Brown v. Wing, Index No. 9063/96 (Sup. Ct. NY October 18, 1996).
The state trial court has granted summary judgment, class certification, and a statewide permanent injunction against a New York statute that mandates payment of lesser or no home relief (general assistance) benefits to new residents based on the benefits paid in their previous state of residence. The decision is based both on Article 17 of the New York State Constitution, which mandates aid to the needy, and on the federal right to travel. The Center is co-counsel in this case with the Public Interest Law Office of Rochester and the Greater Upstate Law Project. CH # pending.
Little v. Barry, No. 96-504 (U.S. Sup. Ct. Sept. 30, 1996), 65 LW 3295 (Oct. 15, 1996) (petition for certiorari).
This case grew out of a 1991 change in General Assistance eligibility standards, restricting GA eligibility to those found disabled under SSI criteria. Plaintiffs challenged as unconstitutional a provision of the statute denying pretermination hearings to those found ineligible for continuing assistance due to failure to meet the disability standard. Plaintiffs seek Supreme Court review of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals decision holding that plaintiffs did not have a property interest in ongoing assistance beyond their current certification period and therefore due process did not require pretermination hearings. The Court of Appeals decision is reported at 669 A. 2d 115. CH #47,460.
Blessing v. Freestone, No. 95-1441 (U.S. Sup. Ct., Oct. 3, 1996), 65 LW 3255 (Oct.8, 1996).
The Supreme Court has denied respondents' motion requesting that it consider remanding this case or dismissing certiorari as improvidently granted in light of the Personal Opportunity and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. The Court had previously granted cert. to review the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that parents who had not received child support enforcement services from the state could sue for improvements in the child support system under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. The state is arguing that the plaintiffs do not have a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. 1983; that the Eleventh Amendment precludes a cause of action against state officials to enforce IV-D, and that the Court should reconsider its decision in Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1 (1980). Amicus briefs supporting the state's position have been filed by numerous states, various organizations of state and local government officials, associations of various state attorneys, and the American Public Welfare Association. Amicus briefs have also been filed supporting the class seeking child support enforcement services. Among those briefs is one prepared by the National Women's Law Center, NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Williams & Connolly, and joined in by other organizations including the Center on Social Welfare Policy and Law. That brief examines the legislative history of Title IV-D to demonstrate Congressional intent to create enforceable rights under 42 U.S.C. . 1983. The brief notes that an early version of the Personal Responsibility Act (which repealed the entitlement in AFDC) had provided that there was not entitlement under Title IV-D, but that provision was deleted in later versions of the bill. CH #50,109.
Audette v. Shalala, Civ. Action No. 5:91-CV-50 (W.D.MI Sept. 30, 1996).
This case was last reported in the Center's July 1994 Library Bulletin. Plaintiffs in this class action lawsuit challenge HHS's approval of AFDC payment levels below the minimum levels required by the Social Security Act. The plaintiffs sought an order enjoining any further amendments to Michigan's Medicaid plan until AFDC payment levels are restored to levels in effect on May 1, 1988. Following the Sixth Circuit's decision remanding the case, 19 F.3d 254 (6th Cir. 1994), the parties cross-moved for summary judgment. On September 30, 1996, the Court issued a decision dismissing the plaintiffs' claims as mooted by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, P.L. 104-193. The court found that plaintiffs' claims are based exclusively on 42 U.S.C. 1396a(c)(1), which was repealed by the passage of the PRA. The Court acknowledged the repeal would not be effective until HHS had determined Michigan's TANF Plan to be complete. However, the court observed that, since the Plan had been submitted, it was only a matter of some weeks or months before the statute would be repealed and the claims rendered moot. The court saw no reason to wait for HHS's acceptance of the plan. (Coincidentally, Michigan's TANF plan was found complete by HHS on September 30, 1996.) CH #46,993.
Families Achieving Independence & Respect (FAIR) V. Nebraska Department of Social Services, 91 F.3rd 1076 (8th Cir. 1996).
Plaintiffs challenged on First Amendment grounds a restriction on the use of welfare center waiting rooms by advocacy groups. The Circuit Court rejected the defendant's argument that it could permissibly limit the use of the waiting room to only groups that provide aid to recipients. The court observed "FAIR is a grass-roots organization designed to empower welfare recipients and facilitate their involvement in welfare reform. To that end, FAIR wants to provide information to welfare recipients about the current welfare-reform debate and about the possible impacts of proposed legislative changes." 91 F.3d at 1080-81. The court held that purpose provided a valuable service to recipients and applicants and could be subject only to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions - but not to content based restrictions no matter how neutral.
Hesthag v. Hammons, Index No. 403426/96 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. filed June 1996).
This is a challenge to an individual fair hearing decision which upheld a sanction for failure to cooperate with a welfare work program. Petitioner claims that she should not be sanctioned because the welfare agency failed to make any effort to accommodate her school schedule in setting her work hours. The claims are based on provisions of the New York statute and regulations which mandate the work assignments not "interfere" with participants' educational programs. The Center is co-counsel in this case with The Legal Aid Society of New York City and a pro bono firm. CH # pending.