Cases by Issue - Statutory Poverty Law

Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Ahlborn

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:45:30 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

04-1506

Petitioner

Arkansas Department of Health and Human Services, et al.

Respondent

Heidi Ahlborn

Heard By

Roberts Court (2006-2009)

Decided By

Roberts Court (2006-2009)

Opinion

547 U.S. ___ (2006)

Granted

Tuesday, September 27, 2005

Argued

Monday, February 27, 2006

Decided

Monday, May 1, 2006

Advocates

Herbert David Blair (argued the cause for Respondent)

Patricia A. Millett (argued the cause for Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

Heidi Ahlborn was injured and permanently disabled in a car accident. She received Medicaid payments totaling $215,645 through the Arkansas Department of Human Services (ADHS) to pay for her medical treatment. In order to be eligible for the Medicaid payments, Arkansas law required Ahlborn to give the ADHS the "right to any settlement, judgment, or award" she might receive because of the accident, up to the amount Medicaid had paid for her treatment.

Several years after the accident, Ahlborn received $550,000 in a settlement with the parties liable for her injuries. The sum covered her medical treatment as well as pain and suffering, lost earnings, and her lost earning potential in the future. Only $35,581 of the settlement was earmarked for her medical treatment, however. When the ADHS demanded that she repay the full $215,645, therefore, Ahlborn refused, and the issue went to a federal district court in Arkansas. The judge sided with the ADHS, ruling that it was not unreasonable for Arkansas to require Ahlborn to agree to repay them fully from any settlement she might receive in order to be eligible, even if the portion specifically allocated for medical treatment was less than the amount demanded by Medicaid.

An 8th Circuit Court of Appeals panel reversed, however, finding that seizing money from her settlement that had not been earmarked for medical treatment would violate federal Medicaid regulations, which forbid state governments from seizing the property of Medicaid recipients in order to recover money spent on treatment. The panel therefore ordered that Ahlborn repay just $35,581 to the ADHS.

Question

Do federal Medicaid statutes limit the amount a state can recover in reimbursement from a third-party payment to the portion earmarked for medical treatment?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Ahlborn, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Medicaid--provisions of the Social Security Act

Yes. In a unanimous decision authored by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court ruled that federal Medicaid statutes only allow a state to recover the part of a third-party settlement earmarked for medical expenses. The Justices agreed with the Circuit Court that the statutes do not permit Arkansas to require Ahlborn to repay Medicare expenses from the non-medical portions of the settlement. The Court found Arkansas's arguments to the contrary unconvincing due to "internal inconsistency with a conscious disregard for the statutory text."

Barnhart v. Peabody Coal Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:48:04 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

01-705

Petitioner

Barnhart

Respondent

Peabody Coal Co.

Consolidation

No. 01-715

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

537 U.S. 149 (2003)

Argued

Tuesday, October 8, 2002

Decided

Wednesday, January 15, 2003

Advocates

John G. Roberts, Jr. (Argued the cause for the respondents Peabody Coal Company et al.)

Peter Buscemi (Argued the cause for the petitioners Holland, et al)

Barbara B. McDowell (Argued the cause for the petitioner Barnhart)

Jeffrey S. Sutton (Argued the cause for the respondents Bellaire Corporation, et al)

Facts of the Case

Under the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992, the Commissioner of Social Security "shall, before October 1, 1993," assign each coal industry retiree eligible for benefits under the Act to a company, which shall then be responsible for funding the beneficiary's benefits. After October 1, 1993, the Commissioner assigned 600 hundred beneficiaries to various coal companies. The companies challenged the assignments, claiming that the statutory date sets a time limit on the Commissioner's power to assign such that a beneficiary not assigned on October 1, 1993 must be left unassigned for life. Under the companies' argument, the challenged assignments are void and the corresponding benefits must be financed by other pension plans and funds. The companies obtained summary judgments, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Question

Is the assignment of beneficiaries, under Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992, valid if the assignment was made after the Act's October 1, 1993 deadline?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Barnhart, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 26 U.S.C. 9701

Yes. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice David H. Souter, the Court held that the Commissioner's initial assignments made after October 1, 1993, are valid despite their untimeliness. The Court reasoned that a statute directing official action needed more than a mandatory "shall" before the grant of power would be read to expire when the job was supposed to be completed. Moreover, Justice Souter noted that the Act was designed to assign the greatest number of beneficiaries and read the statutory date as a spur to prompt action. Justice Antonin Scalia dissented, in which Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas joined. Justice Thomas also filed a separate dissenting opinion. Both read the Act has establishing a clear deadline for the expiration of the Commissioner's authority.

Department of Housing and Urban Development v. Rucker

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:46:16 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

00-1770

Petitioner

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Rucker

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

Oakland Housing Authority v. Pearlie Rucker, No. 00-1781

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

535 U.S. 125 (2002)

Argued

Tuesday, February 19, 2002

Decided

Tuesday, March 26, 2002

Advocates

Paul A. Renne (Argued the cause for the respondents)

James A. Feldman (Argued the cause for the petitioner in No. 00-1770)

Gary T. LaFayette (Argued the cause for the petitioners in No. 00-1781)

Facts of the Case

The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, as amended, provides that each "public housing agency shall utilize leases...providing that...any drug-related criminal activity on or off [federally assisted low-income housing] premises, engaged in by a public housing tenant, any member of the tenant's household, or any guest or other person under the tenant's control, shall be cause for termination of tenancy." Paragraph 9(m) of the leases of the tenants of the Oakland Housing Authority (OHA) obligates them to "assure that the tenant, any member of the household, a guest, or another person under the tenant's control, shall not engage in?any drug-related criminal activity on or near the premises." After the relations of four tenants were linked to drug activity, OHA instituted state-court eviction proceedings against respondents, alleging violations of lease paragraph 9(m) by a member of each tenant's household or a guest. The tenants filed an action, arguing that the Act does not require lease terms authorizing the eviction of the "innocent" tenants. The District Court's issuance of a preliminary injunction against OHA was affirmed by an en banc Court of Appeals.

Question

Does the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, as amended, allow local public housing agencies to evict tenants for drug-related activity of non-tenant relatives or guests regardless of whether tenants knew, or should have known, about the activity?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Department of Housing and Urban Development, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 42 U.S.C. 1437

Yes. In an 8-0 opinion delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court held that the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 unambiguously requires lease terms that vest local public housing authorities with the discretion to evict tenants for the drug-related activity of household members and guests whether or not the tenant knew, or should have known, about the activity. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote, "Congress' decision not to impose any qualification in the statute, combined with its use of the term 'any' to modify 'drug- related criminal activity,' precludes any knowledge requirement." The Chief Justice also noted that it was reasonable for Congress to permit no-fault evictions in order to provide public housing that was decent, safe, and free from illegal drugs. Justice Stephen G. Breyer did not participate in the case.

Fischer v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:14:19 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

99-116

Petitioner

Fischer

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

529 U.S. 667 (2000)

Argued

Tuesday, February 22, 2000

Decided

Monday, May 15, 2000

Advocates

Lisa S. Blatt (Department of Justice, argued the cause for the respondent)

Mark L. Horwitz (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

Jeffrey Fischer, while president and part owner of Quality Medical Consultants, Inc. (QMC), arranged for QMC to receive a $1.2 million loan from West Volusia Hospital Authority (WVHA), a municipal agency that operates two hospitals, which participate in and receive funding from the federal Medicare program. To get the loan, Fischer pledged QMC's accounts receivables and offered a $1 million letter of credit. After a 1994 audit of WHVA raised questions about the QMC loan, Fischer was indicted for federal bribery, including defrauding an organization which "receives, in any one year period, benefits in excess of $10,000 under a Federal program." A jury convicted him and the District Court sentenced him to imprisonment, imposed a term of supervised release, and ordered the payment of restitution. On appeal, Fischer argued that the Government failed to prove WHVA, as the organization affected by his wrongdoing, received "benefits in excess of $10,000 under a Federal program," as required by the federal bribery statute. In rejecting that argument and affirming the convictions, the Court of Appeals held that funds received by an organization constitute "benefits" within the statute's meaning if the source of the funds is a federal program, like Medicare, which provides aid or assistance to participating organizations.

Question

Do Medicare funds received by health care providers constitute "benefits" within the meaning of the federal bribery statute prohibiting fraud and other offenses against organizations receiving federal benefits?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 666

Yes. In a 7-2 opinion delivered by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the Court held that "Health care providers such as the one defrauded by [Fischer] receive 'benefits' within the meaning of [the federal bribery statute]." Thus, the Medicare funds hospitals receive for treating Medicare patients subject people who bribe hospital officials to federal prosecution. "The government has a legitimate and significant interest in prohibiting financial fraud or acts of bribery being perpetrated upon Medicare providers," Justice Kennedy wrote for the court. "Fraudulent acts threaten the program's integrity. They raise the risk participating organizations will lack the resources...to provide the level and quality of care envisioned by the program." Justice Clarence Thomas, in a dissenting opinion joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, argued that "[t]he only persons who receive 'benefits' under Medicare are the individual elderly and disabled Medicare patients, not the medical providers who serve them."

Anderson, Director, California Department Of Social Services

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:15:16 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

93-1883

Petitioner

Anderson, Director, California Department Of Social Services, et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

514 U.S. 143 (1995)

Argued

Wednesday, January 18, 1995

Decided

Wednesday, March 22, 1995

Advocates

Paul A. Engelmayer (on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the petitioners)

Dennis Paul Eckhart (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Katherine Meiss (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Anderson, Director, California Department Of Social Services, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC--provisions of the Social Security Act)

None

Cisneros, Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development v. Alpine Ridge Group

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 15:52:08 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

92-551

Petitioner

Cisneros, Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Alpine Ridge Group et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

508 U.S. 10 (1993)

Argued

Tuesday, March 30, 1993

Decided

Monday, May 3, 1993

Advocates

Michael R. Dreeben (or behalf of the Petitioners)

Warren J. Daheim (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Cisneros, Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 103 Stat. 205

None

Sullivan v. Stroop

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:30:10 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-535

Petitioner

Sullivan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Stroop

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

496 U.S. 478 (1990)

Argued

Monday, March 26, 1990

Decided

Thursday, June 14, 1990

Advocates

Clifford M. Sloan (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Jamie B. Aliperti (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Sullivan, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC--provisions of the Social Security Act)

None

Sullivan v. Zebley

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:30:20 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1377

Petitioner

Sullivan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Zebley

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

493 U.S. 521 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, November 28, 1989

Decided

Tuesday, February 20, 1990

Advocates

Edwin S. Kneedler (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Richard P. Weishaupt (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Zebley, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Supplemental Security Income

None

Sullivan v. Everhart

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:29:57 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1323

Petitioner

Sullivan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Everhart

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

494 U.S. 83 (1990)

Argued

Monday, November 27, 1989

Decided

Wednesday, February 21, 1990

Advocates

Linda J. Olson (on behalf of Respondents)

Amy L. Wax (on behalf of Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Sullivan, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Social Security, as amended, including Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act, but excluding Medicare, Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children

None

Gardebring v. Jenkins

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:25:44 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-978

Petitioner

Gardebring

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Jenkins

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

485 U.S. 415 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, January 13, 1988

Decided

Tuesday, April 19, 1988

Advocates

John L. Kirwin (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Laurie N. Davison (on behalf of the Respondents)

Paul J. Larkin, Jr. (on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, in support of Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Gardebring, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC--provisions of the Social Security Act)

None

Lukhard v. Reed

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:33:56 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1358

Petitioner

Lukhard

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Reed

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

481 U.S. 368 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, January 14, 1987

Decided

Wednesday, April 22, 1987

Advocates

Thomas J. Czelusta (on behalf of the petitioner)

Glen D. Nager (pro hac vice, respondent Secretary of H&HS in support of petitioner)

Jill A. Hanken (on behalf of the respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Lukhard, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC--provisions of the Social Security Act)

None

Bowen v. Yuckert

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:33:31 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1409

Petitioner

Bowen

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Yuckert

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

482 U.S. 137 (1987)

Argued

Tuesday, January 13, 1987

Decided

Monday, June 8, 1987

Advocates

Edwin S. Kneedler (on behalf of the petitioner)

Carole F. Grossman (on behalf of the respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Bowen, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Social Security, as amended, including Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act, but excluding Medicare, Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children

None

Atkins v. Rivera

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:26:58 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-632

Petitioner

Atkins

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Rivera

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

477 U.S. 154 (1986)

Argued

Monday, April 21, 1986

Decided

Monday, June 23, 1986

Advocates

Rene H. Reixach, Jr. (on behalf of Respondents)

Jerrold J. Ganzfried (on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, in support of Petitioner)

H. Reed Witherby (on behalf of Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Atkins, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Medicaid--provisions of the Social Security Act

None

Sorenson v. Secretary Of Treasury

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:27:12 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-1686

Petitioner

Sorenson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Secretary Of Treasury

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

475 U.S. 851 (1986)

Argued

Wednesday, January 15, 1986

Decided

Tuesday, April 22, 1986

Advocates

Richard Farber (on behalf of the respondents)

Peter Greenfield (on behalf of the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Secretary Of Treasury, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

Connecticut Dept. Of Income Maint. v. Heckler

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:20:24 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-2136

Petitioner

Connecticut Dept. Of Income Maint.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Heckler

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

471 U.S. 524 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, March 27, 1985

Decided

Monday, May 20, 1985

Advocates

Charles A. Miller (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Kathryn A. Oberly (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Heckler, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Medicaid--provisions of the Social Security Act

None

Heckler v. Turner

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:20:11 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1097

Petitioner

Heckler

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Turner

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

470 U.S. 184 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, October 9, 1984

Decided

Wednesday, February 27, 1985

Advocates

Carter G. Phillips (on behalf of the petitioner)

Mark N. Aaronson (on behalf of the respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Heckler, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC--provisions of the Social Security Act)

None

Heckler v. Ringer

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:29:46 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1772

Petitioner

Heckler

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ringer

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

466 U.S. 602 (1984)

Argued

Monday, February 27, 1984

Decided

Monday, May 14, 1984

Advocates

Edwin S. Kneedler (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Malcolm J. Harkins, III (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Heckler, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Medicare--provisions of the Social Security Act

None

Heckler v. Community Health Services

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:29:03 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-56

Petitioner

Heckler

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Community Health Services

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

467 U.S. 51 (1984)

Argued

Monday, February 27, 1984

Decided

Monday, May 21, 1984

Advocates

Raymond G. Hasley (on behalf of Respondents)

Kenneth S. Geller (on behalf of Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Heckler, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Estoppel

None

Heckler v. Day

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:29:20 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1371

Petitioner

Heckler

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Day

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

467 U.S. 104 (1984)

Argued

Monday, December 5, 1983

Decided

Tuesday, May 22, 1984

Advocates

Richard H. Munzing (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Paul McGrath (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

J. Paul Mc Grath (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

Title II of the Social Security Act (Act) establishes a four-step review process of disputed disability benefit claims. First, a state agency determines if a claimant has a disability and when the condition began or ended. Second, state agencies' disability determinations can be reviewed upon the claimant's request. Third, if upon review the claimant suffers an adverse finding he or she may demand an evidentiary hearing by an administrative law judge. Fourth, if a claimant is dissatisfied with the administrative law judge's decision, they may appeal to the Appeals Council of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Claiming delays in excess of 90 days, during steps two and three, Leon Day sued on behalf of several similarly aggrieved Vermont claimants alleging a violation of the "reasonable time" hearing limitation. On appeal from the Second Circuit Court of Appeal's ruling upholding a district court's imposition of disability hearing deadlines, the Supreme Court granted HHS Secretary Margaret Heckler certiorari.

Question

Does the judiciary's imposition of deadlines by which disability claims must be processed constitute an unconstitutional interference with a legislatively mandated statute?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Heckler, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Education of the Handicapped, Education for All Handicapped Children, or Individuals with Disabilities Education Acts, or related statutes, as amended; also see ADA

Yes. In a 5-to-4 opinion, the Court held that Congress already considered and expressly rejected the imposition of mandatory disability dispute-resolution deadlines. Such deadlines, according to congressional reports, would subordinate quality of service to timeliness. The Court cautioned that pervasively regulated areas, such as the Social Security Act in general and its dispute resolution mechanisms in particular, should be left free of judicial intervention that is far less attuned to the needs of the constituencies served by such legislation.

Heckler v. Campbell

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:32:40 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-1983

Petitioner

Heckler

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Campbell

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

461 U.S. 458 (1983)

Argued

Monday, February 28, 1983

Decided

Monday, May 16, 1983

Advocates

Ruben Nazario (on behalf of the Respondent)

John H. Garvey (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Heckler, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Social Security, as amended, including Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act, but excluding Medicare, Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children

None

Herweg v. Ray

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:30:38 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-60

Petitioner

Herweg

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ray

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

455 U.S. 265 (1982)

Argued

Wednesday, January 13, 1982

Decided

Tuesday, February 23, 1982

Advocates

Neal S. Dudovitz (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Brent R. Appel (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Herweg, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Medicaid--provisions of the Social Security Act

None

Schweiker v. Gray Panthers

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:28:54 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-756

Petitioner

Schweiker

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Gray Panthers

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

453 U.S. 34 (1981)

Argued

Wednesday, April 29, 1981

Decided

Thursday, June 25, 1981

Advocates

George W. Jones (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Gill De Ford (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Schweiker, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Medicaid--provisions of the Social Security Act

None

Beltran v. Myers

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:28:57 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-5303

Petitioner

Beltran

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Myers

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

451 U.S. 625 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, March 24, 1981

Decided

Monday, May 18, 1981

Advocates

Richard J. Magasin (on behalf of the Respondents)

Gill Deford (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Beltran, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Medicaid--provisions of the Social Security Act

None

Califano v. Yamasaki

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:11:32 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1511

Petitioner

Califano

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Yamasaki

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

442 U.S. 682 (1979)

Argued

Monday, March 19, 1979

Decided

Wednesday, June 20, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Califano, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Social Security, as amended, including Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act, but excluding Medicare, Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children

None

Alexander v. U.S. Dept. Of HUD

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:11:51 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-874

Petitioner

Alexander

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

U.S. Dept. Of Housing and Urban Development

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

Harris, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, et al. v. Cole et al., No. 77-1463

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

441 U.S. 39 (1979)

Argued

Tuesday, December 5, 1978

Decided

Tuesday, April 17, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for U.S. Dept. Of HUD, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 42 U.S.C. 4601

None

Miller v. Youakim

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:11:48 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-742

Appellee

Youakim

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Miller

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

440 U.S. 125 (1979)

Argued

Monday, October 30, 1978

Decided

Thursday, February 22, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Youakim, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC--provisions of the Social Security Act)

None

Quern v. Mandley

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:34:03 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1159

Petitioner

Quern

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mandley

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 76-1416

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

436 U.S. 725 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, November 30, 1977

Decided

Tuesday, June 6, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Quern, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC--provisions of the Social Security Act)

None

Batterton v. Francis

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:10:16 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1181

Petitioner

Batterton

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Francis

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

432 U.S. 416 (1977)

Argued

Tuesday, April 19, 1977

Decided

Monday, June 20, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Batterton, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC--provisions of the Social Security Act)

None

Ohio Bureau Of Employment Services v. Hodory

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:10:31 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1707

Appellee

Hodory

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Ohio Bureau Of Employment Services

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

431 U.S. 471 (1977)

Argued

Monday, February 28, 1977

Decided

Tuesday, May 31, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Ohio Bureau Of Employment Services, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 6, Section 2: Supremacy Clause

None

Youakim v. Miller

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:12:11 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-6935

Appellee

Miller

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Youakim

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

425 U.S. 231 (1976)

Argued

Monday, December 8, 1975

Decided

Wednesday, March 31, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Youakim, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Van Lare v. Hurley

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:33 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-453

Appellee

Hurley

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Van Lare

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 74-5054

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

421 U.S. 338 (1975)

Argued

Wednesday, March 26, 1975

Decided

Monday, May 19, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Hurley, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC--provisions of the Social Security Act)

None

Philbrook v. Glodgett

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:17 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1820

Petitioner

Glodgett

Respondent

Philbrook

Consolidation

No. 73-132

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

421 U.S. 707 (1975)

Argued

March 24-25, 1975

Decided

Monday, June 9, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Glodgett, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC--provisions of the Social Security Act)

None

Roe v. Norton

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:09 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-6033

Appellee

Norton

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Roe

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

422 U.S. 391 (1975)

Argued

Tuesday, February 25, 1975

Decided

Tuesday, June 24, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Roe, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC--provisions of the Social Security Act)

None

Burns v. Alcala

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:22 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1708

Petitioner

Burns

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Alcala

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

420 U.S. 575 (1975)

Argued

Wednesday, January 22, 1975

Decided

Tuesday, March 18, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Burns, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC--provisions of the Social Security Act)

None

Lascaris v. Shirley

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:23 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1016

Appellee

Shirley

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Lascaris

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 73-1095

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

420 U.S. 730 (1975)

Argued

Wednesday, December 18, 1974

Decided

Wednesday, March 19, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Shirley, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC--provisions of the Social Security Act)

None

Shea v. Vialpando

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:34:42 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1513

Petitioner

Shea

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Vialpando

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

416 U.S. 251 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, February 26, 1974

Decided

Tuesday, April 23, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Vialpando, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC--provisions of the Social Security Act)

None

Hagans v. Lavine

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:34:25 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-6476

Petitioner

Hagans

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Lavine

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

415 U.S. 528 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, December 11, 1973

Decided

Monday, March 25, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Hagans, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1343

None

New York Dept. Of Social Services v. Dublino

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:19:27 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-792

Petitioner

Dublino

Respondent

New York Dept. Of Social Services

Consolidation

No. 72-802

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

413 U.S. 405 (1973)

Argued

April 17-18, 1973

Decided

Thursday, June 21, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for New York Dept. Of Social Services, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Social Security, as amended, including Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act, but excluding Medicare, Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children

None

Philpott v. Essex County Welfare Board

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:19:43 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-5656

Petitioner

Philpott

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Essex County Welfare Board

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

409 U.S. 413 (1973)

Argued

Monday, December 4, 1972

Decided

Wednesday, January 10, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Philpott, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Social Security, as amended, including Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act, but excluding Medicare, Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children

None

Carleson v. Remillard

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:32:42 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-250

Appellee

Remillard

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Carleson

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

406 U.S. 598 (1972)

Argued

Monday, April 10, 1972

Decided

Wednesday, June 7, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Remillard, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC--provisions of the Social Security Act)

None

Richardson v. Wright

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:01 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-161

Appellee

Wright

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Richardson

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 70-5211

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

405 U.S. 208 (1972)

Argued

Thursday, January 13, 1972

Decided

Thursday, February 24, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Richardson, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Social Security, as amended, including Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act, but excluding Medicare, Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children

None

California Human Resources Dept. v. Java

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:18:56 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

507

Appellee

Java

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

California Human Resources Dept.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

402 U.S. 121 (1971)

Argued

Wednesday, February 24, 1971

Decided

Monday, April 26, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Java, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Social Security, as amended, including Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act, but excluding Medicare, Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children

None

Lewis v. Martin

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:39:09 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

829

Appellee

Martin

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Lewis

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Decided By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Opinion

397 U.S. 552 (1970)

Argued

March 3-4, 1970

Decided

Monday, April 20, 1970

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Lewis, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC--provisions of the Social Security Act)

None

Rosado v. Wyman

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:38:57 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

540

Petitioner

Rosado

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wyman

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Decided By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Opinion

397 U.S. 397 (1970)

Argued

Wednesday, November 19, 1969

Decided

Monday, April 6, 1970

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Rosado, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Social Security, as amended, including Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act, but excluding Medicare, Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children

None

Shapiro v. Thompson

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:02 +0000

Location

Connecticut Welfare Department

25 Sigourney Street Hartford CT 06106

Hartford, CT 06106

United States

41° 45' 50.6556" N, 72° 41' 37.8312" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Thompson

Respondent

Shapiro

Consolidation

Washington v. Legrant, No. 33

Reynolds v. Smith, No. 34

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 618 (1969)

Argued

Wednesday, May 1, 1968

Reargued:

October 23-24, 1968

Decided

Monday, April 21, 1969

Advocates

Archibald Cox (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Francis J. MacGregor (Argued the cause for the appellant)

Brian L. Hollander (As <i>pro hac vice</i>, argued the cause for the appellee)

Facts of the Case

Thompson was a pregnant, nineteen-year-old mother of one child who applied for assistance under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program in Connecticut after having recently moved there from Massachusetts. Connecticut denied her aid since she did not satisfy the state's one-year residency requirement. This case was decided together with Washington v. Legrant and Reynolds v. Smith. In Washington, three people applied for and were denied AFDC aid on the ground that they had not resided in the District of Columbia for one year immediately preceding the filing of their application In Reynolds, two appellees, Smith and Foster, were denied AFDC aid on the sole ground that they had not been residents of Pennsylvania for at least a year prior to their applications as required by a Pennsylvania Welfare Code.

Question

Does the conditioning of AFDC aid on various residency requirements violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Thompson, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

Yes. The Court held that since the regulation touched "on the fundamental right of interstate movement," it must promote a compelling state interest. Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Washington DC, all failed to advance any compelling administrative or social reasons for their requirements. The goal of simply preventing indigents from moving to these states was constitutionally impermissible, argued Justice Brennan, given the value the United States has historically placed on the freedom to travel.

King v. Smith

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:41:05 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

949

Appellee

Smith

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

King

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

392 U.S. 309 (1968)

Argued

Tuesday, April 23, 1968

Decided

Monday, June 17, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Smith, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC--provisions of the Social Security Act)

None