*1 rеmedy at no it would have added) (Emphasis law.” Individually WAGGONER, Le- Leila and Waggoner, nore Anita Diane Marie present case taxpayers in the Waggoner, Waggoner, Elaine Susan remedy adequate an to have seem would Waggoner, James Ronald Theresa Anne either by proceeding in law at Waggoner, Waggoner, and Jamie Leah ways question taxes erro- usual Waggoner, Sharon Leila Michelle against neously Int. them. See assessed Waggoner, next and mother 7422; Brown v. Pennsylvania, friend, Pittsburgh, Rev.Code of all Cir.1966); individually (8th of all others Lethert, and on behalf F.2d situated, Plaintiffs, similarly Intercollegiate Valley Athletic Missouri Bookwalter, F.2d 365 Association Cir.1960). (8th ROSENN, Secretary Max of Public Wel- fare of the Penn- Commonwealth irreparable has harm been No sylvania, Defendant. urge un Plaintiffs demonstrated. A. Civ. No. 9841. enjoined, make would the defendant less United States District Court unnecessary exami attempt make Pennsylvania. M. D. plain investigations nations and Jan. ar records. Substantial and tiffs’ books point gument made briefs was on this b;y Plaintiffs both sides. submitted particularly irritated because seem years is past 1960-1963 the same under threat of liti and
sue was raised favorably gation determined was defendant seeks plaintiffs. If and when production and of the books records purposes taxpayers of exami inspection, nation remеdy if is unwarranted to ob such government’s
ject re summons production, quiring such hearing proper support thereon to pro their contentions
evidence investigation posed examination unnecessary, or “vexatious” and “dis allege.
criminatory”,
here
See Int.Rev.Code
§§
7605;
Caplin,
Reisman
508,
A order tiffs’ has been entered. *2 Rothman, H. Repas- David Robert D.
ky, Pittsburgh, Pa., plaintiff. for Sennett, Pa., Atty. Gen., William Edgar Casper, Deputy Atty. R. Gen. Pa., Friedman, Gen., Edward Counsel Harrisburg, Pa., for defendant.
OPINION KALODNER, Before Judge, Circuit SHERIDAN, Judge, Chief and FOLL-
MER, Judge. KALODNER, Judge. Circuit In this class action chal lеnge constitutionality of the one- year residency requirement imposed 432(6) Section of the Pub Code, lic Welfare Act of June (Act 21), P.L.- No. aas condition of grants for to needy They families with children.1 urge residency require stated (1) process, denies them due еqual protection of the laws accorded the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments Constitution, to abridge (2) “right freely to move state I, state” in violation of Art. 8 of Section the Constitution. residency Defendant denies that Public deprives plaintiffs
Welfare Code of their rights аlleged constitutional and moves dismiss the for failure state a claim which relief can be granted, 12(b) (6), Rule Fed.Rules Civ.Proc., U.S.C.A., or, in the alterna- tive, summary judgment moves ground his favor on the that there is no genuine any issue as to material fact. Rule 56. Ibid. (6) provides: year Seсtion 432 age is a child'loss than one whose granted only parent, “Assistance to or or relative with whom he is re- person residing siding, behalf a prescribed in Penn- meets the sylvania (i) (i), who (ii) (iii) resided therein in subelause or of this year immediately preceding least one clause or resided for at application; (ii) year immediately date preceding last resided least one which, by law, regulation Needy persons in a the child’s birth. reciprocal Pennsylvania, agreement any requirements do not meet or in assistаnce to behalf stated in this clause and who are person of a who has resided in such state transients or without year; (iii) state, may granted for less than one woman a married assistance in ac- residing regulations, a husband who cordance with rules requiremеnt prescribed depart- meets in sub- standards ment.” established (i) (ii) clause; (iv) clause of this phase problem which seems consideration Applicable our ” 7 legislative princi- most acute to the mind.’ settled presented are these
issues ples ad- must court federal a “Normally, is al widest discretion determining whether here lowed the in de *3 guarantees; some, Constitutional termining contravenes whether to attack “ * * * all, rather than of Amend the manifestations Fourteenth [T]he scope at; normally of the evil aimed and permits a wide the States ment judgment given enacting is the of which benefit laws in of discretion every conceivable which differ circumstance groups of citizens some affect might suffice to clas others”, characterize the “The constitu ently and thаn only if sification as reasonable than safeguard rather offended is tional 8 arbitrary grounds and invidious.” on rests classification the achievement wholly to the irrelevant Federal are courts not endowed with 2 objective.” the of State’s “authority to detеrmine the whether Congressional judg [legislative] presumed legislatures are “State * * * equitable, sound is or constitutional acted within have power prac comports that, whether it in or ill with despite well the inequal purposes Act”, the and tice, in some result their laws “wisdom or statutory unwisdom” of a is ity” discrimination statute and “A determining any of an irrelevant in state factor if aside will not be set constitutionality.9 issue of its reasonably may conceived facts 3 justify it.” The distilled essence of the indulged “Every presumption is to be princiрles legislatures stated is are compliance in favor of faithful Congress range endowed with a wide of discretion of mandates enacting of laws which affect some law”, re and “Courts fundamental others;10 differently its residents any con adjudge statute luctant to “every presumption” constitutionality 4 of them.” travention must be accorded chal courts to a lenged challenger law and bears the classification” who assails “One proving burden of irra the law is carry the burden “must a state statute “essentially arbitrary”; tional and a upon showing rest that it does not statutory discrimination de will not be essentially basis, any reasonable but any clared 5 unconstitutional “if arbitrary.” reasonably may facts justify it”; be conceived under “A statute is not invalid the circumstance law that a might have it bеcause Constitution gone “might gone have farther than it did” * * 6 it did farther than remedying problem a social does “* * * step unconstitutional; one not make ‘reform take it and addressing time, unwisdom”, “wisdom itself a soundness 425, 420, McLaughlin Maryland, Florida, 8. 366 U.S. v. v. State 379 McGowan U.S. 2. 184, 191, 283, 288, 1101, 1105, 393 6 L.Ed.2d 85 S.Ct. 13 L.Ed.2d 81 S.Ct. (1964). (1961). 222 Flemming 611, Nestor, 603, 9. 425-426, v. 363 1105. U.S. 81 S.Ct. 3. Id. 1367, 1373, 80 4 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 1435 67, 1, Butler, U.S. 297 4. States United (1960). (1936). 312, 320, L.Ed. 80 477 S.Ct. Except 10. in instances where the differ- Co., Lindsley Gas v. Natural Carbonic race, ences are based on color or re- 337, 340, 78-79, 61, 31 S.Ct. 220 U.S. ligion. Loving v. Commonwealth of Vir- (1911). L.Ed. 369 ginia, 388 U.S. 337, 339, Ward, (1967). 279 U.S. 6. Roschen v. L.Ed.2d 1010 (1929). L.Ed. 722 S.Ct. 457, 465, Doud, Morey L.Ed.2d children, indigent dependent unsoundness aged blind, permanently deter disаbled are irrelevant considerations constitutionality. persons ages mining between the the issue of and those who need assistance Applying principles stated payment in-patient of bills for opinion situation, we are of the instant nursing hospital cаre, doc home to rebut failed have tor, dentist, drug nursing constitutionality presumption expenses.12 challenged Pennsylvania cost-of-living “showing” (1) expenses does not rest Increase that “it basis, essen- of those rolls reasonable on but necessary tially Lindsley arbitrary”, Natural make allot- increased *4 79, Co., ments. 31 S. 61, Carbonic Gas 320 U.S. (2) (1911); 337, the that Ct. 340 in of Increase those number transgressed Pennsylvania Legislature receiving indigent aged in assistance scope permissible discre- “wide of its expectancy of view the extended life enacting some tion” in which affect laws experienced years. in recent differently groups oth- than of citizens light It ais in of conceivable fact that Maryland, ers”, of McGowan v. State foregoing the Legislature factors (1961). 420, 425, 366 U.S. 1101 S.Ct. one-year resi- enаcted following The “state of facts reasona eligibility requirement dence to serve bly may justify” to be conceived predictive purposes making appro- in its challenged statutory discrimination. priations public for assistance. Pennsylvania Legislature The annual- foregoing The establishes following year ly budget enacts a for the Pennsylvania one-year eli residence appro- which must limit the total of its gibility requirement “cannot con be priations its annual tax rev- to estimated lacking justifi demned as so rational Pennsylvania’s enue, inasmuch Con- as process”. cation as to offend due Flem stitution limits bor- the Commonwealth’s ing Nestor, 603, 612, U.S. rowing $1,000,000. capacity to (1960). In that ease the Su Pennsylvania Legislature The in its preme stated, explicitly page Court budget-making requirеd to annual page 80 S.Ct. at fac 1373 that the public appropriation make such an for tor of residence “can of rele obvious reasonably in- assistance as can be question eligibility”. vance to the of It telligently on of estimated the basis ruling did 202(n) sо constitutional Section these factors: Security Act, of the Social U. yield 1. The estimated of taxes 402(n), provides S.C.A. which § for ter- Pennsyl- of sole source old-age, survivor, mination of and dis- public The vania’s assistance funds. ability payable to, insurance benefits Legislature appropriated respect of, in certain cases in an alien $199,800,000 for of state revenues deported individual who is under § grants public for fiscal assistance 241(a) Immigration Nation- signifi- year ending June 1968—a Act, ality 1251(a), 8 U.S.C.A. on § percentage сant of the Common- grounds one specified of certain in § budget. annual wealth’s 202(n). 2. rently cur The number of its residents pertinent It is to call attention to receiving public assistance . Congress enacting fact that the Social grants. They needy include families Security provided, (t), Act in Section 202 Maryland, of McGowan State legislative the fact that allowance 420, 426, leaped $38,- for these items alone 600,000 year ending in the skyrocketing fiscal June 12. hos- increase pitalization expense during $61,200,000 year and medical to for the fiscal past years ending two alone is evidenced June Act, Security 402(t), of for termination U.S.C.A. of Social U.S.C.A. any which, providing payable Act contribu- to for federal under the benefits beneficiary out- to resided tions state-administered assist- had alien may рrograms specified ance six more than that states United States for side the one-year eligibility establish a residence months. requirement. say only we can We greater moment here is the Of regard judg- judicial the substitution of legislation Congress, enacting legislativе judgment as for that providing federal contributions nothing judicial usurpation of less than pro public assistance state-administered disregard function in grams, provided states estab separation powers the doctrine of so eligibility one-year lish a residenсe firmly founding of established since the Thirty-nine requirement.13 states Republic, teaching our nu- and of the one-year resi have enacted a the Union Supreme merous decisions of the Court. eli a condition of dence this, too, gibility qualify There remains children, said, respect needy as families provision, one-year serted claim that similar to the Congress unconstitu has done so abridges right tional Act because it *5 Assistance their of Columbia Public freedom to travel from an one state to 1962.14 other in contraventiоn interstate of the one-year The residence Constitution, commerce clause of Ar Pennsylvania Connecticut, Delaware, I, ticle 8. Section acts been of Columbia and District opinion spe- In our this claim so by three-judge unconstitutional ruled cious and unfounded not that it does Thompson v. in 1967: Courts only merit extended discussion. It (D.Conn.); Shapiro, F.Supp. 331 necessary say that Welfare, Department Public Green v. prohibit not does into travel (D.Del.); F.Supp. v. Smith Commonwealth, as evidenced (E.D.Pa.); Reynolds, F.Supp. 65 that case the instant (D. F.Supp. Tobriner, Harrell v. freely permitted entry. were The fact only D.C.). unanimous The court was one-year eligibility requirement that Green-, dissenting opinions were filed may operate to affect decision to trav- not It other cases cited. be el into cannot opinion dis ed writer of this that imagination stretch of the construed Reynolds, sented Smith “statutory” as a bar to travel. Sheridan, Judge dis is here Chief For the reasons stated we hold majority senting, a member of was one-year aas case.15 condition оf assist- taken into consideration We have needy families, provided ance forego- contrary expressed views 432(6) Section only say ing cases. We can Code, Public Welfare of June Act therein substituted courts have is constitutional. legislatures for thаt of the failure will be dismissed for Congress forty and the states to state a claim which relief can expressed in the enact- United States granted. Public District of Columbia SHERIDAN, Judge, 602(b), 42 Chief dissents. Act and Assistance Section Supreme 602(b), 15. The Court the United 13. 42 U.S.C.A. Section January 15, granted States on re- D.C.Code, 3, Chapter 3- Title Thompson Shapiro, view in F. “Eligibility 203(a) (b) Supp. (D.Conn.1967), sub. nom. assistance”, October enacted Shapiro Thompson, 20 L.Ed.2d