The court issued a preliminary injunction against California's statute
which pays new
residents the TANF benefits available in their previous state of residence.
In doing so, the court relied on its own opinion in Green v. Anderson,
811 F. Supp. 516 (E.D.Cal. 1993), aff'd 26 F. 3rd 95 (9th Cir. 1994), vacated
as un ripe sub nom Anderson v. Green, 513 U.S. 557 (1995), and the Minnesota
Supreme Court's decision in Mitchell v. Steffen, 504 N.W.2d 198 (1993).
The court emphasized that under the controlling U.S. Supreme Court cases,
including Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), a statute unconstitutionally
penalizes the right to travel when it provides lesser state benefits to
new residents than to longer term residents. The relevant comparison is
between state residents not between new state residents and residents of
their former states. The court also held that a provision of the Personal
Responsibility Act which purports to authorize statutes such as California's
does not change the result in this case. Faced with similar Congressional
authorization in Shapiro, the Supreme Court stated that Congress cannot
authorize violations of the Equal Protection Clause.
Plaintiffs' attorneys: Mark Rosenbaum et al. ACLU Foundation of So.
California, 1616 Beverly Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90026, tel. (213) 977-9500;
Martha Davis et al., NOW Legal Defense & Ed. Fund (NYC); ACLU Foundation
of San Diego & Imperial Counties; AACLU Foundation of No. California.
Plaintiffs have moved for summary judgment in this challenge to a Pennsylvania
statute
that denies new residents General Assistance benefits if they have
lived in Pennsylvania for less than 60 days. Plaintiffs argue that the
statute is unconstitutional under Shapiro v. Thompson. In their papers,
they counter arguments by Pennsylvania that the denial of benefits for
60 days is not a significant penalty on travel because of the alleged availability
of other benefits such as food stamps and that the residency rule is a
legitimate effort to create incentive to new residents to find work. CH
# 50,302.
Plaintiffs' attorney: Jonathan Stein, Community Legal Services, 1424
Chestnut St., Philadelphia, PA 19102, tel. (215) 981-3700; fax (215) 981-0435.
Plaintiffs in this action include the state of Florida, various state
officials, Dade County,
and aged, blind, and disabled individuals who are non-citizens legally
residing in the United States before the August 1996 enactment of the federal
welfare law, P.L. 104-193, and who will be denied or terminated from SSI
and related Food Stamps solely on the basis of citizenship. The individual
non-citizens seek to represent a class and claim that the denial and termination
of SSI and related Food Stamps to non-citizens violates the Due Process
Clause of the U.S. Constitution by denying equal protection to legal immigrants.
The state and county claim that the defendants have acted arbitrarily and
capriciously in violation of the federal Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
by refusing federal reimbursement for interim assistance provided to those
legal non-citizens before the enactment of P.L. 104-193; have failed to
follow federal APA notice and comment rulemaking requirements in adopting
a policy of retroactive application of P.L. 104-193; have breached a contract
with the state and county to provide interim reimbursement; and in refusing
reimbursement for interim assistance have forced the state to assume the
financial burden for non-citizens in violation of Article IV, §4 and
the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
A copy of the complaint is available on the internet at the National
Clearinghouse for
Legal Services' website: http://www.nclsplp.org/cases/rodrique.htm.
The court has issued a TRO prohibiting New York City from assigning
TANF recipients
to workfare positions that interfere with their studies in two year
college programs. Argument on a preliminary injunction is scheduled
for July 8. The court previously issued a preliminary injunction requiring
the City to do individualized assessments of TANF recipients prior to making
any assignments to workfare, education, or training.
Plaintiffs' attorneys: Christopher Lamb, Marc Cohan, Welfare Law Center;
The Legal Aid
Society of New York City; Davis Polk & Wardwell.
The court held that a welfare recipient who failed out of an education
program that she
was attending in lieu of a workfare assignment could not be sanctioned
for failing out of the
program, where there was no evidence that her failure was due to intentional
acts on her part. The court reaffirmed the requirement that a failure
to comply with work and education
requirements must be willful to be sanctionable and held that failing
out is not by itself willful conduct.
Plaintiff's attorney: Bill Jaffe, Legal Aid Society, 166 Montague Street,
Brooklyn, NY 11201, tel. (718)722-3100; fax (718) 722-3093.
This suit, brought by unions representing painters and carpenters, claims
that defendants
are violating state law which prohibits workfare assignments that displace
regular employees. Plaintiffs claim that workfare assignments of home relief
recipients include assignments to do painting and carpentry at the Parks
Department which had been done by civil service employees. The complaint
alleges that from 1988 to 1996 the number of civil service painters at
the Parks Department decreased from 30 to 5, with three more retirements
in November 1996, and that since about 1995 the defendant has used home
relief workers for painting despite the union's protest. The complaint
also alleges that since 1990 the number of Parks Department civil service
carpenters has decreased from 54 to 22, and that the Parks Department has
refused to fill civil service vacancies and instead has used workfare workers
to perform the carpentry work ordinarily performed by civil service carpenters.
Plaintiffs' attorney: Broach & Stulberg, LLP, 11 Penn Plaza, New
York, NY 10001, tel. (212) 268-1000; fax (212) 947-6010.
Petitioner commenced this proceeding to challenge the determination
after a fair hearing
that he had, willfully and without good cause, failed to appear at
a workfare appointment.
Petitioner contended at the fair hearing that he had never received
notification of the
appointment. The New York City Department of Social Services introduced
affidavits attesting to its mailing procedures. The Appellate Division
found the purported existence of an office policy and practice regarding
mailing of appointments and notices to be unsupported by the affidavits
submitted. The Court pointed out inconsistencies between the alleged office
routine in the affidavits in the notices and the actual notices themselves.
For example, although the affidavits allege that all mailing are prepared
from a central data base of client information, the different notices the
petitioner had received contained different notices. The form affidavits
submitted by the City did not address the inconsistencies.
Plaintiffs, persons with HIV illness or AIDS, challenged the New York
City Department
of Social Services' failure to make timely determinations of applications
for emergency
assistance consisting of rent security deposits, broker's fees, and/or
moving expenses. The trial court grant a limited preliminary injunction
requiring determinations to be made only for those applicants who are without
any shelter and are severely ill or disabled. The Appellate Division modified
the injunction to the extent of requiring that determinations be made for
all applicants and the determination be made within 30 days of date of
application or within 48-72 hours if cases of immediate need. The Appellate
Division relied on various state administrative directives and on the decision
of the Appellate Division in Davis v. Perales, 151 A.D. 2d 749, 750-51
(2d Dept. 1987). For more information, contact: Lauren Shapiro, Gay Men's
Health Crisis, 129 West 20th Street, New York, N.Y. 10011, tel. (212) 337-3354.
Plaintiff applied for and received medicaid benefits for herself and
her child. The state
sought to recover prenatal costs against the father of the child, who
was living with the mother. Plaintiff claimed she had a due process
right to be told when she applied that if she applied for medicaid benefits
for the child only, there would be no assignment of rights to recover for
her care. The court applied the Mathews v. Eldridge test, and found that
plaintiff's "private interests" in due process were "marginal at best."
The court said even
though household income would clearly be affected, there was no significant
derivative
economic interest in the recovery attempt since the Second Circuit,
in an earlier stage of the
litigation, 95 F. 3d 231, 238 (2nd Cir. 1996), has called that interest
"spurious" since Congress "clearly did not intent to encourage parents
to live out of wedlock in the same home with their children in such a manner
that they could receive carte blanche public assistance." The court also
rejected plaintiff's argument that there was a privacy interest in not
declaring the father of the child.
Plaintiffs' attorneys: Ellen Yacknin, June Castellano, Greater Upstate Law Project, 80 St. Paul Street, Suite 660, Rochester, NY 14604, tel.:(716) 454-6500; Mark Wattenberg, David Pels, So. Tier Legal Services, Bath, NY.