Quattlebaum v. Barry

QUATTLEBAUM, Carrie al., Appellants,

et BARRY,* al., Appellees.

Marion et

No. 92-CV-504. Appeals.

District of Court Columbia

Argued April En Banc 1995.

Decided Dec. * 25(d). 43(c); Super.Ct.Civ.R. Mayor hereby D.C.App.R. Barry Marion is substituted as cf. Kelly. party Mayor former Sharon Pratt

ON REHEARING EN BANC ** PER CURIAM: the Council of the District of Columbia, with a confronted serious revenue shortfall, legislation, subsequently enacted signed by Mayor, reduced the which recipients1 benefit entitlements AFDC 1, 1989 and eliminated the October recipients previ- had annual COLA2 ously Budget Conformity received. (Au- Amendment Act of D.C. Law 9-27 1991). gust Appellants, recipients AFDC adversely were affected these benefit who reductions, brought a action in the class Su- against Mayor perior Court and other District), (collectively the District officials injunctive seeking Appel- and other relief. lants contended that the Council had unlaw- benefits, fully their in violation of 7 reduced 2017(b) (1988), by improperly tak- U.S.C. recipients’ ing into consideration AFDC enti- They stamps. food also tlement to receive Herman, DC, Anthony Washington, with to reas- claimed that the Council had failed Sarnoff, Tucson, AZ, D. Erie whom Joshua minimum needs of AFDC sess the current Lasker, Roisman, Wagman and Florence recipients, in violation of D.C.Code DC, brief, Washington, ap- Finally, appellants were on the for 205.44.3 asserted pellants. recipients advising individual notices compliance of the reductions were not in Schwab, Corporation Edward Assistant statutory requirements. and constitutional Counsel, Payton, Corpora- with whom John summary for Parties filed cross-motions filed, tion Counsel the time the brief was and, judgment April trial on Reischel, Deputy Corporation and Charles L. judge comprehensive opinion issued a Counsel, brief, appellees. were on the for granted District’s motion. which he Lovill, Smith, Kathryn A. Jr. W. Walter Dixon, Quattlebaum Daily v. Wash. III, DC, Bentley, Washington, and A. Lee (Quattlebaum (Super.Ct.D.C.1992) L.Rptr. filed a on De- brief behalf of the Children’s ). recipients appealed I The AFDC Fund, fense as amicus curiae. II, and, 20, 1994, Quattlebaum on October

supra note a division of this court reversed WAGNER, Judge, holding Before had judgment, Chief that the Council FERREN, TERRY, STEADMAN, recipients’ improperly considered the AFDC SCHWELB, FARRELL, KING, stamps that the no entitlement to food Judges. Associate tices to the were insufficient.4 On ** Except specified, opinion 3. otherwise all references in Part I of the for the court was written Judge opin- opinion Part II Associate SCHWELB. to the District of Columbia Code are this Judge ion was Associate FARRELL. written to the 1994 edition. Depen- 1. AFDC stands Aid to Families with question not reach the wheth- The division did seq. §§ dent Children. See 42 U.S.C. 601 et required er the Council was in 1991 to reassess (1991); seq. D.C.Code 3-205.10 et needs, recipients' minimum but stated the AFDC operation program the AFDC is described in according evidence uncontroverted opinion Quattlebaum of the division. See by appellants support of their mo- submitted (D.C.1994) Kelly, 951 & n. 4 648 A.2d summary judgment, the Council had tion for (Quattlebaum II). Quattlebaum failed make such a reassessment. II, supra, Living Adjustment. 648 A.2d at 951-52 & n. 5. 2. COLAstands for Cost of banc, 25,1991, Committee court, April the Council’s sitting this en On March Report6 recom- Human Services issued opinion granted the division vacated the proposals budget mending Mayor’s petition rehearing en banc. We District’s reported that adopted. The Committee rulings principal affirm the trial court’s now fund ade- simply does exist to “funding validity reduc- the of the benefit and sustain every program which the each and quately tions.5 past.” provided in the for District law, stamp food the value of Under federal I. autho- agencies are which state allotments recipi- eligible as an rized to issue increases THE FOOD STAMP ACT CLAIM 7 U.S.C. income decreases. See ent’s 2017(a) (1991). Recognizing that the law A Facts. The manner, not- in this the Committee operates undisputed. largely of record are The facts would be that the loss AFDC benefits ed trial They both in the are described detail by in the offset an increase food partially opinion, Quattlebaum judge’s memorandum affected stamp allotment for which some I, Daily Wash.L.Rptr. and Report, at 6. cipients eligible. be would II, Quattlebaum opinion the of the division. following table: Report contained the The only those A.2d at 952-54. We recite issues, facts, only and address those necessary appeal.

we view as decide this 1991, during

In crisis which March a fiscal interim, Mayor in the

has not abated former presented meeting Kelly Report the described Sharon Pratt Council Id. The further proposal at which budget her for Fiscal Years of the Committee that the Coun- and 1992. She recommended Rolark [Wilhelmina] noted Councilmember cil annual suspend previously automatic types of were devas- that these reductions recipients, they tating, COLA for AFDC and that individ- “hit the most vulnera- because fur- population, poor.” 4.5% to She ual entitlements rolled back ble of our that we noted that she understood 1989 levels. ther 25, 1991), reinstate, review, (Apr. ity Part of 5. We without substantive Act Amendment decision, (hereinafter relating Report). the ade- III of the division’s 9-27 D.C.Law recipients. quacy the notice to the AFDC II, supra, Quattlebaum 648 A.2d at 957-58. explaining "Background Need” for 7. petition rehearing or District stated in its legislation, the Committee stated: sought rehearing en banc that it not have would 1, 1991, Mayor of the District On March portion division’s en banc review of of the proposals] budget submitted of Columbia standing According alone. to the divi- decision for the of the of Columbia District opinion, counsel indicated sion’s for the District the Fiscal Year 1991 Fiscal Year argument before at oral the division (revised). budget light and finan- "seriously of severe challenging” the defi- was not District ciency brought the economic argument on cial restraints recession, of the notices. Id. at 957. At cotut, budget proposals contained re- these full the District before the counsel for the fact that District that the division had "misunderstood” ductions which reflect claimed expendi- position, pro- pace keeping but with the District’s he was unable are not revenues tures, expendi- support conten- information of this vide the need to curtail certain circumstances, we elect budget Under all of these tion. deficit. In- order to avoid a tures in with en banc the division’s decision among not to review proposals submitted cluded sufficiency respect Because of the notices. Mayor salaiy for District em- was no increase validity of reduc- the substantive we sustain cost-of-living ployees, increase District no benefits, however, any relief to an indi- tions in spending employees, and a reduction recipient must be on a miscalcula- vidual based including programs, various District funded benefits, be limited tion of his or her and must Pro- in the General Public Assistance reduction accordingly. ("GPA”), Depen- gram the Aid to Families ("AFDC”), Program and the Children dent Program Emergency Services Assistance Report District ("EAS”). Columbia Committee Services on Bill Human Report at 2. of Budget Conform- Public Assistance (7th crisis, (N.D.Ind.), budget in a inquired as to mem. F.2d aff'd. Cir.1981)). budget perceived whether this bill was one of those He it to be “clear from conformity pieces legislation. principal pre Chairman the record ... that the factor responded cipitating [H.R.] Crawford in the affirma- defendants’ reduction of AFDC tive. Mr. suspension Crawford further indicated benefits and was [COLA’s] requested by this bill was the Executive judge the District’s fiscal crisis.” Id. The and that some attempted noted that the Council to alleviate difference assistance reductions would be making this crisis “across the board” bud off- [s]tamps.... set in the allocation get adjustments, cuts and and that the Act [flood originally passed emergency legisla was Mr. Crawford further reminded the Com- budget problems tion “in order to alleviate mittee that he had to work within quickly possible.” Id. funds that “were allocated to the human budget, services that we did not allow the Turning legislative history on which workers of the District of Columbia a recipients largely the AFDC based their COLA, pay or an increase the last case, judge the wrote as follows: years.” everyone par- He noted that must Plaintiffs insist that Chairman Crawford’s ticipate budgetary in the terrible crisis we concerning stamps remarks food at the facing are in the District. Couneilmember meeting April on com- Rolark indicated that she understood and bined with the table in the Committee having commended the chairman for report, requisite demonstrate the causa- worked hard to off-set the reductions. hardly support plain- tion. This suffices to added). (emphasis Id. at 17 merely tiffs’ These conclusion. references Judge’s B. The Trial Decision. called attention to the fact that increased stamp approx- food allotments would offset provision Stamp The of the Food Act on imately one-third the AFDC decrease. appellants rely which states that budgetary times of constraints an elect- provided any [t]he value of the allotment legislative body scarcely expect- ed can be eligible household shall not be considered forego pointing disagreeable ed to out that any or purpose income resources for under may quite medicine is not so bad as first Federal, State, laws, any including or local appear. interpretation Plaintiffs’ broad welfare, pro- ... and statutory expression the “because of’ grams, participating politi- and no or State put legislators gag would a virtual on faced cal subdivision thereof shall decrease unpopular reducing with the task of provided assistance otherwise an individual legislative history benefit levels. The receipt or individuals because of an unequivocally demonstrates that chapter. allotment under this “cause” of the reductions was the District’s 2017(b) (1988) added). 7 U.S.C. crisis, severe fiscal not the consideration of trial, Appellants claimed at and now contend stamp Consequently, food allotments. court, in this that the references to food Court concludes that the reduction did not stamp eligibility Report in the Committee’s prohibition violate the second of 7 U.S.C. demonstrated that AFDC benefits were 2017(b). recipients’ eligibility rolled back “because of’ Id. 2017(b). stamps, food violation of judge rejected trial this contention. Legal C. Discussion. may undoubtedly He wrote that a state appears undisputed ques duce AFDC benefit levels because of finan- It to be that the exigencies, Stamp cial that the Food Act tion whether the District was entitled to prohibit summary judgment “does not from defendants low- is one of law. Accord ering guaranteed ingly, judge’s their income level in order we must review the trial deci Quattlebaum I, See, protect solvency.” e.g., George their sion de novo. Colbert (D.C. Daily Wash.L.Rptr. (quoting University, at 1929 Fos- town 641 A.2d 1994) (en bane). Township, F.Supp. ter v. Center review, action federal conducting our we view the the Council’s contravenes the light legislation upon appellants rely. most to the non- which record favorable case, moving party. present Id. In the surely prop It is also essential however, sought parties disposition all of the functioning of er democratic institutions judgment, summary case and no claim full representatives elected be accorded the anyone, Superior was made either free, possible opportunity engage in est genuine appeal, or that there are Court Indeed, open, Speech and robust debate. development fact requiring issues material Clause, by analogy com Debate Moreover, at trial. the resolution expounds, mon rule which that Clause law Stamp upon Food Act issue turns the intent protect right legisla designed were enacting challenged of the Council freely issues come speak tors on the legislation. party suggested No See, e.g., before v. United them. Gravel upon light trial could shed further that in- States, 616, 92 S.Ct. 408 U.S. tent, agree parties that the we Stamp The Food L.Ed.2d issue us is one of before law. preclude interpreted should all outset, is important recognize, It during stamp mention food entitlements of the claim the AFDC nature session, legislative of a such a course asserting under the Food would the construction chill exercise Act, Stamp kind they and the of relief which right to ex Councilmembers their free seeking. Appellants are have asked the pression, obvious and would raise constitu court order elected branches of the if problems tional which should avoided government spend money more on the See, e.g., reasonably possible. v. Malone because, claim, program they (D.C.1993) Robinson, 614 A.2d 38 n. 8 Council made the decision to reduce benefits curiam), (per there and authorities cited. legally impermissible a reason. More- over, appellants predicate request mind, their for a general principles in these With judicial finding that the acted with an specific we turn to the issue before us. The improper legislative purpose solely motive or correctly trial on judge noted that statute Committee, on the fact that the and Council- appellants rely requires which them individually, provided man Crawford to the they clearly, show—and in our must show relating Council factual information to the recipients’ view—that the AFDC benefits operation Stamp of the Food Act. receipt were of a reduced “because of 2017(b) stamp] allotment.” 7 U.S.C. [food Especially budgetary cri times of added). according Re But to the sis, many competing there are claims on the Services, port Human of the Committee on District’s limited financial resources. The designed these were avoid a reductions Council cannot accommodate them all. Hard looming budget compelling deficit. Absent painful must choices be made. The con contrary, to the we must take the evidence responsibility stitutional to make such why legislation Council at its word as to upon They, choices our falls elected officials. was See 2A Norman J. enacted. SingeR, courts, not obliged “to reconcile CONSTRUCTION, SUTHERLAND STATUTORY needy of ... demands citizens with the (1992). 45.1, at 49 finite resources available to meet those de Williams, Dandridge Significantly, mands.” bene- U.S. reduction AFDC stamp fits 90 S.Ct. 25 L.Ed.2d 491 was not measured food available, are not “to second- benefits which would become but We authorized a guess charged with the rather the rollback of COLA which [District] officials allocating previously received. responsibility difficult limited AFDC had myriad among explication treat public welfare funds of Unless we Committee’s legislation as potential recipients.” for the a subter- Id. at S.Ct. reasons fuge nothing in request or we discern should accede to a charade—and We regard permit us so— judicial upon as a the record which would to do intrusion what we judge’s plain agree the trial legislative only function if it is that we are bound core respect cy assessment of the into record with to the coerce members principal purpose. Council’s The AFDC cuts silence on matters relevant to the issues of accompanied by variety were day. of other cost- Legislators who wish to do their reduction measures had no connection duty, spending money and to avoid which the stamps, including pro- have, whatever with food compelled District does not would be scription against salary increases and cost-of- tongues say nothing either to bite their living adjustments employees. for District judicial speak or to the truth and invite inval- spend- The Council also enacted substantial idation their efforts. ing reductions various other District-fund- right, notwithstanding The Council has the programs. supra. ed See note Act, Stamp the Food to reduce AFDC bene- do not that the accurate refer- We believe protect fits order to the District’s solven- Report oper- ences in the Committee’s Foster, cy. supra, F.Supp. at 379. If Stamp appel- ation of the Food Act validate decided, regard the Council had without position. lants’ The Council would have been crisis, simply stamps financial to use food compelled budget to deal with severe previously provided as a substitute for funds brought if straints the recession even AFDC, through this would be a different partially offsetting in- there had been no ease. This is what occurred in some other stamp crease food allotments. Neither jurisdictions in which the reductions were the Committee nor Councilman Crawford properly pages invalidated. See in- suggested that benefits should be reduced Here, however, budget crisis —a fra. stamps because food In- would be available. according “terrible” one to Chairman Craw- deed, very dining exchange between required wide-ranging spending reduc- ford — Chairman Crawford and Councilmember Ro- applied only recipi- tions which to AFDC appellants rely, lark on which Mr. Crawford but to other citizens as well. Persons ents emphasized being the Council was eligible stamps singled for food were not out. unpalatable forced to make cuts because of intended, that We do not believe budgetary facing “the terrible crisis we are through language the “because of’ in the District,” and Mrs. Rolark said she Act, Stamp proscribe Food either to neces- stamps understood.8 The facts about food sary budgetary prohibit measures or to accu- were mentioned to the in order operation rate references to the of the Act. accurately consequences reflect Further, Congress hardly could intend- have proposed legislation, perhaps to show reading ed a of the statute which would partial that there would be at least a modest predictably stifle and inhibit members debate palliative pill to the bitter which the Council- referring legislature from to financial members’ less affluent constituents would be realities, question if in even the discussion forced to swallow. stamps. was about food spoonful sugar,” “A the words of Mary Poppins, “helps go Appellants judge the trial the medicine down.” contend judge explicitly recognized The trial as much. construed the words “because of’ too nar- I, Quattlebaum Daily Wash.L.Rptr. rowly. They rely on cases such as Montana Ass’n, expect politicians grim Savings 1929. To to announce v. First Federal & Loan (2d Cir.1989), realities about the dark clouds the finan- F.2d 100 which the court sky, lips very Age that under cial but to seal their as to the held the federal Discrimina- Act, lining, Employment proscribes tion in modest silver would be both unrealis- which ruling age, plaintiff tic and unreasonable. A that the mere discrimination “because of’ prove age mention of the existence of the sweetener need not was the “sole” rea- employ- son for the defendant’s unfavorable establishes unlawful intent and dooms the legislation would have the inevitable tenden- ment action. Id. at 105. This court has individuals, little, any, light upon Even the remarks Councilmembers Craw shed if if supported appellants’ ford and Rolark thesis— with which a statute was enacted. See intent they recently and we do not think do—we have by Beverage v. Columbia Alcoholic Chase District of legisla reiterated that comments individual Bd., (D.C.1995). Control 669 A.2d tors, represent only which the views of those recognized, availability of in- likewise the context of statuto that the Council took the account,” ry provisions designed stamp and constitutional allotments “into creased food Stamp Act. equal opportunity, assure is and thus violated the Food that there “no acceptable place partial the law for racial however, Dupler, city In of Portland States, discrimination.” Tursio v. United effectively general reduced assistance bene- (D.C.1993) (quoting 634 A.2d n. 7 newly amount of the avail- fits the exact Co., Realty Smith v. Sol D. Adler 436 F.2d stamp Instead of re- able food allotment. (7th Cir.1970)). provisions But such paid ceiving previously she was $18 generously are remedial and must be con expenses general for food under Portland’s Simpson strued. v. District Columbia Dupler program, Ms. was now to Rights, Human 597 A.2d Office of dollar, provided only one for with (D.C.1991); Metropol see also v. Trafficante single apparently she could obtain dollar Co., itan Ins. U.S. S.Ct. Life stamps. Dupler, in federal food $18 364, 368, 34 L.Ed.2d 415 Cases like claimed, F.Supp. at 1318. Portland never Montana and Tursio are faithful to that District, does the that the benefits were canon, enlightened application but have no reason other than the availabil- duced Here, present context. the broad con ity contrary, stamps. of food On the appellants struction of of’ “because for which city’s welfare officials had determined contend would effect a most unusual intru duplicative payments, receipt order avoid legisla sion into courts a traditional stamps of federal food should be taken into potentially tive domain. It would also chill calculating weekly account food ex- the exercise Councilmembers of their penses general assistance. right obligation speak their minds contrast, the District Id. at 1318-19. freely proposed legislation when is submitted suspended simply reduced the benefits and to them for debate. These considerations adjustments cost-of-living to address a present were not in the decisions cited to us Although fiscal crisis. the Council made ref- by appellants. impact legislation erence to the on food Appellants rely also on cases such as Du stamp payments, it did not use the availabili- Portland, pler City 421 F.Supp. 1314 ty stamps of food to calculate the reduction (D.Me.1976),in which the court said: in AFDC benefits. legislative history Stamp] of the [Food circumstances, these the use of Act makes [it] clear that the intent of phrase Dupler “take into account” in the provide was not to a substitute opinion entirely cannot be carried over per- for other forms of aid to low-income present different situation in the case with supplement sons but to that aid in order to removing language from moor out its improve their of level nutrition.... It is States, ings. 612 A.2d See Khiem v. United evident that if welfare assistance is re- denied, 160, (D.C.1992), cert. 507 U.S. duced to take into account the value of 1293, 924, 122 L.Ed.2d 684 113 S.Ct. Act, stamps food received under the (broad judi general statements of law in ultimate effect of the Act will be not to opinions cial must be read in the context of merely pre-existing raise but to maintain court, the facts before the and cannot be purpose of of nutrition and the uncritically transposed to factual different Act will be frustrated. circumstances).10 added). Seizing at 1319 on Id. Aid, language, Dep’t. In v. Public 67 Ill.2d italicized which has also been used Smith of (1977), 520, decisions,9 529, appellants other assert 10 Ill.Dec. 367 N.E.2d 1286 several States, 1444, Stamp E.g., cases on which 9. v. 724 F.2d 10. The other Food Act Woods United 9, appellants rely, supra note are likewise distin- (9th Cir.1984); County Long City v. grounds. guishable or on the same similar Francisco, Cal.App.3d Cal.Rptr. San 1447-48; Woods, Cal.Rptr. Long, 724 F.2d at (Cal.App.1978); 68-70 Gooderham cf. (AFDC by anticipated reduced at 70 amount of food benefits Div., Family Or.App. Adult & Serv. Gooderham, allotment); stamp P.2d 667 P.2d at 557-58. 205.44), April 6 of which became effective Supreme Court of Illinois found year. provides: It Stamp no of the Food Act there was violation case, (a) State, Dupler assistance which [in] where the “unlike The amount of granting any person shall be deter- no distinction in its of wel- shall receive ma[de] by the stamp recipients food and those mined Council. fare between stamps.” (b) who do not receive food Id. at to in subsec- amount as referred Such case, (a) present at 1291. In the 367 N.E.2d not be less tion of this section shall Smith, the reduction AFDC benefits as neces- than the full amount determined board,” applied to those was “across the sary on the basis of the minimum needs stamps food as well as to who did receive person such as established Council. those did. conclude that the Food who We agreement despite parties are in Stamp Act was not violated.11 full amount” lan- the “not ... less than the (b), Congress has re-

guage of subsection annually duty to the District set lieved II. percent actual levels at one hundred See, e.g., minimum needs. of the established THE PROCEDURAL CLAIM Act Appropriations District Columbia contend, Appellants also and our dissent- 91-155, 433; 83 Stat. Pub.L. No. ing colleague agrees, that the Council rolled Act of Appropriations District Columbia back AFDC benefits to 1989 levels without 1990, § Pub.L. No. 103 Stat. determining the current needs example, in 1986 the 1276.13 For recipients, violation of D.C.Code 3- family of three of assistance for a standard reject premise argu- of this 205.44.12 We month, persons per the actual was but $712 un- ment —that the Council altered benefits $364, fifty was or a little over level level of for assis- aware of the current needs percent. statutory find no or tance —and therefore (b), keeping in 1982 the with subsection other violation. of the District of Columbia estab- minimum need standards dispute At the heart of this is section 544 lished new assistance”). (termed Assistance “standards of of the District of Columbia Public (now of as- redetermined these needs Act of 1982 codified as D.C.Code proposal Inviting spending also included an to the federal Omnibus cuts. That our attention (OBRA) funding approximate Budget $14 million increase Reconciliation agency, setting program provide provides AFDC for an antici- that a state for the levels, 24,000 "may pated take into consideration as in the number of AFDC increase to assistance, requesting ... amount not to exceed the value of income an District families stamp family’s monthly 18,000 allotment of food compared At in Fiscal Year 1990. 602(a)(7)(C)(i) (Supp. coupons,” time, see 42 U.S.C. budget proposed Mayor's the same 1995), argues the District U.S.C. and to decrease individual benefits 4.5% 2017(b) implicitly repealed, and that been previously suspend automatic annual cost- authority the to consider the Council now has adjustment of-living The cumula- until 1993. setting stamp lev- food income in AFDC benefit proposals be to "roll tive effect of these would rejected judge this contention be- els. The trial June 1989 levels. back” AFDCbenefits to plan indicated in its that it cause the District had income, stamps food as would not consider argues appro- that these annual 13.The District application OBRA had no he held that the 1981 a dead let- priations acts have made 3-205.44 I, Daily Quattlebaum to that situation. Appellants respond while ter. dispo- light Wash.L.Rptr. of our at 1928-29. funding, requirement of full it has eliminated the appellants' Stamp Food Act claims sition of "procedural” separate, re- the not eliminated grounds, reach this issue. other we do not quirement of minimum needs of an assessment any before redetermination of accurately judge trial summarized case, disposition of the In view of our is made. adopted by proposed legislation, subsequently We likewise need we need not decide this issue. Council, as follows: contentions, two other not address the District's proce- impose shortfall, namely, did not a facing budget severe Council, duty and that even if a dural on the quarter Mayor’s budget proposal fourth for the implicitly procedural duty imposed, was it was and for Fiscal Year 1992 of Fiscal Year 1991 by repealed $66 across-the-board Act 9-27. included million in 3-205.52(c) (1981 sistance, when presumptively aware of current needs see D.C.Code time, ed; repl.). At the it re- benefits same it determined nonetheless reduce quired or “[o]n for the first time that before to 1989 levels. year,

January beginning 31st of each Accordingly, appellants’ contention January 31, Mayor shall calculate that the Council was unaware cannot be and submit to the Council a determination minimum needs in but that the current increase, percentage during preced- it of those information which informed year, price ing calendar in the consumer tally of annual cost of needs —the cumulative items, index for urban consumers for all in lev living increases reflected by Department published the United States But imprecise els—was too or unreliable. (‘Consumer Index’) of Labor Price [CPI].” 3-205.44(b) specify not does Thereafter, “[t]he level by apprise which the Council must means in payments for assistance units set forth needs; contrary, of current on the itself (c) in- subsection of this section shall be solely aid refers to the minimum needs of annually creased as of October 1st of each by the Council.” “as established year, by beginning with an October Manifestly, required the Council was not increase, if equal percentage amount or its own particular consult studies obtain [sic; any, price in the consumer increase living experts to assess cost of increases Id, Mayor.” as determined index?] present; the District between 1986 and the 3-205.52(d).14 objective gauge provides the CPI an not, Appellants they do nor could wants, widely in minimum one such increase date, challenge this late the Council’s rede- accepted as reliable. termination of the standards of need or as charges dissenting colleague us with Our 1987, therefore, sistance in 1986. Since reading a dis- into the Council’s action continuing until the 1991 enactment con say “implied repeal.” favored He does not here, troversy the standards of assistance (under analysis) our effectively though indirectly have — —been 3-205.44(b) itself; pealed he updated annually through an increase because, above, say explained could not so living reference cost of that section does not dictate the method say increases shown in the CPI. “indi We cur- which the Council must inform itself of because, rectly” while the standards of as Instead, minimum needs. the dissent rent changed, sistance themselves have each implied repeal of says relying on an we year percentage level at the Dis 3-205.44(b) previously implemented ad “as pays trict benefits has increased automati 3-205.52(c),” through repeal hoc (if cally any) reflect increases the cost given prior “interpretation ... Council’s living. The ratio has thus been main 3-205.52(c).” 46, 47 §§ 3-205.44 and Post at recipients in tained between the needs of added). least, is, say This willingness real dollars and the District’s implied repeal. an unorthodox notion of fund those needs. It follows that at the Moreover, “implementation]” the dissent time Council acted 1991 to roll back speaks revision of the actu- of—the Council’s mark, levels to the 1989 it was al of assistance 1986 and earli- standards of current minimum needs for assis aware of the auto- er —was done without benefit tance as reflected the 1986 standards adjustment living matic cost supplemented year each annu thereafter increases in 1986 to account for established living in the level of al cost increases year words, recipient in needs in 1987 and each payments. other because the did not “re- thereafter. Thus the Council built into the District’s 1986 enactment when, revising of peal” anything in the level incorporation an of cost scheme automatic in it so aware living annually, payments downward did of increases the Council was that, jurisdictions,” among and that pointed to 16th all 14. The District out in the trial court per capita expenditure living in the District of these automatic cost of in- 1990 "the as creases, "[f|rom result high- payments was the second 1986 until the District im- for AFDC benefit 1990 ranking payments country.". proved from 28th est in the its in AFDC in III. minimum needs as reflected of current living since cumulative cost of increases

1986. CONCLUSION

Finally, reasons, action was consistent judgment the Council’s is foregoing For the Wyman, opinion 397 U.S. division part. with Rosado v. in affirmed only, In Rosa- to the notice issue see 25 L.Ed.2d is reinstated as S.Ct. do, supra, note and the case is remanded an amend- Supreme Court considered proceedings for further as to the trial court Security Act of 1935which ment to the Social issue, specified the division. See that states, adjust by July required II, Quattlebaum A.2d at 958 n. 19. “the amounts used the State determine [eligible for AFDC] the needs of individuals So ordered. living fully changes costs ... to reflect established,” and to since such amounts were FERREN, concurring Judge, Associate adjust[]” any “proportionately “máximums dissenting part: part and aid imposes on the amount of that the State families_” the Court rec- paid to While join majority opinion I after I Part of the provision require did not ognized that this analysis at division. of our reconsideration equal to mini- pay the states to benefits Quattlebaum Kelly, 648 A.2d established, thereby it discerned mum needs (D.C. vacated, (D.C.1994), 656 A.2d important purpose “to language an 1995). join part disposition I of the also up realistically to require to face States opin- III that reinstates the division in Part require- magnitude and remands for ion on the notice issue their lay specified bare the extent to which ment and further trial court consideration id., fulfilling A.2d at 957-58 programs fall short of actual the division. See dissent, however, respectfully n. 19. I at 1218. & need....” Id. at S.Ct. majority opinion that 3-205.44(b) II of the from Part similarly requires I procedural violation. As treats the claimed keep officials to abreast the District’s elected it, the District of in 1991 the Council of see that, “changes living costs” so while unlawfully AFDC benefits Columbia reduced complete- they not fund minimum needs need by reinstating levels without they standard ly, do not “obscure actual recipients’ “minimum reassessing the first political mindful of “the of need” 3-205.44(b) (1994) needs,” as D.C.Code [any] that consequence of cutback” such as quired. imposed by the 1991 enactment. Id. at adjustments 1218. The CPI 90 S.Ct. at Requirement I. Procedural made since 1987 insure levels 3-205.44(b) the Council rolled back when current, actual it aware of the was Required Assessment The Council’s indicated, recipients. As while needs of Needs” “Minimum Before themselves had standards of assistance Reduction AFDC Benefits changes in changed the annual since payment levels to the standards the ratio of rehearing the focus of en banc Because directly in the cost corresponded to increases divi- stamp issue on which the was the food Therefore, nothing from living. masked decision, court has not its sion rested the Council the current needs argument adequately considered the other nonetheless, concluded, these when presented to demon- appellants have beyond funded unlawfully could not be why reduced strate the Council years. fiscal for at least the next two to reas- in 1991: the failure AFDC benefits reject appellants’ argument do- accordingly “minimum needs” before recipients’ We sess duty argument transgressed appellants’ I ing that the 1991roll-back so. believe mandates rever- compelling of current mini- is and thus to inform itself here ground. on this alternative modifying payment levels. sal mum needs before

891 602(a)(23) (1970). Congressional 42 See Enactment the District current. U.S.C. of 233.20(a)(2)(ii) (1970).” Public Act Columbia Assistance also 45 C.F.R. of 1962 Junghans Department Human Re- of of (D.C.1972) (footnote sources, 17, 289 A.2d 20 adopting the District of Pub- Columbia omitted).3 This amendment emphasis and 87-807, 1962, lic 76 Assistance of Pub.L. provided that 914, Congress provided in section 5: Stat. (a) public The amount of assistance which 1, 1969, by July the amounts used any person shall receive shall be deter- of individuals State to determine the needs regulations ap- mined in accordance with adjusted fully will have been to reflect proved by the Commissioners. changes living such amounts costs since (b) amount as referred to in subsec- Such established, and máximums that were (a) tion of this section shall not less imposes on the amount of aid State than the amount determined as neces- full paid proportion- to families will have been sary on the basis the minimum needs of of adjusted. ately person such as established accordance 602(a)(23). 42 U.S.C. The amendment re regulations. with such political compromise. The Johnson flected (c) (b) provisions The of of this subsection initially legisla proposed Administration had upon section shall become effective enact- (1) require tion that would the states ment. determining standards for need re establish (1967) added).1 3-204 January flecting living the cost of as of regime Under this the District of Columbia’s (2) 1967; implement plan that —like the plan pro- so-called state one the District of Columbia—would meet covering vided benefits until 1970 the “full established; “all and ef need[s]” so needs,” recipients’ amount” of the “minimum 1,1968, July provide fective for the annual id., established with reference to relevant updating of these standards reference to living cost of indices.2 “changes living Wy costs.” Rosado v. Congressional Adoption 1967-69: Social man, 397, 410, 1207, 1217, 397 U.S. 90 S.Ct. Security Act Amendments 442 Both the House and L.Ed.2d balked, however, resulting in an the Senate principle “full amount” was not to last. 402(a)(23), supra note supra see note 2. “In amendment — required Security 3—that the states and the District require amended the Social Act to update the minimum “needs update by July all states to Columbia July “living standards for assistance of individuals” to reflect of Aid costs,” Dependent Families with Children but allowed the states and the District (AFDC) living to reflect the cost of then to establish “máximums” short of those funds”) 72-17, 5(a), governmental reorganization, Reg. §§ 2 1. After the word and No. and (Oct. 1, (a) 1972) (establishing changed "Commissioners" in subsection was DCR 211 standards to “District of Assistance based on 1970 Columbia Council.” See D.C.Code assistance for Public 3-204(a) (1973). living providing cost of and derived (after by subtracting ap- "available resources ... 69-59, Compare Reg. plicable disregards)” computing proposed and of the No. at 16 "75% 2. 74-42, 1-3, (Dec. 1969), remainder”) Reg. §§ approved DCR 187 in Order No. No. (Dec. 31, 1969), (Jan. 1975) (revoking Reg. DCR No. 72- 69-689 DCRR (June 1979) 5(a); setting Updater, p. (authorizing §§ "full 2 and standards of assistance Index; Cost-of-Living requirements February allowance for basic number based on for the by subtracting persons specified determining payment unit as (after Requirements,” specified applicable ... disre- the Standard for with “available resources February exceptions) Reg. gard)” computing No. 17 DCR 49 "85% costs”; 1970) authorizing "payment up (Aug. (providing Department Director of funds”). availability shall determine "basic re- of needs based on Human Resources 100% quirements receiving of individuals and families February, upon reflected in 42 U.S.C. assistance based 3.The amendment 402(a)(23) 602(a)(23) living” compute public cost of and "shall assis- was enacted as amended, grants living Security 81 Stat. percentage Social Act of tance at a of the cost of February, commensurate with available 892 required by D.C.Code any previously amount[s]” the “full (provided established

needs (1967). 2 and 4. supra § cacophony political of it leaves the States the theme while free effect understanding. adjustments Our chief resources this in the level ben- downward of undertaking are the of the statute paid, accomplishes words that it within efits modest, assumptions and those common-sense goal, however of framework determining must be made in direction accept political con- forcing a State compass. without a sequence bringing cutback and such a of light to which actual assis- the true extent Rosado, at at U.S. 90 S.Ct. accept- tance short the minimum The Court then concluded in order to falls of Lastly, by imposing able. on those States enact welfare benefits consistent with (and District) 402(a)(23), that desire to maintain “máximums” the states adjustment, requirement appropriate of an recipients’ first had to establish the minimum second, has introduced an incentive separate A needs. exercise was re- system, thereby abandon a flat “maximum” quired appropriate payment to determine encouraging desirous of con- those States light specifi- levels in of those needs. More taining budget welfare to shift to a their cally, according to the Court: percentage system equitably that will more Reverting language of apportion in fact allocated for those funds 402(a)(23) separate we man- find two accurately welfare and also more reflect first, dates: the States must re-evaluate public being the real measure of component compose factors that their given. and, second, equation; any need “máxi- adjusted. mums” be must Id. at 90 S.Ct. at 1218-19 purposes may think We two broad added). 402(a)(23): First, require ascribed to holding “impermis- York had New up realistically mag- States to to the face need,” sibly lowered its standard of id. at require- nitude of at 90 S.Ct. Court stressed lay ment and bare the extent to which analysis importance separate of the state’s programs fulfilling their short actu- fall setting predicate minimum as the for needs needsecond, prod al the States to payment levels. apportion payments equi- their aon more 402(a)(23) invalidates state Section interpre- table basis. Consistent with this substantially program that alters the con- 102(a)(23), may, tation a State after way tent of of need in such a the standard need, recomputing pare its standard of prior it is than it less was budget- down to accommodate 402(a)(23), unless a enactment of State ary by reducing percent realities formerly can that the items demonstrate paid switching percent or to a benefits longer part included no constituted system, may reduction but it not obscure reality majority of of existence for the the actual need. standard of recipients. welfare ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ Id. at 1221. S.Ct. 402(a)(23) Congress §In spoken payments. favor of increases in AFDC (1) sum, Rosado confirmed that a state’s Congress rejected mandatory While reflecting minimum standards “needs adjustment provision in the administration assistance must be individuals” bill, legislation embodied the cost-of- separately “adjusted fully” the cost to reflect living practical exercise which has both July living and that political consequences. existing pay- previously “maximum[ ]” state’s meeting requiring

It to ment levels that fall short of those has the effect the State adjusted” “proportionally recognize accept responsibility for mínimums must be upward step. as a second U.S.C. those additional individuals whose income 602(a)(23). legislation particular com- This falls short of the standard of need as ruling limited to puted light of economic realities and to the Rosado Court’s were eligible July minimum needs and place among them those for the levels, procedure training provisions. Secondly, two-step but the was de- care and benefit-setting See D.C.Code pro- tance Children. scribed inherent 205.5a(e) (1994). Supreme made cess. The Court therefore clear that establishment of needs Interestingly, in this 1982 Act the Council always and creation of assistance, coupled incorporated standards of significance, separate equal exercises. Of levels, just as the local with lower responsi- Rosado confirmed the lower courts’ regulations had earlier. See Public Assis- bility against the law state enforce 1982, 4-108, 3,§ Act of D.C.Law tance Security require- Act that violates Social 1982), 19, (May presently codified DCR 1413 governing program. ments the AFDC (1994); supra § components legisla- reflect the two two —the any singular negates note use of the this Supreme tive exercises —the Court Rosado two-requirement interpretation, and thus 402(a)(23) § identified in of the Social Securi- identifying eliminates sound basis for a Act, 602(a)(23). ty § at 42 codified U.S.C. “procedural” requirement §in separate 3- fact, itself, This court much. has said as 205.44(b). Mayor- while the Council and the administering Commissioner were the AFDC adopted by Congress, statute § we noted Why Three Reasons D.C.Code 3-205.44 separateness setting dictum the minimum Mandates Reassessment “Minimum ensuing payment

needs and the levels: Lawfully Needs” the Council Can Before Payment Reduce AFDC Levels Under legal The substantive issue [not reached] § D.C.Code 3-205.52 point ... up important servefs] to how the decisions the Council and the Com- contention, Contrary to I the District’s fix missioner a welfare for- agree appellants and the trial court that mula and 2 to establish a 3-205.44(b) § procedural require includes a upon standard need. When called wholly separate ment that is from the sub actions, mindful, too, review their we are requirement, stantive and that the annual Supreme the has Court ascribed to congressional appropriations act waives the Congress the require an intention to each affecting In the state, latter without the former. including District, up “to face realistically magnitude place, §§ of the first D.C.Code 3-205.44 and 205.52 requirement lay and bare statutory provisions are District of Columbia programs extent to which their fall short of 402(a)(23) § implement Se Social need,” fulfilling “paying actual and to 602(a)(23). Act, curity § The first U.S.C. political consequences of such disclosure.” calls for determination of “minimum needs” and for of “not ... less than the Rosado, Junghans, 22 (quoting 289 A.2d at determined; full amount” so the second actu 1218). at at U.S. S.Ct. needs, ally called establishes those that, Appellants acknowledge through the assistance,” “pay as well as “standards acts, appropriations District’s an- reflecting percentage ment levels” a of those nually has waived the Council’s substantive Accordingly, provisions standards. these re 3-205.44(b) obligation § pay under Rosado, mandates,” separate flect the “two required benefits in the “full amount” 1218; Jun 397 U.S. at 90 S.Ct. see recipients’ appellants “minimum needs.” But ghans, required 289 A.2d at for establish argue that elimination of this substantive ob- second ment of AFDC benefits. As ligation procedural does not affect the re- however, level, mandate, § 3- and, indeed, quirement proce- makes that 205.44(b) (“full amount”) 3-205.52(c) dure —that “minimum reassessment (percentage approach) are inconsistent with significant needs” —all the more an obvi- apparently being in- “payment ous reason: if benefit are to each other —the latter levels” appropriations something than confirma- ongoing adoption tended to reflect the more supra act waiver. See note 4.6 meaningless that is inconsis- tion of norm statutory provisions other enacted tent with recognized Junghans, As we no one can by Congress This is Council itself. Rosado, seriously dispute after especially true has con- because the Council 3-205.44 mandates the two recognize validity tinued to of 3-205.44 litiga- quirements parties to this by actually assessing minimum needs from procedural (establishing called tion have needs”) (more later) (setting requires “minimum substantive time to time as Rosado levels”), (1) “payment respectively. This two- adopting regularly at the same while time analysis requirement illustrated can be statutory payment initi- levels and lower Council, the fact that enacted ating financial 3-205.44 waiver of (in reenacting previous effect 3-205.44 through budget request the annual acts sub- 3-204) despite full awareness Congress.7 mitted Congress routinely that “re- waived why proce- There is a second reason act, quirement” appropriations annual requirement dural 3-202.44 survives. supra regulations note see and that local fact, Council, affirmation In addition to the Council’s own reflected the waiver. The incorporated expressly two-step obligation refer- Rosado under of a ence, again, in provisions 205.44, once of the 1991 congressional the annual waiver establishing program of General new always 3-205.44 itself been limited 1982 and Assistance Children. These levels; legislation in payment nothing that mean, may part, 1991 actions that compromise adop- purports to the Council’s keep wished to the “full amount” (“minimum § procedural 3-205.44 tion of the despite § 3-205.44 the fail- place, norm of need”) requirement. According trial to the implement ure to it at 1970. But since least agree— I court —and to mean to be it has more. For there of legislative history of the District [t]he 3-205.44(b) purpose § on the keeping real (the Appropriations Act of 1969 Columbia books, light of its inconsisten- substantive § suspend part is now 3- first to of what congressional § cy with and with 3- waivers 205.44) Congress in- demonstrates that 205.52(c) schedules, only payment can one only permit pay tended the District rely infer that the Council has continued 3-205.44(b) than the full of the standard of preserve procedural § less amount 91-680, obligation H.Rep. 91st requirement first Rosado assistance. No. —to —the (1969) (“[l]anguage “minimum Cong., reassess needs” before 1st 17 has Sess. adjusted. permit levels are included ... been the bill required than paying percent less 100 Supreme stressed Rosado Court by ... Limited revenue [the D.C.Code]. legisla- all that “the courts should construe in the District has influenced the modified give meaning.” them some tive enactments The position paying only percent.”). of 85 415, Id., Keep- 1219. 397 U.S. 90 S.Ct. at language of 1969 Act is identical mind, I ing that admonition in conclude language Ap- District of Columbia years congressional waiver of in view of 25 3-205.44(b) provides Act propriations of 1990 which appropriations § in the annual ... act, appropriations 1991 that “shall be available the Council’s 1982 enactment and § § reference ... 3- [D.C.Code reaffirmation of 3-205.44 have to mean without Act, See, 3-205.52(c) pre- e.g., Budget Request § Year D.C.Code sets forth a table 7. Fiscal 3-294, 108, 5315, (Dec. § D.C.Act 27 DCR scribing the of assistance” and corre- "standards 5, 1980) (“Appropriations Act shall be in this sponding "payment for families of differ- levels" public assistance available for the sizes, persons. from one ent to 19 requirement of section reference to the without 3-205.44(b) requires § levels “shall that 5(b) District of Public Assistance Columbia ... of the mini- not be less than full amount 1962”); Request Budget Fiscal Act of Year parties agree All the “mini- mum needs.” that 1, 4-162, 108, 1283, (March § 29 DCR 3-205.44(b) are the needs” referred to in mum 1982) (same); Request Budget Fiscal Year 1991 § 3- "standards assistance" established 8-188, 2589, Act, 107, 37 DCR D.C.Act 205.52(c). 13, 1990) (same). (April needs”) nothing legisla- requirement ap- There is “minimum 205.44].” before history tive the 1990 act which indicates proving a lesser amount —as the 1986 actions congress go that intended to by Congress respectively and Council demon- farther repeal procedural require- this time to strate. ment D.C.Code 3-205.il. argument The District’s 3-205.44 Dixon, Quattlebaum 120 D.W.L.R. one, only requirement, contains substantive added). 9,1992) (Sept. appropriations rou- evidenced acts’ Finally, past in the District rou- “requirement” tine references to that in the tinely requirements honored the two singular, supra unpersuasive. is see note thereby 205.44 and demonstrated its own Although purporting “plain language” to be a understanding of the law: that a minimum argument, ignores “require- fact precede change needs assessment must in ment” can contain more than one element. benefit levels. In 1979 and in for ex- point, appropria- But even more to the ample, the Council established a “100% Scale language tions act dates back to see Standard based on the Feb- Assistan[ce]” supra note before Rosado made clear— ruary Living 1977 Cost of Index and the legally essential —that AFDC determina- Index, February 1981 Consumer Price separate tions involve two kinds of calcula- spectively, and then created a lesser “Cur- boilerplate fact that tions. The waiver Payment rent Level” as to each. See Public language has remained the same after Rosa- Payments Assistance Act of D.C.Law do, therefore, only indicates that the Rosado (June 3-3, 7,1979); 25 DCR issue never arose District of Columbia IVA.., Part District of Columbia AFDC State present until the case has that the revealed 1, 1979); Plan (July TN # 79-4 Public one, “requirement” big 3-205.44 is a 3,§ Assistance Act of D.C.Law components. two 19, 1982), (May DCR codified at sum, the Council enacted 3-205.44 (1984 Supp.); Part IV. expressly provi- in 1982 and reaffirmed A, Plan, District of Columbia AFDC State itself, recently sion (Feb. despite as the 1991Act 2, 1982). 1, § TN #82-1 Again in years appropriations of annual act waivers 1984 the Council raised the standards of statutory and of local reductions of February reference to the 1983 payment levels below the “full amount” re- index, living cost of corresponding in- (2) needs”; quired “minimum to meet the payment creases in levels that remained be- (minimum legislative history that annual low indicates the standards of assistance needs). appropriations applies only pay- act Payments waiver Public Assistance In- levels; 5-100, 2, ment and has routine- § crease Act of Council D.C.Law 31 10, 1984), ly (Aug. practice reassessing DCR followed the of mini- codified at 3-205.52(c) (1985 did, example, mum in Supp.). needs as Final- ly, in payment developments the last time and 1986. These levels were adjusted, separately the Council combine to convince me that the so-called reassessed 3-205.44(b), February procedural minimum needs “based on requirement of de- Rosado, living cost of congres- index.” Public Assistance from rived has survived the Amendments Act of appropriations legislative D.C.Law local sional and (June 2(c), 25, 1986), processes. DCR 3-205.52(c) (1987 codified at D.C.Code Comply (1994 II. Council’s Failure To With Supp.); Supp.). see id 3-205.52 3-205.44(b) Procedural therefore, practice, Council’s own illustrates Requirement in 1991 procedural and validates the survival of the (“minimum needs”) requirement despite the Majority’s The En Position Banc appropriations process. obviously There is Summary and Itsof Defects inconsistency appropriations no between an in waiving requirement act “full In its haste to deal with a fiscal crisis amount” of continuing simply ignored legal re 3-205.44 and the Council’s the Council (assessment procedural quirement Congress, honor Rosado’s that and then the Coun 3-205.52(d) itself, amending § had that cil enacted to assure minimum to reduce AFDC (as carefully payment needs are calculated —and consid levels to those used in 1989 payment of AFDC suspend ered —before reduction well as future increases in CPI disputes 1993), No that payment levels. one the Council until nei- levels the Council expressly failed to minimum needs impliedly assess expressly ther nor amended the passage of the 1991 Act. The trial procedural requirement before and (mini- “during roughly court itself noted related “standards assistance” needs) hearings, meeting[s], budget 3-205.52(c). Third, hours of mum in in- Act, only on the needs, debates 26 minutes of those in minimum creases defined Quatt 3-205.52(c) assistance,” touched events on AFDC benefits.” “standards are Daily Kelly, Wash.L.Rptr. lebaum v. necessarily reflected in automatic CPI levels; of that None time was payment in AFDC increases spent on minimum needs. employment to calcu- Council’s the CPI in- late annual increases does not The en banc majority employing an anal- — herently reflect annual increases statuto- ysis trial neither raised court nor ry majority’s Finally, minimum needs. argued appeal opines on that the — cost-of-living approach to automatic increase fact can be said have reassessed minimum not, event, does sat- needs because, needs as far back as isfy Supreme ruling Court’s in Rosado. the Council had added an annual cost of living “payment increase in levels” Statutory History § 3- legislative package in which same the Council 205.52(c) (d) 198k from. expressly had reassessed minimum needs (“standards assistance”). foregoing why order to make clear According to the correct, analysis majority’s I be- therefore, majority, ensuing years over the —not —is important lay statutory lieve it is out the ratio has thus been maintained be- “[t]he history in some detail. tween the needs of real dollars willingness and the District’s fund those AFDC the Council increased gather needs.” Ante at I 17-18. this means needs) (minimum “standards of assistance” majority believes before corresponding “payment AFDC levels” levels, reducing as follows: realized, decided, implicitly thus (c) assistance, The standards based minimum needs had in fact at the increased index, February, cost-of-living rate in- same CPI had following set in include forth table and 1986, though creased since even detailed food, shelter, house- clothing, basic costs of (minimum needs) in “standards assistance” items, transpor- personal hold certain and 3-205.52(c), 1986, formally revised in costs, paid tation and life insurance when in unchanged had remained the statute itself. by Mayor. problems majori- There are four First, 1986, ty position: expressly in when

increasing pay- minimum needs and AFDC 3-205.52(c) in §

ment levels over es- those legislating in then auto-

tablished 1984—and

matic annual increases levels 3-205.52(d)

amending incorporate (CPI)

Consumer Price Index —the did not address recalculation (d) table set forth in this section shall 1986, needs in the future. The Council in payments eligibility all used for and therefore, repealed said to have cannot be September determinations made after approach to its traditional ad hoc reassess- 1984. §§ ment of minimum needs under 3-205.44 3-205.52(c), Payments Act of reflecting proce- Public Assistance Increase and Rosado’s Second, 5-100, 2,§ requirement. 31 DCR dural D.C.Law 10, 1984), (Aug. codified D.C.Code after for annual increases 205.52(e) (d) (1985 Supp.). percentage and determined reference to the increase, any, Department if in the U.S. unchanged The law remained 1985. See price Labor con- “consumer index urban 3-205.52(c) (d) (1986 Supp.). and (hereafter all “all sumers for items” items” February Mayor signed the CPI).8 6-280, Bill “Automatic Cost temporary legislation again Council’s increas- Living Increase for Public Assistance Grants ing minimum needs and levels: 1985,” referred to Committee Re- (e) assistance, The standards of based on 6-379, port on Bill Public Assistance Amend- February index, living 1985 cost of are (Feb. 1986). ments Act of 1986 These following set forth in the table and include adopted part amendments were of the food, shelter, clothing, basic costs of house- permanent legislation, Council’s subsections items, personal transpor- hold and certain (e) (d), which renumbered and amended costs, tation paid and life insurance when temporary legislation, D.C.Law by Mayor. 2(e) (in (f), part): as follows relevant

(c) assistance, The standards of based on index, February living 1985 cost of following set forth in the table and include food, shelter, clothing, basic costs of house- items, personal transpor- hold and certain costs, paid tation and life insurance when by Mayor.

(f) (e) The table set forth subsection

this section shall be used for all eligibility determinations made after 31,1986.

March Payments

Public Assistance Tempo- Increase 2(e)

rary 6-106, § Act of D.C.Law

(f), (Feb. 14, 1986); 33 DCR 1165 see (1987 (annota- Supp.) (d) (c) The table set forth in subsection section”). “temporary tion: amendment of this section shall be used for the fiscal Soon thereafter year beginning the Council considered October 1986. On or proposed temporary leg- January year, begin- amendments to the before 31st of each pay- islation that increased the ning January Mayor scheduled shall provided ment levels even further and there- calculate and submit to the Council de- According representative to the Bureau of Labor U.S. broader and more index be- Statistics, Dep’t Handbook of apparent. came Price Index The Consumer Labor, Bulletin No. (1992): Methods 176 (CPI-U) for All Consumers introduced Urban (CPI) The Consumer Price Index is a measure representative buying in 1978 is habits average change prices paid by of the in the urban percent of about of the noninstitutional goods consumers for fixed market basket of States, population compared of the United and services. The Bureau of Labor Statistics percent represented with 32 in the CPI-W. (BLS) monthly publishes calculates the CPI and methodology producing The for the index is it about two weeks after the end of the to month populations and is de- the same for both which it refers. part chapter. in detail in II of this scribed population BLS calculates the CPI for two compiles The Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI groups, consisting only wage one of earners showing changes by percentage indices annual consisting and clerical workers and the other food, shelter, care) (e.g., category medical over of all urban consumers. The Consumer years the base 1982-84. The BLS also creates a Wage Price Index for Urban Earners and categories CPI for "all items” or for urban con- (CPI-W) Clerical Workers is a continuation together. sumers taken See The World of the historical index that was introduced Almanac ed., (Robert 1994). Famighetti This is 102-03 half-century ago wage well over a for use in compilation referred to in negotiations. developed "all items" As new uses were 3-205.52(d). years, for the CPI in recent the need for a costs, increase, when percentage portation of and life insurance termination paid by Mayor. during preceding year, calendar price consum- consumer index urban for items, by published ers all as for Department Labor United States of (“Consumer Index”). level Price The of

public payments assistance assistance for (c) units this set subsection forth annually be as of section shall increased year, beginning 1st of each with

October equal by an amount October to (c) (d) set The table forth subsection increase, any, if in the con- percentage payments made apply this shall to section by price as determined sumer increase 1, July beginning 1991. On or before Mayor. Mayor publish notice of The shall year, beginning January of each with 31st public this annual increase in assistance 1993, Mayor calcu- January shall payments Register in the D.C. within 30 late and submit the Council a determi- days The of the increase. increase in increase, during percentage nation of the public payments provided by assistance preceding year, in the con- calendar any this shall subsection addition price index for urban consumers sumer pay- public other increase assistance items, published all as United provided otherwise ments law.... (“Consumer Department of Labor States Public Act of Assistance Amendments Index”). public Price The level assis- 6-124, 2(c) (d), D.C.Law 33 DCR set payments tance assistance units (June 25, 1986), codified at D.C.Code (c) this section shall in subsection forth 3-205.52(c) (d) (1987 Supp.) (emphasis annually 1st be increased October added). year, beginning each October 1993, by equal percent- an amount The until statute remained same increase, any, price age if in the consumer although AFDC levels increased Mayor. determined increase as year in the “all CPI. each accord with items” publish an- Mayor The shall notice of this 1991, however, the See id. Council enact- pay- assistance public nual increase temporary legislation emergency ed days Register ments in the D.C. within 30 payments roll levels and back increase in increase. The suspend price indexing until Oc- consumer payments by this sub- provided 1,1993. Support Budget tober See Omnibus other section shall be in addition 9-37, Emergency Act of D.C.Act increase 17,1991); (May DCR 3392-93 Omnibus provided law.... otherwise Budget Support Temporary Act of (June 9-19, 38 4068-69 D.C.Law DCR Budget Public of 1982 Con- Assistance Act 21,1991). legislation did “stan- This mention (“1991Act”), formity Act of 1991 Amendment (minimum needs); dards of assistance” 9-27, 2(g), 38 DCR 4207-08 D.C.Law retained, expressly change, the stan- without 17, 1991), § 3- (Aug. codified at D.C.Code dards minimum need effect since 1984. 205.52(c) (d) (1992 Supp.) add- 9-19, 4069; 38 DCR at D.C.Act See D.C.Law ed). Act, emergency and The 1991 like the then DCR temporary legislation immediately pre- provisions permanent leg- reenacted these it, program a new ceded also established (in later, as rele- islation two months follows that ex- General Assistance for Children part): vant 3-205.44, thereby incorporated § pressly (c) procedural requirement de- preserving are set The standards of assistance D.C.Law following table and include rived from Rosado. See forth 2(d), 4205-06; § food, shelter, 3- clothing, § of house- 38 DCR basic costs (1992 items, Supp.). 205.5a personal hold and certain trans- analysis history dispute this legislative 1986: Reassessment Minimum Council’s Needs and Enactment Annual in- Payments By creases AFDC Refer- Majority’s Banc Erroneous Rul- 1991: En to “All Items” ence CPI Impliedly Amended Pro- ing that Council history, statutory From this brief is Reassessing Minimum Needs cedure for clear that in 1986 the Council reassessed and majority rejects nonetheless The en banc (“standards minimum needs of as- increased proce- the notion that the Council’s ad hoc sistance”), finalizing as it had before reassessing minimum for needs —em- dure payment levels. The Council then enacted 1979, 1982, 1984, ployed consistently in provision separate an “all items” in a CPI only way can lawful- 1986—is the provide expressly—for an au- subsection — reducing ly minimum needs before reassess tomatic “annual increase in My colleagues payment levels. con- AFDC payments” providing expressly without application annual clude that automatic an automatic recalculation of minimum payment is “all items” CPI to AFDC levels (1987 3-205.52(d) Supp.). needs. D.C.Code objectively an reliable —or at least a also (1) very specifically, process More increasing mini- enough reliable —indicator first, addressing minimum needs followed mum needs. From this view of what could (2) (to temporary legisla- an amendment enacted, lawfully majority takes an tion) providing for CPI increases in future step concluding that in 1991 unwarranted alone, payments without reference to enact- an automatic needs reassessment was needs, minimum retaining while Council, simply presumably ed because permanent scheduled minimum needs in the by calculating string of CPI increases be- legislation, together legisla- taken reflect a be said to have tween 1986 and must kept tive mindset that minimum needs as- recipients’ mini- informed itself about welfare payment sessment and level calculations alto- payment mum needs when it reduced 1991 gether separate. approach This made sense levels to those used 1989. See ante at 18. payment in that annual increases in reject I argument. this There is no evidence require regular did not reassessments of the Council relied on such CPI calculations needs, minimum for it was obvious from 3- so, saying purpose for that in 1991. Without 206.52(c) payments lagged far behind therefore, majority invokes—I believe needs, payments and thus that increased implied repeal. improperly doctrine of —the inherently salutary were recipient’s from a levels, viewpoint. A concluding reduction of particular, by In that the Coun- word) however, 205.44, (the given “indirectly” majority’s Rosado and was an cil in 1991 altogether story different not before the through minimum needs automat- reassessed CPI, Council in 1986. application ic the “all items” that, by relying majority essentially holds sum, in 1986 the Council enacted annu- 3-205.52(d) needs, to ascertain al increases AFDC levels for the repealed procedur- impliedly future, CPI, wholly based on the “all items” 3-205.44, previously requirement al earlier, apart from its ad hoc reassessment 3-205.52(c), implemented through ad hoe of minimum needs and levels that exacting re- and thus has substituted a less year. no There is indication that the Coun- purported fails quirement. That substitute cil its addition an annual intended satisfy the criteria for because it does not cost-of-living increase in AFDC implied repeal. provide a future substitute for needs reas- sessments, wholly majority’s approach it is always analyzing which had been different, first, procedure reemphasize that in 1991 important, ad hoc that remained statutory unquestionably kept unchanged language itself the Council itself Compare “procedural requirement” of 3-205.44 alive 1986 and thereafter. (1987 3-205.52(c) into Supp.) by expressly incorporating with id. 205.52(e) (1992 pro- Supp.). majority pro- the new General Assistance Children Act, despite appropri- statutory language from or of the 1991 vides no basis visions (or provisions) at are in- issue “full amount” re the statutes ations act waiver of the irreconcilable, must herently such that one no quirement of 3-205.44. There can be Speyer, 588 trump the other. See provision be said implied repeal of a the Council (“One claims that a later A.2d at 1165. who Kremer v. Chemi explicitly embraces. See by impli- 461, 468, 102 repealed an earlier one S.Ct. statute has Corp., 456 U.S. cal Constr. (1982) (“intention that the two acts ‘are irrec- 1883, 1890, cation must show 72 L.Ed.2d 262 oncilable, mat- clearly repugnant as to vital and legislature repeal must be clear relate, manifest”).9 then, they so inconsistent and question, is whether ters which The that, opera- cannot have concurrent inferring in reduc that the two there is basis for tion.’”) (citation omitted).10 is no ir- There in 1991 to those ing payments levels AFDC 3-205.44, said, reconcilable conflict between in the Council can be before used so, to Rosado and 3- approach interpreted in reference doing repealed to have its (and earlier) 205.52(c), amendment to §§ 3- and the CPI under 3-205.44 and 205.52(d). 205.52(c) imple- provision latter can be reassessing minimum I needs. mented, according (referring to its terms not. believe “payments”) with- only to annual increases in 1991 ex- No one contends the Council affecting procedure for reas- out the Rosado pressly repealed procedural ad hoc re- traditionally sessing “minimum used needs” 3-205.44, on Rosado quirement of based under 3-205.44. needed, by implemented, as amendment and 3-205.52(e). reassessing mini- after have seen supra note 9. For the We 1986, the enacted a mum needs in procedural amended this re- Council to have 3-205.52(d) in- therefore, amending separate bill quirement, it had to take two (1) year reference to language “payments” §of 3- crease each steps: construe the 1986 205.52(d) At that time the Coun- in- the “all items” CPI. provides for an “annual repeal its usual manifested no intention to public payments,” de- cil crease reassessing mini- CPI, mean, way broadly, way Rosado more rived from the —of —the §§ 3-205.44 and 3- mum needs under assistance stan- an “annual increase 205.52(e), just accomplished for the as it had and [minimum needs] dards Thus, (new italicized); legislation on assistance. language payments” related (2) added, reducing implied language intend this required its given faced no hurdle that interpretation therefore repeal 3-205.52(c), a traditional needs assess- from §§ derived abandonment 3-205.44 approach based only if ment favor of new That could work Rosado. exercise valid, calculations. justified implied repeal and CPI as a That, hap- suggest, I did not amendment. expressed have Applying principles we pen. conclude that Speyer, this court should affecting favored, amendment adoption of the CPI “[Rjepeals by implication are not impli- payment levels did not annual AFDC possible statutes should be and whenever require- procedural hoe Barry, edly repeal the ad consistently.” Speyer v. read 3-205.52(c), in- (D.C.1991) §§ ment of 3-205.44 (quoting Parsons A.2d Bank, to Rosado. Rather Steel, terpreted reference Ala. U.S. Inc. First law, amending 523-24,106 768, 771-72, repealing than 88 L.Ed.2d 877 S.Ct. (1986)). violated the law.11 recognized only if Council repeals are Such warhead, Congress underground procedural test of nuclear contends that the 9. The District repeal impliedly Environmental entirely National quirement inconsistent did Policy 3-205.44 is underground subjecting requirement repealed by implicitly with—and thus —the statement). impact test to environmental levels. The reduction of AFDC to 1989 correctly, accepted majority, has not I believe majority opines Council in 1991 that the 11.The argument. See ante at n. 13. require- procedural reinterpreted CPI, to the “all items” but Responsibility, ment reference Nuclear 10. See also Committee for reinterpretation be an cannot U.S.App.D.C. concludes that this Seaborg, Inc. v. curiam) repeal an "unor- enacting implied that would be (per (by because F.2d Because, Why legislation notion." unorthodox? appropriations thodox authorization and 205.52(d), that Application par- “All no assurance Annual Items” CPI there is Necessarily Does ticular items list used to Not Annual from the CPI calcu- Reflect (mini- statutory Increases In Minimum late standards of assistance Needs needs) mum same as those are the covered why majority’s There is another reason supra the “all items” CPI. See note 8. analysis cost-of-living falls short. mech- as “new The latter includes items such cars” provide anism at issue here does not “entertainment,” are not referred majority information the assumes it does. 3-205.52(e), § to in and the former includes 3-205.52(d) (1987 § Pursuant to D.C.Code “insurance,” which is not reflected in the Supp.), AFDC levels have increased Almanac CPI. See The WORLD 102-03 (until 1991) annually since 1986 reference (Robert ed., 1994); supra Famighetti note 8. supra to the “all items CPI.” See note 8. important These distinctions are because the view, Contrary majority to the these CPI components individual of the “all items” CPI necessarily do not increments reflect annual assistance, statutory and of the standards (statutory increases in minimum needs “stan- respectively, will have different increases and assistance”), dards of do not therefore result, aggregate, decreases 3-205.44(b) § necessarily satisfy the proce- percentage changes different in the two cate- mandating dural requirement reassessment differences, gories per- over These time. of minimum needs before reduction of AFDC may haps, great, conceptual but the not be payment levels. distinction three conclusions: leads to years, Over the standards of assistance (1) Annual “all use of the items” CPI to (minimum needs) have been with calculated 3-205.52(d) § increase under levels food, clothing, reference to the “basic costs of may helping be useful in shelter, household, items, personal cer- (to keep up they the extent inflation costs, transportation tain and life insurance.” subsidized), particular but that CPI does not 3-205.52(e) (1994); D.C.Code id. 3- traditionally reflect the mix of items used to 205.52(c) (1984 Supp.). pro- Sometimes this Accordingly, calculate minimum needs. vision of partic- the statute has referred to a use Council’s of the “all items” CPI calcu- February See, ular living “cost of index.” automatically late does not 3-205.52(c) (1987 e.g., Supp.) reflect a minimum needs calculation of based id, 1985”); 3-205.52(e) (1984 (“February on the “fewer-than-all items” of the CPI that 1977”). Later, Supp.) (“February, the refer- 3-205.52(e) comprise “standards of as- living ence to “cost of index” was removed. (minimum needs). sistance” See, 3-205.52(c) (1992 e.g., event, Supp.). needs, even if we In calculating assume that a “cost living applies index” presumably and that the Council addresses at the outset 3-205.52(c) designated one particular specified for use components is the of need CPI for urban consumers referred statutory to in of assistance. standards 3-205.44, says majority, procedural requirement the characterization of the even partial, implied repeal though Council’s 1991 action as a there of evidence the is not a shred Coun- is, rather, the Council’s 1986 evidence overlooks establishment of the cil intended to do so. The adjustment cost-of-living plainly forgot annual "to account for that the Council in 1991 under- recipient separate needs in 1987 increases in and each take a reassessment of minimum needs year interesting required thereafter.” Ante at 19. It is that the has of itself Council under majority carefully saying regularly procedure note that the avoids followed has re- regularly quired proce- a new 1986 Council enacted mechanism for of itself under a followed reassessing changed. needs. dure the “minimum" More to the Council had never The ma- that,

point, jority deny imputes can be no doubt does that it an there when a court not intention statute, says reinterpreted light past practice, legislature has to the Council it, procedural expressly amending impose change without a re- reflects a the Council itself quirement materially acknowledged. differs never Nor could the from the stat- Council longstanding interpretation, legislature acknowledge, “all items” ute’s so since the new CPI 3-205.52(d), judicial language blessing will added in ex- have effected—with im-—an ” "x," plied longer pressly repeal, only since "x no means referred to an "annual increase in Here, “y majority imputes payments," additionally means separate category, reinterpret, an intention to the related in 1991 but "standards (minimum amendment, needs). partially repeal by implied thus assistance” it) 3-205.52(c). (as majority in annual But not limited would have the Council is statutory currently speci- application of the “all items” CPI to categories to the best, amounts, statutory at fied; payment levels those the Council free to amend is vague of needs that does a kind of awareness categories change. costs Fur- or needs that come close to Rosado’s mandate not thermore, if even were to retain the Council realistically up members “face Council catego- present standards of assistance require- magnitude of the ries, may or subtract items the Council add lay their ment and bare extent to which e.g., categories, within established within need,” fulfilling fall actual programs short personal or within “household and items” id, at at 1218—an 397 U.S. 90 S.Ct. changes transportation “certain costs.” Such regularly conducted exercise the Council has “all further on the could distort reliance reassessing when minimum before 1991 CPI for items” assessment 1986).12 (in 1979, 1982, 1984, I do needs needs. procedural requirement that the not believe moreover, Recently, as indicated earli- “indirectly,” can be satisfied er, has to the omitted reference 17, by scrutinizing, at a casual ante less living describing catego- cost of index in the “all authorized reference to items” CPI See, e.g., ries of standards of assistance. years earlier as substitute for the delibera- (1992 3~205.52(c) Supp.). This D.C.Code tive, analysis that ad hoc minimum needs may suggests possibility that the Council long require been Rosado has understood than, recognize the value other or of indices AFDC can be reduced. before to, the in addition when standards CPI assistance are in the future. calculated III. Conclusion short, whether we focus on the statuto- plaintiffs-appellants, of AFDC The a class 3-205.52(c) ry standards complain recipients, of a law violation —a adoption published, or on need for process— short-circuiting legislative may application that of amended standards repudiated statutory rights as that has their future, appropriate the “all be more for the eligible assistance. residents automatically ap- number not items” CPI is clear, happens, that makes When as Rosado plicable. of minimum needs— Reassessment have a to declare responsibility the courts prescribed by the “standards of assistance” remedy, and order a not walk the violation are re- statute —before AFDC benefit levels This away. That is what courts are for. inherently hoc, pro- ad duced involves today by responsibility court abdicates grammed, decision-making. manufacturing argument an affirmance It proffered court. is that no one Reassessing Amended Mini- Procedure for argument my judgment, amounts an “All mum Needs Items” Reference clever, fallacious, way out the to a but to bail Wyman CPI Violates Rosado comply its from careless failure Council if Finally, even “all CPI has an items” the law. calculation, place in a minimum needs therefore, Respectfully, I must dissent. impliedly if in 1991 the aban- even approach to minimum doned its traditional assessment, repeal would not be

needs keeping kind of mini- with Rosado. The “indirectly”

mum needs assessment reflected Council, validity 1991. See argument of these standards for 12. The District's that the 3-205.52(c) ap- engage Rosado assess- The did a minimum needs Security Act— by listing proach the Social of assistance ment standards —mandated firmly corresponding payment embedded in our law since levels in the 1991 has been procedure vir- Council has this of assistance” in the and the followed is frivolous. "standards provid- process tually due based on the as a matter local 1991 Act were established in 1986 ig- statutory Simply cost-of-living ing Assistance entitlements. index. See Public 6-124, 2(c), ignore procedure the fact this would be to Amendments Act of D.C.Law nore (June 1986), referencing § the Council reaffirmed it codified 33 DCR creating 3-205.52(e) (1987 Nothing new Supp.). 1991 Act 205.44 in the itself in program for Children. reevaluated of General Assistance of record indicates that the Council notes adjusted” 3-204 “proportionately máximums were 1, July living costs as of to reflect increased Wyman 1970: Rosado v. 1969). meantime, recipi- In the a class welfare had filed suit —Rosado ents New York Congressional 1969-70: Waiver of Wyman challenging AFDC cutbacks as vio- — Amount” the District’s “Full Security Act amend- lations of the Social Requirement 402(a)(23), ments, supra § see particular legislation Congress, with this Consistent 3, required updating of standards note appropriations in its 1970 act for the District 1, by July payment levels of assistance Columbia, 91-155, Pub.L. 83 Stat. 433 eventually Supreme held 1969. The Court (Dee. 1969) 24, every appropriations “impermissibly lowered that New York had —and provision eliminating act thereafter —waived the items its standard of need above) 3-204(b) (quoted § that re- prior to the enactment of that were included 402(a)(23).” Rosado, 416, pay § benefits in 90 quired the District 397 U.S. result, arriving But in at that “full amount ... S.Ct. at 1219. provision it did Instead, had to construe a appropriated the Court needs.”4 not consider clear. mini- pay at 85% of funds to welfare benefits 91-680, H.Rep. 402(a)(23) 91st mum needs. See No. § lit- background of reveals (1969). Furthermore, Cong., 1st Sess. 17 except before us a child tle that we have congressional presumably response legislative com- of the silent union of born waiver, Thus, beginning Congress, frequently in 1970 the District’s Com- promise. does, adopted regulations authorizing its wishes muted missioners has voiced to discern strains and left it to the courts levels to fall below 97-91, 108, 1173, Act, § Appropriations 95 Stat. 17 of the 1970 1982—Pub.L. 4. Section 91-155, (Dec. 24, 1969), 4, 1981). (Dec. Pub.L. 83 Stat. 433 1180 provided part: 97-378, 108, 1925, relevant § 96 Stat. 1983—Pub.L. 22, 1982). (Dec. Appropriations be avail- in this Act should 1932 108, 819, 98-125, able for the § 97 Stat. 826 1984—Pub.L. requirement of sub- without reference to the 13, (Oct. 1983). (b) section of section 5 of the District 12, 98-473, (Oct. Stat. 1985—Pub.L. 98 1837 Act of 1962 Columbia Public Assistance 5899, 1984) Cong., incorporating H.R. 98th 3-204(b)]. [§ 107(1984). § 2d Sess. provisions were included The same or similar 3067, Cong., 2d Sess. 99th 1986—H.R. following appropria- every year thereafter in the 1783, 99-500, 107, § Stat. 1987—Pub.L. 100 tions acts: 99-591, 18, 1986); (Oct. Pub.L. 1783-189 91-337, 15, (July § 437 84 Stat. 1971—Pub.L. (Oct. 30, 107, 3341, § 3341-189 100 Stat. 16, 1970). 1986). 14, (Dec. 92-202, § 85 Stat. 687 1972—Pub.L. 1329, 100-202, 107, § Stat. 101 1988—Pub.L. 18, 1971). 22, (Dec. 1987). 1329-98 92-344, 12, (July § 455 1973—Pub.L. 86 Stat. 2269, 100-462, 107, § 102 Stat. 1989—Pub.L. 10, 1972). 1, (Oct. 1988). 2269-8 93-91, 11, (Aug. § 310 1974—Pub.L. Stat. 1267, 101-168, 107, 103 Stat. 1990—Pub.L. 14, 1973). 21, (Nov. 1989). 93-405, 8, 1275-76 (Aug. 88 Stat. 827 1975—Pub.L. 107, 2224, 101-518, § 31, 1974). 104 Stat. 1991—Pub.L. 5, 94-333, 8, (June (Nov. 1990). Stat. 791 1976—Pub.L. 30, 1976). 102-111, 107, 559, 105 Stat. 1992—Pub.L. 94-446, 109, 1, 1991). (Oct. 90 Stat. 1494 1977—Pub.L. 1, (Oct. 1976). 2, congres- these indicated above in note As 95-288, 92 Stat. 1978—Pub.L. govern- appropriations acts freed the local sional (June 1978). percentages to establish ment 95-373, 92 Stat. 1979—Pub.L. assistance, as the rather than of the standards 18, 1978). (Sept. required by of those standards amount[s]” "full 96-93, Stat. 1980—Pub.L. Thus, 3-204(b) (1967). beginning 30, 1979). (Oct. facially regulations inconsis- were District 94 Stat. 1981—Pub.L. with the D.C.Code. tent 15, 1980). (Dec.

Notes

notes at D.C.Code 3-205.52 began Accordingly, 2 and 4.5 the D.C.Code 1991: District Enact- 1982 and Council’s ostensibly provi- incorporate inconsistent the Public ment Reaffirmation of “full calling for sions: one 1982, Particularly Assistance Act (§ 3-205.44), “minimum amount” of needs” § D.C.Code 3-205.U permitting “payment lower the other levels” noted, early As I have as as 1962 the pre- indicated than the mínimums Code, the law of District of Columbia unlike (§ 3- scribed “standards of assistance” Rosado, adjudicated provid- has New York 205.52). fully levels that match ed for AFDC benefit the minimum needs established the Coun- Issue Presented: How to Reconcile D.C.Code cil, beyond increase even as those needs Congressional § With Annual 3-205.U 1, July the mind- 1969 levels established as Appropriations Purporting Acts pursuant to the mum “needs of individuals” It, § D.C.Code 3-205.52 Waive With 602(a)(23). Act, § Security Social U.S.C. Prescribing Payment Levels Lower than Indeed, eongressionally enacted the Standards Assistance quoted § 3-204 at the outset Congress’s Despite continuity between opinion adopted part of the District this — § adop- and the enactment of 3-204 Council’s Public Assistance Act of Columbia successor, having § tion of its 3-205.44—both 87-807, Pub.L. 76 Stat. 914—remained on requirement “full amount” have until when the Council of the books —we year beginning every for fiscal seen that virtually District of Columbia reenacted language in placed its Assistance Act of verbatim the Public providing 4-101, appropriations acts for the District 29 DCR 1060 D.C.Law 1982). appropriations shall be available Presently, it is codified as (April (1994): public without refer- D.C.Code 3-205.44 3-205.44(b). “requirement” ence (a) which The amount of provisions of local supra note 4. Other See any person shall receive shall be deter- have reflected regulations and the D.C.Code mined the Council. principle of the “full amount” this relaxation (b) amount as referred to subsec- Such 3-205.44(b). then, question, is how The (a) not be less tion of this section shall 3-205.44(b) appropriations acts fits with full determined as neces- than the amount it and with D.C.Code purport waive minimum sary on the basis of the needs of with it. provisions that are inconsistent person as established the Council. such despite precisely, does More 3-205.44— provi- appropriations acts and Code District’s recently, §in of the Public Assis- More 505a vitality application sions that limit its Conformity Budget tance Act of 1982 —retain Act”) (“1991 should have affected the Council’s Amendment Act of 1991 —the effectively AFDC legislation that reduced at issue in this case—the Council ex- Act reassessing without by incorporat- benefits to 1989 levels pressly reaffirmed Assis- needs? ing program it into a new of General Council, fact, statutory Payments D.C.Law adopted Assistance Act of had Public 5. The 7, 1979). (June prescribed stan- levels lower than the DCR early 1979. See assistance at least as dards of needs,” espe- “minimum then it is fall below Parties’ Contentions exactly what those cially important to assess contend, Appellants agrees, the trial court mem- minimum needs are so that the Council my colleagues disputes and none of to, understand, up just clearly and face bers 205.44(b) incorporates obligations the two they willing needs how far below those imposed adopting itself Rosado, permit payments to fall. AFDC District of Columbia Public Assistance 1218; Junghans, 397 U.S. at S.Ct. per- 1982: to assess “the minimum needs” of 289 A.2d at assistance, eligible sons and to set benefit levels at the “full amount” of replies each an- The District because those needs. The first has been called a permits pay- appropriations nual act “procedural” requirement, the second “sub- requirement ments “without reference to the requirement. requirements stantive” These added), supra see 3-205.44”

Case Details

Case Name: Quattlebaum v. Barry

Court Name: District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Date Published: Dec 21, 1995

Citation: 671 A.2d 881

Docket Number: 92-CV-504

Court Abbreviation: D.C.