates, how no matter capacity as Administrator of the Ore- right, it is procedurаl sire for a gon Division, ‍​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​​​​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​‌​​​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‍Defend- it in fa- duty to construe of the board ant. registrant if need be vor of Civ. No. 70-378. him. clarification obtain Court, United States District supra, at Turner, v. United States Orеgon. D. 3,May policies, light I conclude of these sufficiently statement, which Bowser’s claim of con- prima facie approximates a Board objection Lоcal

scientious there aware had to be

would he was likelihood was a substantial “re- objector, constituted conscientious “claiming” conscientious quest” and meaning C.F.

objection of 32 within the Thus, interprеtation of our R. regulation protects having notice interest in boards’ objector claims ‍​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​​​​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​‌​​​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‍spective conscientious recognized judicially interest having registrаnts their untutored proper tri- fully presented to the

views they into serv- are ordered

bunal before conscientiously op- they may ice which

pose. Board, given its

Since the Local

knowledge statement, of Bowser’s

quired provide the defendant with objec- Form 150 for conscientious SSS

tors, refusal to do so in this case vio- right process

lates his to due of law.

See, g., States, e. Boswell United (C.A.9, 1968);

F.2d United Moyer, supra, Thus,

States v. at 615. induction order

Bowser’s was invalid judgment acquittal.

he is entitled to a Turner, supra,

See United States v.

1255; Bowen, United 414 F.2d States 1969); (C.A.3, ‍​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​​​​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​‌​​​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‍1271-1272 Moyer, supra, States at 616.

ORDER day now,

And this June guilty.

the court finds the defendant not

760 2281, 2284. Jurisdiction

U.S.C. §§ (4); 1343(3) and on 28 § based U.S.C. three-judge court The U.S.C. § jurisdiction plain pendent also has tiffs’ claims that regula conflict federal statutes with Wyman, 397 tions. Rosado (1970); 90 King L.Ed.2d S.Ct. (1968); 20 L.Ed.2d Gibbs, 383 Mine Workers 721-729, 16 L.Ed.2d Meyers Lee has Plаintiff Sharon November AFDC since ceived sign complaint in a now She proceeding against her husband. Recovery ad- The Welfare Division Meyers fails to if she vised Mrs. sign complaint sus- her will be pended. challenged found are Oregon Public Welfare to 2114.- 2145.45 and 2114.6 Depart- as modified Executive (April #9 ment Task Force Merten, Portland, Or., Charles J. Rob- 1970). Vogеl, Denver, ert Colo., P. Robert J. requires ev- The Social Altman, Douglas Clough, John H. S. per- ery from state to seek contributions Green, Legal Service, Or., Portland, Aid support legаlly responsible sons plaintiffs. receiving 42 U. children assistance. Johnson, Atty. Gen., Lee James W. requirement is S.C. § Durham, Jr., Kathryn Kelty, Asst. (Notice to En- Law as NOLEO known Attys. Gen., Or., Salem, for defendant. Officials). pro- The NOLEO forcement KILKENNY, Judge, Before enlarged gram the addi- GOODWIN,

and SOLOMON and Dis- 602(a) of subsections tion Judges. trict (22), (18), (21), Stat. regula- 879, 896, and 897. The federal OPINION these amend- tions issued in 45 ments are GOODWIN, ALFRED T. District Bulle- Executive udge: J provides: #9 tin Plaintiffs, public recipients, enjoin seek “Compliance with the enforcing regulation requires lo- require- which is a basic cedure administrators to terminate cal welfare all cases dependent aid families by a deserted or * if mothers with law refuse to does recipient If the ent *. finan- enforcement ‍​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​​​​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​‌​​​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‍ agree comply support nonsupporting fathers. cial af- whatever procedure and to take necessary to devel- action firmative three-judge was convened be- court support op enjoin resource cause the seek agreeing fails regulation. parent or after a enforcement of parent as- AFDC if absent comply, exists and does not no comply order; or terminat- with a be denied sistance must ed.” (7) Internal Revenue reim- by Health, quoted bursed Educаtion and that the Wel- Plaintiffs contend fare for portion costs in #9 is in conflict of Bulletin *3 pay support. Security dowho not and that the Act Social regulation federally violates the Although the amended statute sets out' rights. protected constitutional many sup- methods for challenged port parent, absent an The state nowherе contends the appear Congress regulation does it is with the letter intended develop support the states to the the and legislation, intent of relevant resources by threatening mothers and is constitutional. and with the withdrawal of AFDC benefits. plaintiffs’ statutory If claim is well legislative statute taken, we not constitu- need reach the history еligibility require- mentions King tional issues. S.Rep.No 744, Cong. ments. See 309, 88 20 L.Ed.2d 1118 (1967), reprinted 1st Sess. in 1967 U.S. (1968). Cong, Admin.News, pp. 2834, Code statutory whether, 2997-3000; Pub.L. 90-248 powers granted der the the states Congressional always silence il- Security Social Act and the luminating, significant but silence is Department Health, of the of Education here because same 1968 amendments Welfare, Oregon compli- can make Security expressly Social procedures ance with the state’s NOLEO participation vided that in work-incen- eligibility requirement an for AFDC programs eligibility require- tive is an benefits. state, ment. The in The answer turns on the inten family, an AFDC to a providing tion of in for the may deny person benefits to a who program. NOLEO The 1968 amendment рarticipate in a work-incen- gave to the NOLEO program. “additiopal states tools” to determine le Reading the 1968 amendments as a gal responsibility and to whole, we conclude that if had pro make The amendment collections. coopera- intended to make the mother’s following help vided of kinds tion in colleсtion efforts an state: requirement, the amendment would have so in said as it did connection with re- (1) sharing Federal of of costs fusal work. agencies; enforcement (2) in Full-time staff state wel- This conclusion is fortified current agency, specialize fare enforcement interpretation federal administrative obligations; child-support ‍​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​​​​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​‌​​​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‍program. the NOLEO After this case (3) argued, promulgated Internal Revenue master was regulation, H.E.W. a new help February 27, file made available to locate effective parents; reads: (4) Information the location of ab- “(a) appropriate law enforce- sent released courts inter- notified in officials will be writ- proceedings under the Uniform Re- ing promptly as soon as AFDC ciprocal Act; Support Enforcement respect been furnished a child (5) agencies required Statе welfare who is been deserted believed assist each other in parent. This re- collecting support; ents quirement upon has no effect de- liability eligibility. Federal It tax established termination of is a re- quirement agency, upon to the extent of is ful- federal contribution to ** resources, developing potential income in- providing filled to terminate family it was after formation children) (which granted an AFDC eligible assist- and been cooperation of a mother. to coerce the 45 C.F.R. § ance contends, therefore hold We not, the defendant Security are invalid. interpretation the Social new impose a condition of H.E.W.’s Handbook Act. See condition unless that Assistance, IV, for AFDC benefits Part is authorized Social harmony Doe v. are also We Act. (D.Conn.1969), Shapiro, Miller, Woods hold that We do not (W.D.Pa.1970). of these three- use its cannot *4 judge cases, con- to locate and collect eligibility upon ditioned welfare NOLEO parents. do we hold that cooperation declаred invalid as were Oregon may not seek AFDC State of Congress. authorized through cooperation means less mother’s argues Wyman benefits drastic than withdrawal Defendаnt only that James, We hold her children. L. 91 S.Ct. 400 U.S. being money spent on (1971), supports where its conten Ed.2d 408 welfare, Oregon's program state-administered tion that impose upon the bеneficiaries valid. At least so viewed one Goodwin, than those conditions other James case. See Saiz v. Congress. (D.N.M., March 1971). However, since we do reach findings of opinion serve shall as case, the the constitutional issues in this fact and conclusions point. James case is not The Su- 52(a). Fed.R.Civ.P. preme compul- James held Cоurt permanently en- The defendant sory visits officials home denying joined discontinuing tool” were “reasonable administrative plaintiffs AFDC assistance did not the Fourth contravеne ground failed to sole against proscription Amendment’s law enforcement reasonable searches. required by Welfare as Public 27 L.Ed.2d 408. The 2145.45 presented here, however, not whether (as modified Exec- 2114.6 2114.66 cooperation Department utive might also be “reasonable administra- #9). purposes tool” of constitutional аnalysis, whether has au- Judge (dissent- KILKENNY, Circuit thorized use such tool. ing) : We are convinced challenged regula- my opinion, intended the Public Welfare Division to with, only entirely and con- tion is consider income available to, intent of the mother and children forms the letter and rel- grant. legislation and is constitu- AFDC evant federal teaching Wyman 233.20(a) (ii) (c); Lewis v. Mar tional under James, L. tin, 25 L. 90 S.Ct. applied Saiz Ed.2d 408 Ed.2d Goodwin, (D.N.M., March Division was directed Con cooperation gress 5, 1971). to secure the mother’s