Government Benefits Law: Supreme Court Decisions
Sponsored Links
- Anderson v. Edwards 514 U.S. 143 (1995) (Federal law does not prohibit California from grouping into a single assistance unit all needy children living in the same household under the care of one relative).
- Batterton v. Francis 432 U.S. 416 (1977) (Regulation authorizing participating States to exclude from the definition of an unemployed father one "whose unemployment results from participation in a labor dispute or who is unemployed by reason of conduct or circumstances which result or would result in disqualification for unemployment compensation under the State's unemployment compensation law was a proper exercise of the Secretary's statutory authority and was reasonable).
- Blessing v. Freestone 520 U.S. 329 (1997) (Title IV-D does not give individuals a federal right to force a state agency to substantially comply with Title IV-D).
- Blum v. Bacon 450 U.S. 221 (1981) (Congress may decline to grant Supplemental Security Income benefits to class of otherwise eligible individuals who are excluded because they are aged 21 through 64 and are institutionalized in public mental institutions that do not receive Medicaid funds for their care).
- Bowen v. City of New York 476 U.S. 467 (1986) (District Court correctly included claimants who had received a final decision on their individual claims for benefits more than 60 days prior to the filing of this action, and other claimants who had not exhausted their administrative remedies in class action suit against Social Security Administration).
- Bowen v. Galbreath 485 U.S. 74 (1988) (A district court does not have the authority to order the Secretary to withhold a portion of past-due SSI benefits for the payment of attorney's fees received in judicial proceedings under Title XVI).
- Bowen v. Gilliard 483 U.S. 587 (1987) (The Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 (DEFRA) statutory scheme, that amended the AFDC program to require families to include in the filing unit all children living in the same home, including those for whom support payments were being received, does not violate Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection principles or its Takings Clause).
- Bowen v. Roy 476 U.S. 693 (1986) (Statutory requirement that a state agency utilize Social Security numbers in administering the programs in question does not violate the Free Exercise Clause. That Clause affords an individual protection from certain forms of governmental compulsion but does not afford an individual a right to dictate the conduct of the Government's internal procedures).
- Burns v. Alcala 420 U.S. 575 (1975) (The Social Security Act defines "dependent child" as "a needy child (1) who has been deprived of parental support or care by reason of the death, continued absence from the home, or physical or mental incapacity of a parent, and who is living with his father, mother," or certain other designated relatives, and (2) who is under the age of 18, or under the age of 21 and a student. The term "dependent child," as so defined, does not include unborn children, and hence States receiving federal financial aid under the AFDC program are not required to offer welfare benefits to pregnant women for their unborn children)
- Califano v. Gautier Torres 435 U.S. 1 (1978) (The provisions of the Social Security Act making benefits for aged, blind, and disabled persons under the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program payable only to residents of the United States, defined as the 50 States and the District of Columbia, are not unconstitutional as applied to persons who upon moving to Puerto Rico lost the benefits to which they were entitled while residing in the United States).
- Califano v. Westcott 443 U.S. 76 (1979) (The gender classification of Section 407 is not substantially related to the attainment of any important and valid statutory goals; it is, rather, part of the "baggage of sexual stereotypes," that presumes the father has the "primary responsibility to provide a home and its essentials," while the mother is the "center of home and family life." Legislation that rests on such presumptions, without more, cannot survive scrutiny under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment).
- Carleson v. Remillard 406 U.S. 598 (1972) (Section 402 (a) (10) of the Social Security Act imposes on each State participating in the AFDC program the requirement that benefits "shall be furnished with reasonable promptness to all eligible individuals." Under the Act the eligibility criterion of "continued absence" of a parent from the home means that the parent may be absent for any reason. Consequently, that criterion applies to one who is absent by reason of military service, and California's definition is invalid under the Supremacy Clause).
- Dandridge v. Williams 397 U.S. 471 (1970) (Maryland maximum grant regulation that placed an absolute limit on amount of a grant under AFDC regardless of family size was not in conflict with federal statute governing grants to states for aid to needy dependent children. "We do not decide today that the Maryland regulation is wise, that it best fulfills the relevant social and economic objectives that Maryland might ideally espouse, or that a more just and humane system could not be devised.... But the intractable economic, social, and even philosophical problems presented by public welfare assistance programs are not the business of this Court").
- Edelman v. Jordan 415 U.S. 651 (1974) (The Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution bars that portion of the District Court's decree that ordered retroactive payment of Social Security benefits).
- Engelman v. Amos 404 U.S. 23 (1971) (Section 406 of the Social Security Act did not preclude payments under the federally financed Aid to Families With Dependent Children directly to vendors who provide goods or services to beneficiaries).
- Gardebring v. Jenkins 485 U.S. 415 (1988) (Minnesota Department of Human Services' implementation of new lump-sum payment rule without adequate notice to AFDC applicants and recipients did not violate federal notice regulation).
- Goldberg v. Kelly 397 U.S. 254 (1970) (Welfare benefits are a matter of statutory entitlement for persons qualified to receive them and procedural due process is applicable to their termination. The interest of the eligible recipient in the uninterrupted receipt of public assistance, which provides him with essential food, clothing, housing, and medical care, coupled with the State's interest that his payments not be erroneously terminated, clearly outweighs the State's competing concern to prevent any increase in its fiscal and administrative burdens. A pre-termination evidentiary hearing is necessary to provide the welfare recipient with procedural due process).
- Graham v. Department of Pub. Welfare 403 U.S. 365 (1971) (State statutes, like the Arizona and Pennsylvania statutes here involved, that deny welfare benefits to resident aliens or to aliens who have not resided in the United States for a specified number of years are violative of the Equal Protection Clause and encroach upon the exclusive federal power over the entrance and residence of aliens).
- Heckler v. Turner 470 U.S. 184 (1985) (In calculating a family's need for AFDC benefits, the responsible state agency must treat mandatory tax withholdings as a work expense encompassed within the flat-sum disregard of 402(a)(8)(A)(ii), rather than as a separate deduction in determining "income" under 402(a)(7) (A)).
- Jefferson v. Hackney 406 U.S. 535 (1972) (Texas' decision to provide somewhat lower welfare benefits for AFDC recipients than for the aged and infirm who are in other categories is not invidious or irrational, and there is no constitutional or statutory requirement that relief categories be treated exactly alike).
- King v. Smith 392 U.S. 309 (1968) (Alabama's substitute father regulation is invalid because it defines "parent" in a manner that is inconsistent with 406 (a) of the Social Security Act, and in denying AFDC assistance to appellees on the basis of the invalid regulation Alabama has breached its federally imposed obligation to furnish aid to families with dependent children with reasonable promptness to all eligible individuals).
- Lewis v. Martin 397 U.S. 552 (1970) (In the absence of proof of actual contribution, California may not consider the child's 'resources' to include either the income of a nonadopting stepfather who is not legally obligated to support the child as is a natural parent, or the income of a MARS- whatever the nature of his obligation to support).
- Lukhard v. Reed 481 U.S. 368 (1987) (The fact that personal injury awards are expressly excluded from income under the Internal Revenue Code, the Food Stamp Program, and the HHS poverty guidelines does not mean that such awards are automatically excluded from "income" but, in fact, supports the opposite proposition that they are included when, as in the AFDC statute, Congress is silent on the subject).
- Mathews v. Eldridge 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (The private interest that will be adversely affected by an erroneous termination of benefits is likely to be less in the case of a disabled worker than in the case of a welfare recipient. An evidentiary hearing is not required prior to the termination of Social Security disability payments and the administrative procedures prescribed under the Act fully comport with due process).
- Miller v. Youakim 440 U.S. 125 (1979) (The AFDC-FC program encompasses foster children who, pursuant to a judicial determination of neglect, have been placed in related homes that meet a State's licensing requirements for unrelated foster homes. Accordingly, Illinois may not exclude from its AFDC-FC program children who reside with relatives).
- New Jersey Welfare Rights Organization v. Cahill 411 U.S. 619 (1973) (Statute limiting benefits of the "Assistance to Families of the Working Poor" program to those households in which the parents are ceremonially married and have at least one minor child of both, the natural child of one and adopted by the other, or a child adopted by both, denies equal protection to illegitimate children).
- New York State Dept. of Social Services v. Dublino 413 U.S. 405 (1973) (Affirmative evidence exists to establish Congress' intention not to terminate all state work programs and foreclose future state cooperative programs. Where coordinate state and federal efforts exist within a complementary administrative framework in the pursuit of common purposes, as here, the case for federal pre-emption is not persuasive).
- Philbrook v. Glodgett 421 U.S. 707 (1975) (Vermont regulation, as applied to exclude unemployed fathers who are merely eligible for unemployment compensation from receiving ANFC benefits, impermissibly conflicted with Section 407 (b) (2) (C) (ii). As evidenced by that provision's legislative history, Congress did not intend the provision's coverage to be at the State's discretion once it elected to participate).
- Quern v. Mandley 436 U.S. 725 (1978) (Neither 402 (a) (10) of the SSA, which makes AFDC, not EA, eligibility criteria mandatory, nor 406 (e), which defines the permissible scope of an EA program for purpose of federal funding, imposes mandatory eligibility standards on States that elect to participate in the EA program, and therefore Illinois is not precluded from receiving matching federal funds for either an EA or a "special needs" program simply because it limits eligibility for aid under that program more narrowly than 406 (e)).
- Saenz v. Roe 526 U.S. 489 (1999) (Since the right to travel embraces a citizen's right to be treated equally in her new State of residence, a discriminatory classification is itself a penalty. California's classifications are defined entirely by the period of residency and the location of the disfavored class members' prior residences. Within the category of new residents, those who lived in another country or in a State that had higher benefits than California are treated like lifetime residents; and within the broad subcategory of new arrivals who are treated less favorably, there are 45 smaller classes whose benefit levels are determined by the law of their former States. California's legitimate interest in saving money does not justify this discriminatory scheme).
- Schweiker v. Wilson 450 U.S. 221 (1981) (Congress may decline to grant Supplemental Security Income benefits to class of otherwise eligible individuals who are excluded because they are aged 21 through 64 and are institutionalized in public mental institutions that do not receive Medicaid funds for their care).
- Shapiro v. Thompson 394 U.S. 618 (1969) (The statutory prohibition of benefits to residents of less than a year creates a classification which denies equal protection of the laws because the interests allegedly served by the classification either may not constitutionally be promoted by government or are not compelling governmental interests. Since the Constitution guarantees the right of interstate movement, the purpose of deterring the migration of indigents into a State is impermissible and cannot serve to justify the classification created by the one-year waiting period).
- Shea v. Vialpando 416 U.S. 251 (1974) (Section 402 (a) (7) of the Social Security Act requires state agencies in administering the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program to "take into consideration . . . any expenses reasonably attributable to the earning of . . . income." Such expenses are deducted from an AFDC applicant's income in determining eligibility for assistance. Colorado AFDC regulations, amended in 1970 to subject work-related expenses (with certain exceptions) to a uniform allowance of $30 per month were held invalid as inconsistent with Section 402(a) (7)).
- Sullivan v. Everhart 494 U.S. 83 (1990) (SSA "netting regulations" (i. e., if the beneficiary was overpaid in certain months and underpaid in others, the Secretary will net the errors by calculating the difference between the underpayments and the overpayments and treat the netted amount as an overpayment or underpayment, as the case
- Sullivan v. Stroop 496 U.S. 478 (1990) (Title II "child's insurance benefits" do not constitute "child support" within the meaning of 602(a)(8)(A)(vi). The clear and unambiguous language of the statute demonstrates that Congress used "child support" throughout Title IV as a term of art referring exclusively to payments from absent parents).
- Sullivan v. Zebley 493 U.S. 521 (1990) (SSA's child-disability regulations are inconsistent with the statutory standard of "comparable severity").
- Townsend v. Swank 404 U.S. 282 (1971) (Illinois statute and regulation under which needy dependent children 18 through 20 years old attending high school or vocational training school qualify for benefits under the federally assisted Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) program, but such children attending a college or university did not qualify conflicted with that federal statutory provision and violated the Supremacy Clause.).
- Van Lare v. Hurley 421 U.S. 338 (1975) (The New York "lodger" regulations, which are based on the assumption that the nonpaying lodger is contributing to the welfare of the household, without inquiry into whether he in fact does so, violate the Social Security Act and implementing regulations).
- Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School
Ads by FindLaw