Cases by Issue - Constitutional Poverty Law

Kadrmas v. Dickinson Public Schools

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:25:40 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-7113

Appellee

Dickinson Public Schools

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Kadrmas

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

487 U.S. 450 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, March 30, 1988

Decided

Friday, June 24, 1988

Advocates

Nicholas Spaeth (as amicus curiae, in support of Appellees)

Duane Houdek (on behalf of the Appellants)

George T. Dynes (on behalf of the Appellees)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Dickinson Public Schools, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Estoppel

None

Lyng v. Automobile Workers

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:26:02 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1471

Appellee

Automobile Workers

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Lyng

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

485 U.S. 360 (1988)

Argued

Monday, December 7, 1987

Decided

Wednesday, March 23, 1988

Advocates

Lawrence S. Robbins (on behalf of the Appellant)

Richard Walker Mc Hugh (on behalf of the Appellees)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Lyng, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 7 U.S.C. 2015

None

Bowen v. Gilliard

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:33:30 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-509

Appellee

Gilliard

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Bowen

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

Flaherty, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Human Resources v. Gilliard, No. 86-564

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

483 U.S. 587 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, April 22, 1987

Decided

Thursday, June 25, 1987

Advocates

Catherine C. McLamb (on behalf of the appellants in No. 86-564)

Albert G. Lauber, Jr. (on behalf of the appellant in No-86-509)

Jane R. Wettach (on behalf of the appellees)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Lyng v. Castillo

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:27:28 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-250

Appellee

Castillo

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Lyng

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

477 U.S. 635 (1986)

Argued

Tuesday, April 29, 1986

Decided

Friday, June 27, 1986

Advocates

Maria Norma Martinez (on behalf of the appellees)

Jeffrey P. Minear (on behalf of the appellant, pro hac vice)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Bowen v. Owens

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:26:47 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-1905

Appellee

Owens

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Bowen

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

476 U.S. 340 (1986)

Argued

Wednesday, February 26, 1986

Decided

Monday, May 19, 1986

Advocates

Carolyn B. Kuhl (on behalf of the appellant)

Gill Deford (on behalf of the appellees)

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

Green v. Mansour

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:27:26 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-6270

Petitioner

Green

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mansour

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

474 U.S. 64 (1985)

Argued

Monday, October 7, 1985

Decided

Tuesday, December 3, 1985

Advocates

Louis J. Caruso (on behalf of the respondent)

William Burnham (on behalf of the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Mansour, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 11: Eleventh Amendment

None

Blum v. Bacon

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:32:27 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-770

Appellee

Bacon

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Blum

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

457 U.S. 132 (1982)

Argued

Wednesday, April 28, 1982

Decided

Monday, June 14, 1982

Advocates

Martin A. Schwartz (on behalf of Appellees)

Robert S. Hammer (on behalf of Appellants)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Bacon, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 6, Section 2: Supremacy Clause

None

Blum v. Yaretsky

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:32:33 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1952

Petitioner

Blum

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Yaretsky

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

457 U.S. 991 (1982)

Argued

Wednesday, March 24, 1982

Decided

Friday, June 25, 1982

Advocates

John E. Kirklin (on behalf of the Respondents)

Judith A. Gordon (on behalf of Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Blum, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Schweiker v. Hogan

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:32:35 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-213

Appellee

Hogan

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Schweiker

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

457 U.S. 569 (1982)

Argued

Wednesday, March 24, 1982

Decided

Monday, June 21, 1982

Advocates

William H. Simon (on behalf of the Appellees)

George W. Jones (on behalf of the Appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Schweiker, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Schweiker v. Wilson

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:28:34 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1380

Appellee

Wilson

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Schweiker

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

450 U.S. 221 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, December 2, 1980

Decided

Wednesday, March 4, 1981

Advocates

Elliott Schulder (on behalf of the Appellant)

James D. Weill (on behalf of the Appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Schweiker, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

U.S. Railroad Retirement Bd. v. Fritz

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:28:35 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-870

Appellee

Fritz

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

U.S. Railroad Retirement Bd.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

449 U.S. 166 (1980)

Argued

Monday, October 6, 1980

Decided

Tuesday, December 9, 1980

Advocates

Daniel P. Byron (on behalf of the Appellee)

Edwin S. Kneedler (on behalf of the Appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for U.S. Railroad Retirement Bd., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Califano v. Westcott

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:11:22 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-437

Appellee

Westcott

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Califano

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 78-689

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

443 U.S. 76 (1979)

Argued

Monday, April 16, 1979

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Westcott, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Quern v. Jordan

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:12:01 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-841

Petitioner

Quern

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Jordan

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

440 U.S. 332 (1979)

Argued

Wednesday, November 8, 1978

Decided

Monday, March 5, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Jordan, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 11: Eleventh Amendment

None

Califano v. Aznavorian

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:11:28 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-991

Appellee

Aznavorian

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Califano

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 77-5999

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

439 U.S. 170 (1978)

Argued

Monday, November 6, 1978

Decided

Monday, December 11, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Califano, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Califano v. Jobst

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:34:07 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-860

Appellee

Jobst

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Califano

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

434 U.S. 47 (1977)

Argued

Tuesday, October 4, 1977

Decided

Tuesday, November 8, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Califano, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Zablocki v. Redhail

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:11 +0000

Location

Milwaukee County Courthouse

901 N 9th St Milwaukee MI 53233

Milwaukee, MI 53233

United States

43° 2' 28.0752" N, 87° 55' 25.482" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-879

Appellant

Roger C. Redhail

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

Thomas E. Zablocki

Respondent Type

Appellee

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

434 U.S. 374 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, October 4, 1977

Decided

Wednesday, January 18, 1978

Advocates

Ward L. Johnson Jr. (argued the cause for the appellant)

Robert H. Blondis (argued the cause for the appellee)

Facts of the Case

Roger C. Redhail, a Wisconsin minor, fathered a child. A court ordered him to pay child support. Two years later, he applied for a marriage license in Milwaukee County. His application was denied by County Clerk Thomas E. Zablocki who declined to issue the license under a state statute on the ground that Redhail owed more than $3,700 in child support.. Redhail filed a class action in federal district court against Zablocki and all Wisconsin county clerks. The court ruled in Redhail's favor. Zablocki appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

Question

Did the Wisconsin statute violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Redhail, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

Yes. In an 8-1 decision, the Court held that Wisconsin's statute violated the Equal Protection Clause and reaffirmed that marriage was a fundamental right. In the majority opinion authored by Justice Thurgood Marshall, the Court emphasized marriage as part of the right to privacy found in the Fourteenth Amendment as identified in Griswold v. Connecticut. While the state has an interest in ensuring that child support obligations were fulfilled, this statute only regulated those who wished to be married and did not justify the restriction on the right to marriage as found in Loving v. Virginia.

Knebel v. Hein

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:10:18 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1261

Appellee

Hein

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Knebel

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 75-1355

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

429 U.S. 288 (1977)

Argued

Monday, November 29, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, January 11, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Knebel, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Mathews v. De Castro

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:10:25 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1197

Appellee

De Castro

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Mathews

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

429 U.S. 181 (1976)

Argued

Monday, November 8, 1976

Decided

Monday, December 13, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Mathews, 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

Lavine v. Milne

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1137

Appellee

Milne

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Lavine

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

424 U.S. 577 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, December 2, 1975

Decided

Wednesday, March 3, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Lavine, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Mathews v. Eldridge

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:09 +0000

Location

United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare: Social Security Division

200 Independence Ave SW Washington DC 20201

Washington, DC 20201

United States

38° 53' 15.2376" N, 77° 0' 49.104" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-204

Petitioner

Mathews

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Eldridge

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

424 U.S. 319 (1976)

Argued

Monday, October 6, 1975

Decided

Tuesday, February 24, 1976

Advocates

Donald E. Earls (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Robert H. Bork (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

George Eldridge, who had originally been deemed disabled due to chronic anxiety and back strain, was informed by letter that his disability status was ending and that his benefits would be terminated. Social Security Administration procedures provided for ample notification and an evidentiary hearing before a final determination was made, but Eldridge's benefits were cut off until that hearing could take place. Eldridge challenged the termination of his benefits without such a hearing.

Question

Did the lack of an evidentiary hearing prior to the termination of disability benefits violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Mathews, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

No. In an 6-to-2 decision, the Court held that the initial termination of Eldridge's benefits without a hearing did not violate due process. The Court noted that due process was "flexible" and called for "such procedural protections as the particular situation demands." The Court found that there were numerous safeguards to prevents errors in making decisions to terminate disability benefits and argued that "[a]t some point the benefit or an additional safeguard to the individual affected by the administrative action and to society, in terms of increased assurance that the action is just, may be outweighed by the cost."

Weinberger v. Salfi

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:03 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-214

Appellee

Salfi

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Weinberger

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

422 U.S. 749 (1975)

Argued

Wednesday, March 19, 1975

Decided

Thursday, June 26, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Edelman v. Jordan

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:34:35 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1410

Petitioner

Edelman

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Jordan

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

415 U.S. 651 (1974)

Argued

Wednesday, December 12, 1973

Decided

Monday, March 25, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Edelman, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 11: Eleventh Amendment

None

U.S. Dept. Of Agriculture v. Murry

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:19:22 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-848

Appellee

Murry

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

U.S. Dept. Of Agriculture

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

413 U.S. 508 (1973)

Argued

Monday, April 23, 1973

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Murry, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 7 U.S.C. 2012

None

U.S. Department of Agriculture v. Moreno

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:07 +0000

Location

United States Department of Agriculture

1400 Independence Ave SW Washington DC 20250

Washington, DC 20250

United States

38° 53' 15.2484" N, 77° 1' 41.4552" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-534

Appellee

U.S. Department of Agriculture et al.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Jacinta Moreno et al.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

413 U.S. 528 (1973)

Argued

Monday, April 23, 1973

Decided

Monday, June 25, 1973

Advocates

A. Raymond Randolph, Jr. (argued the cause for the appellants)

Ronald F. Pollack (argued the cause for appellees)

Facts of the Case

Jacinta Moreno lived with Ermina Sanchez, who was not related, and Sanchez's three children. Sanchez provided care to Moreno, who contributed to household living expenses. Moreno satisfied the income requirements for the federal food stamp program, but was denied under Section 3 of the Food Stamp Act of 1964, amended in 1971, which prohibited households with unrelated members from receiving food stamp benefits. Sanchez's food stamp benefits were also to be terminated. Moreno and other households who were denied benefits under Section 3 challenged the statute in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The District Court held that Section 3 violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The United States appealed.

Question

Does Section 3 of the Food Stamp Act of 1964 violate the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Moreno, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 7 U.S.C. 2012

Yes. In a 7-2 decision, the Court upheld the District Court and maintained that amended Section 3 violated the Fifth Amendment in creating two types of households – one in which all members were related and one in which at least one member was unrelated. Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., writing for the majority, acknowledged the interest of Congress in preventing abuse of the Food Stamp program. However, the statute did not fulfill Congress' stated purpose of preventing "hippies" and "hippie communes" from enrolling the food stamp program. Additionally, there existed other measures within the Food Stamp Act that were specifically aimed at preventing abuse of the program. Since the statute "simply does not operate so as rationally to further the prevention of fraud," the distinction between households with related members and households with unrelated members did not further the state interest and therefore violated the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Justice William O. Douglas authored a concurring opinion.

San Antonio Independent School Dis. v. Rodriguez

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

Location

San Antonio Independent School District

141 Lavaca San Antonio TX 78210

San Antonio, TX 78210

United States

29° 25' 3.81" N, 98° 29' 13.3728" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-1332

Appellee

Rodriguez

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

San Antonio Independent School Dis.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

411 U.S. 1 (1973)

Argued

Thursday, October 12, 1972

Decided

Wednesday, March 21, 1973

Advocates

Arthur Gochman (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Charles Alan Wright (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Facts of the Case

In addition to being funded through a state-funded program designed to establish a minimum educational threshold in every school, Texas public elementary and secondary schools rely on local property taxes for supplemental revenue. The San Antonio Independent School District (SAISD), acting on behalf of students whose families reside in poor districts, challenged this funding scheme by arguing that it underprivileged such students because their schools lacked the vast property tax base that other districts utilized. The reliance on assessable property, SAISD claimed, caused severe inter-district disparities in per-pupil expenditures.

Question

Did Texas' public education finance system violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause by failing to distribute funding equally among its school districts?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for San Antonio Independent School Dis., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

No. The Court refused to examine the system with strict scrutiny since there is no fundamental right to education in the Constitution and since the system did not systematically discriminate against all poor people in Texas. Given the similarities between Texas' system and those in other states, it was clear to the Court that the funding scheme was not "so irrational as to be invidiously discriminatory." Justice Powell argued that on the question of wealth and education, "the Equal Protection Clause does not require absolute equality or precisely equal advantages."

Jefferson v. Hackney

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:30:56 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-5064

Appellee

Hackney

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Jefferson

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

406 U.S. 535 (1972)

Argued

Tuesday, February 22, 1972

Decided

Tuesday, May 30, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Hackney, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Townsend v. Swank

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:32:49 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-5021

Appellee

Swank

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Townsend

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 70-5032

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Opinion

404 U.S. 282 (1971)

Argued

Monday, November 8, 1971

Decided

Monday, December 20, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Townsend, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC--provisions of the Social Security Act)

None

Richardson v. Belcher

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:30:54 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-53

Appellee

Belcher

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Richardson

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Opinion

404 U.S. 78 (1971)

Argued

Wednesday, October 13, 1971

Decided

Monday, November 22, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Richardson, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Graham v. Richardson

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

Location

Arizona Dept of Public Welfare

1717 W Jefferson St Phoenix AZ 85007

Phoenix, AZ 85007

United States

33° 26' 47.292" N, 112° 5' 47.418" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

609

Appellant

John O. Graham, Commissioner, Department of Public Welfare, State of Arizona

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

Carmen Richardson et al.

Respondent Type

Appellee

Consolidation

No. 727, Sailer et al. v. Leer et al.

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

403 U.S. 365 (1971)

Argued

Monday, March 22, 1971

Decided

Monday, June 14, 1971

Advocates

Michael S. Flam (argued the cause for the appellant in No. 609)

Joseph P. Work (argued the cause for the appellants in No. 727)

Anthony P. Ching (argued the cause for the appellees in No. 609)

Jonathan M. Stein (argued the cause for the appellees in No. 727, pro hac vice)

Facts of the Case

The state of Arizona restricts the distribution of welfare benefits to individuals who are either United States citizens or aliens who have lived in the country for at least 15 years. In 1969, Carmen Richardson, a resident alien of Arizona who met all requirements for welfare eligibility except the residency requirement, filed a class action lawsuit against the Commissioner of the State's Department of Public Welfare questioning the constitutionality of that requirement. The three-judge court in the District of Arizona found in favor of Richardson, but the Commissioner appealed. In the same year, a similar class action suit was filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In this case, resident aliens of Pennsylvania challenged state law which dictated that if a Pennsylvania resident did not qualify for federal aid then he or she could only receive welfare benefits from the state if he or she were a citizen or had applied for citizenship. This three-judge court also found in favor of the resident aliens. However, one judge disagreed, and the defendants, namely the Executive Director of the Philadelphia County Board of Assistance and the Secretary of the Commonwealth's Department of Public Welfare, appealed.

Question

Does a state, like Arizona or Pennsylvania, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when it denies welfare benefits to those who are not United States citizens or to aliens who have not lived in this country for a certain number of years?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Richardson, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

Yes. In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Harry A. Blackmun, the Court asserted that to classify state residents solely based on alienage was inherently questionable, because aliens constitute a minority, separate from the rest of the population. The Court conceded that there had been instances in which state laws could treat citizens and non-citizens differently. However, it maintained that a state’s aim to conserve welfare benefits for citizens would not legitimize the denial of welfare benefits to aliens. Their justification was that the aliens pay taxes and, consequently, contribute to the pool of money from which welfare benefits are drawn. As a result, the Supreme Court concluded that the welfare benefit restrictions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

James v. Valtierra

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:19:07 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

154

Appellant

James et al.

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

Anita Valtierra et al.

Respondent Type

Appellee

Consolidation

No. 226, Shaffer v. Valtierra et al.

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

402 U.S. 137 (1971)

Argued

March 3-4, 1971

Decided

Monday, April 26, 1971

Advocates

Donald C. Atkinson (argued the cause for the appellants in No. 154)

Moses Lasky (argued the cause for the appellant in No. 226)

Archibald Cox (argued the cause for the appellees in both cases)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for James, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Wyman v. Rothstein

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:39:04 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

896

Appellee

Rothstein

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Wyman

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Decided By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Opinion

398 U.S. 275 (1970)

Argued

April 27-28, 1970

Decided

Monday, June 1, 1970

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Wyman, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Dandridge v. Williams

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

Location

Maryland Dept. of Human Resources

311 West Saratoga St Baltimore MD 21201

Baltimore, MD 21201

United States

39° 17' 34.1088" N, 76° 37' 13.3356" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

131

Appellant

Edmund P. Dandridge, Chairman of the Maryland State Board of Public Welfare

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

Linda Williams et al.

Respondent Type

Appellee

Heard By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Decided By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Opinion

397 U.S. 471 (1970)

Argued

Tuesday, December 9, 1969

Decided

Monday, April 6, 1970

Advocates

George W. Liebmann (Assistant Attorney General of Maryland, argued the cause for appellants)

Joseph A. Matera (argued the cause for the appellees)

Facts of the Case

The Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, established by the Social Security Act of 1935 and jointly funded by the state and federal governments, provides financial assistance to children of families with little or no income. Under the program, each state computes a "standard of need" for each family. In Maryland, the standard of need increased with each additional member of the family, but became incrementally smaller, with an upper limit of $250 per month. Linda Williams, a single mother, and Junius and Jeanette Gary, husband and wife, were Baltimore residents and parents of eight children each. They objected to Maryland's means of calculating standard of need on the ground that it discriminated against larger families, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. They also argued that the calculation conflicted with the stated purpose of the program as laid out by the Social Security Act. They filed suit against Edmund P. Dandridge, Chairman of the Maryland State Board of Public Welfare, and several other state officials. A U.S. District Court originally ruled the Maryland regulation violated both the Social Security Act and the Equal Protection Clause. On reconsideration, the court altered its ruling and based its judgment entirely on constitutional grounds but nonetheless struck down the provision.

Question

Did the Maryland mechanism for computing standard of need violate either the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or the Social Security Act of 1935?

Conclusion

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

No. In a 5-3 opinion authored by Justice Potter Stewart, the Court concluded that the Maryland provision violated neither the Social Security Act nor the Equal Protection Clause. Relying on the precedent set in King v. Smith (1968), which described the program as "a scheme of cooperative federalism" and gave the state "undisputed power" to calculate standard of need, the Court concluded that "nothing in the federal statute…forbids a State to balance the stresses that uniform insufficiency of payments would impose on all families against the greater ability of large families…to accommodate their needs to diminished per capita payments." Similarly, the Court rejected the families' equal protection claim, noting, "[T]he Equal Protection Clause does not require that a State must choose between attacking every aspect of a problem or not attacking the problem at all." Thus, because Maryland's provision was "rationally based and free from invidious discrimination," it was constitutionally valid. Justice Stewart took care to note that while "claims of morality and intelligence are raised by opponents and proponents of almost every measure," the Court could rule a provision invalid based only on its constitutionality, not on its wisdom.

Goldberg v. Kelly

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

Location

Manhattan Municipal Building

1 Centre Street New York NY 10007

New York, NY 10007

United States

40° 42' 46.6164" N, 74° 0' 13.0176" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Kelly

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Goldberg

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Decided By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Opinion

397 U.S. 254 (1970)

Argued

Monday, October 13, 1969

Decided

Monday, March 23, 1970

Facts of the Case

John Kelly, acting on behalf of New York residents receiving financial assistance either under the federally-assisted program for Families with Dependent Children or under New York State's home relief program, challenged the constitutionality of procedures for notice and termination of such aid. Although originally offering no official notice or opportunity for hearings to those whose aid was scheduled for termination, the State of New York implemented a hearing procedure after commencement of Kelly's litigation.

Question

Does a state's termination of public aid, without affording the beneficiary a hearing prior to termination, violate notions of procedural due process as set out in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Kelly, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

Yes. In a 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that states must afford public aid recipients a pre-termination evidentiary hearing before discontinuing their aid. Noting that welfare benefits are statutory entitlements, rather than "privileges," the Court weighed welfare recipients' need for procedural due process against the competing considerations of the possible harm they might suffer from discontinuation and the government's interest in summary adjudication. The Court concluded that state interests in conserving administrative costs are not sufficient to override public aid recipients' interest in procedural due process. With respect to New York's newly implemented hearings, the Court found them deficient insofar as they did not permit recipients to present evidence, be heard orally in person or through counsel, or cross-examine adverse witnesses.

Wheeler v. Montgomery

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:39:19 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Montgomery

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Wheeler

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Decided By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Opinion

397 U.S. 280 (1970)

Argued

Monday, October 13, 1969

Decided

Monday, March 23, 1970

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Wheeler, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Montgomery v. Burns

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:39:29 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

438

Appellee

Burns

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Montgomery

Respondent Type

Appellant

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 848 (1969)

Decided

Monday, May 5, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Burns, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Robinson v. Johnson

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:40:42 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Johnson

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Robinson

Respondent Type

Appellant

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 847 (1969)

Decided

Monday, May 5, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Johnson, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None