TRO Granted in Legal Immigrants' Challenge to New York State's Food Stamp Program

This lawsuit challenges New York State's denial of food stamp benefits to a class of impoverished lawful permanent resident immigrants because of their immigration status and other criteria unrelated to need. All of the plaintiffs have been or would be eligible for food stamps under the State Food Assistance Program but for the State's specifically excluding the proposed plaintiff class from access.

The New York State Food Assistance Plan denies food stamps to legal immigrants for reasons that include age (ages 18-59); residence (residing in a county that chose not to participate in the Food Assistance Plan); non-disability; and inability to apply for U.S. citizenship.

Plaintiffs claim that New York's exclusion of these legal immigrants from its Food Assistance Program violates Article XVII, Sec. 1 of the New York State Constitution which requires New York State to provide for the needy, and the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and New York State Constitutions.

On August 7, 1998, Justice Tompkins of New York Supreme Court granted a temporary restraining order requiring the State to immediately restore the food stamps of the named plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs' attorneys: Scott Rosenberg and Helen Lee, The Legal Aid Society, Civil Appeals and Law Reform Unit, 90 Church Street, New York, NY 10001; Marc Cohan and Rebecca Scharf, Welfare Law Center; Sister Mary Ellen Burns, Northern Manhattan Improvement Corp., 76 Wadsworth Avenue, New York, NY 10033; Constance Carden and Michael Scherz, New York Legal Assistance Group, 130 East 59^th St., New York, NY 10022; Jill A. Boskey and Chris Bowes, Center for Disability Advocacy Rights, Inc., 841 Broadway, Suite 605, New York, NY 10003.
 
 

MN, NY Residency Requirements Enjoined Again

The court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs in their challenge to a state law under which reduced welfare benefits were provided during the first twelve months that an individual or family resided in the state. The court found itself bound by precedent in a recent Minnesota Supreme Court case, Mitchell v. Steffan, 504 N.W.2d 198 (Minn. 1993), cert. denied 510 U.S. 1081 (1994). The court therefore did not reach state constitutional claims. The court found that the purpose of the provision was to impede migration, and noted that in-migration was to be expected since unemployment was lower in Minnesota than anywhere else in the country. The court also struck down the "contingency plan" adopted by the legislature if the grant reduction was declared unconstitutional. Under the contingency plan, new arrivals would not receive the child care and employment training provided to long term residents. The court found that these too were "necessities of life" and that denying them only to new arrivals was a penalty on the exercise of the right to travel.

Plaintiffs' attorneys: Anne Cofell and Rolanda Mason, St. Cloud Legal Services, tel. 320-253-0121; Barbara Kuhn, Southside Legal Aid Office, tel. 612-827-3774; and Timothy Thompson and Anne Quincy, tel. 612-332-1441.
 

Doe v. Wing, No. 98/2903 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Monroe Cty., July 30, 1998).

The court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs in their challenge to New York's third consecutive attempt to adopt a durational residency provision, following prior court holdings striking down the earlier provisions. The state attempted to distinguish this version by describing it as an attempt to define bona fide residents as those who had been in  the state for a year. The court accepted plaintiffs' argument that a line of cases going back to 1973 had held that residence for welfare purposes is the same as domicile, and that a one-year waiting period was unconstitutional.

Plaintiffs' attorneys: Bryan Hetherington and Susan Silverstein, Public Interest Law Office of Rochester, tel. 716-454-4060; Susan Antos of Greater Upstate Law Project, tel. 518-462-6831; Henry Freedman of the Welfare Law Center, tel. 212-633-6967; and Christopher Lamb of The Legal Aid Society of New York, Staten Island Office, tel. 718-273-6677.
 

Illegal Medicaid Terminations in NYC Challenged

This class action, brought on behalf of public assistance recipients in New York City, challenges the New York City Human Resources Administration's systemic termination of public assistance recipients' Medicaid benefits when it discontinues their public assistance benefits because of alleged non-compliance with the public assistance employment program in violation of Federal Medicaid law and State law. On November 1, 1997, the New York State legislature enacted a statute providing that public assistance recipients shall remain eligible for Medicaid benefits when they are placed under a public assistance employment program sanction. Plaintiffs also claim that the City's practice violates the due process clauses of the United States and New York State Constitutions by failing to provide adequate and timely notice of the terminations. The plaintiffs additionally challenge the State Defendants' failure to properly oversee the City Defendant's administration of the public assistance and Medicaid programs.

The plaintiffs are public assistance recipients whose Medicaid benefits were illegally terminated when th0ey were placed under public assistance employment program sanction. Many of the plaintiffs only discovered the terminations when they sought necessary and urgent medical care and were told that their Medicaid cards were no longer active.

Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief.

Plaintiffs' attorneys: Rebecca Scharf and Marc Cohan, Welfare Law Center; Rachel Asher, The Legal Aid Society, Brooklyn Neighborhood Office, 166 Montague Street, Brooklyn, NY 11202, tel. 718-722-3100; Elisabeth Benjamin, The Legal Aid Society, Lower Manhattan Neighborhood Office, 90 Church Street, New York, NY 10007, tel. 212-577-3386.
 
 

NYC Failure to Provide Timely Foster Care Benefits Challenged

This class action challenges New York City's Administration for Children's Services' (ACS) failure to timely comply with State fair hearing decisions concerning foster care benefits. Plaintiffs are all current or former foster parents who received favorable administrative hearing decisions from the State directing the City to take immediate action on their claim for foster care benefits under the federal Foster Care Maintenance Payments Program (FCMPP). In each case, the City failed to provide the benefits ordered by the State, despite the foster parent's numerous complaints and months of waiting, and failed to provide the parent with written notice of any attempt to comply. This ACS practice and policy violates both FCMPP's statute and regulations and also the Due Process clause of the United States Constitution. The action also challenges the State's failure to hold fair hearings and issue decisions timely, and failure to ensure that the City complies with the State's decisions fully and timely.

More than 40,000 children in New York City are in foster care placements, and more than 500 complaints for failing to comply with fair hearing decisions are filed with the State each year.

Plaintiffs are seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and monetary damages.

Plaintiffs' attorneys: Marc Cohan and Rebecca Scharf, Welfare Law Center; Ian Feldman, The Legal Aid Society, Bronx Neighborhood Office, 953 Southern Boulevard, Bronx, NY 10459, tel. 718-991-4758, ext. 248; Joshua Goldfein, The Legal Aid Society Homeless Rights Project, 90 Church Street, New York, NY 10007, tel. 212-577-3293; Mary Kim, The Legal Aid Society, Queens Neighborhood Office, 120-46 Queens Boulevard, 2nd Floor, Kew Gardens, NY 11415, tel. 718-286-2450.
 

Montana Family Challenges Sanction for One-Day Late Paperwork

This petition for judicial review seeks a reversal of a decision of the Appeals Board which in effect upheld a sanction imposed on a family because its paperwork was postmarked one day late. According to the petition, the Hearing Officer had ruled for the family after a fair hearing; had found that the petitioner was complying with the welfare program's obligation to work 20 hours a week and was attending college full-time and making good grades; and had further found that although the agency had discretion to impose sanctions based on the facts in an individual case, it had abused its discretion. The Appeals Board subsequently overturned the decision finding that the Hearing Officer did not have the authority to determine that the sanction was too severe. The petition asserts that the Appeals Board decision was clearly erroneous based on the evidence and was an abuse of discretion.

Petitioner's attorney: Russell A. LaVigne, Jr., People's Law Center, P.O. Box 511, Butte, Montana 59703-0511, tel. 406-782-6118.