New York State Department of Social Services v. Dublino
37 L. Ed. 2d 688, 1973 U.S. LEXIS 47, 413 U.S. 405 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state is not preempted by the federal Social Security Act from establishing its own supplementary work programs as a condition of eligibility for federally funded aid, provided the state program does not substantively conflict with specific provisions of the federal act.
Facts:
- In 1971, New York enacted the 'Work Rules,' a state program aimed at encouraging welfare recipients to become self-sufficient.
- The Work Rules required 'employable' recipients of public assistance to report every two weeks to pick up their assistance checks and to file a certificate from a public employment office confirming that no suitable employment was available.
- Recipients were also required to report for employment interviews and not willfully fail to accept suitable employment when offered.
- Failure to comply with New York's Work Rules would result in the termination of the individual's public assistance benefits.
- At the same time, the federal Social Security Act included the Work Incentive Program (WIN), which also required certain employable individuals receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) to register for manpower services, training, and employment as a condition of receiving aid.
- A group of New York AFDC recipients, subject to the state's Work Rules, were threatened with the loss of their benefits for noncompliance with the state program.
Procedural Posture:
- New York public assistance recipients sued New York state officials in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York.
- The recipients challenged the state's Work Rules, arguing they were unconstitutional and preempted by the federal Work Incentive Program (WIN).
- A three-judge District Court was convened to hear the case.
- The District Court rejected the constitutional claims but ruled that the federal WIN program did preempt the New York Work Rules as they applied to AFDC recipients.
- New York state officials (appellants) appealed the District Court's preemption ruling directly to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the federal Work Incentive Program (WIN) of the Social Security Act preempt a state from enacting its own, supplementary work requirement program as a condition for receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Powell
No, the federal Work Incentive Program (WIN) does not preempt a state from imposing its own supplementary work requirements on recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). The Social Security Act establishes a scheme of cooperative federalism, and federal supremacy is not to be lightly presumed absent a clear congressional intent to preempt state action. The Court found no such clear intent in the WIN statute or its legislative history; the comprehensive nature of the federal law is not by itself evidence of preemptive intent. Furthermore, WIN is a program of limited scope and funding that does not serve all eligible recipients, and it would be incongruous to interpret the federal law as negating its own purpose by preventing states from undertaking supplementary efforts toward the same goal. The consistent approval of such state plans by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW), the agency charged with the Act's execution, further supports the conclusion that state work programs can coexist with the federal framework.
Dissenting - Justice Marshall
Yes, the federal Work Incentive Program (WIN) preempts the New York Work Rules because the state rules impose eligibility conditions not authorized by the Social Security Act. Citing the rule from Townsend v. Swank, any state eligibility standard that excludes persons eligible for assistance under federal AFDC standards is invalid unless there is clear congressional authorization. The New York Work Rules create additional conditions of eligibility, such as the bi-weekly certification requirement, which excludes people who would otherwise be eligible under federal law. The federal Act only permits denying assistance for an actual refusal to participate in WIN or accept employment, not for a 'deemed' refusal based on failure to comply with a separate state administrative procedure. Congress's detailed creation of the WIN program indicates its intent to carefully balance family integrity with employment goals through a federally supervised system, precluding independent and potentially conflicting state programs.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle of 'cooperative federalism' within joint federal-state social welfare programs like AFDC. It establishes a high bar for finding federal preemption, requiring a 'clear manifestation' of congressional intent, thereby granting states significant latitude to supplement federal initiatives. By allowing states to create their own work requirements, the ruling empowered states to act as 'laboratories' for welfare reform, a concept that would become central to future legislative changes. This case ensures that a comprehensive federal statute does not automatically occupy a legislative field, preserving state authority to address local problems as long as the state's actions do not create a substantive conflict with specific federal provisions.
