Rosado et al. v. Wyman, Commissioner of Social Services of New York, et al.
397 U.S. 397 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under § 402(a)(23) of the Social Security Act, states receiving federal funds for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) may not circumvent the requirement to adjust their 'standard of need' for cost-of-living increases by redefining the standard to exclude items previously considered essential.
Facts:
- Prior to 1969, New York determined Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits on an individualized basis, which included recurring grants for basic items and supplemental 'special needs grants' for other essentials.
- New York's own social service regulations defined an individual as 'in need' when their budget was insufficient to meet both basic maintenance and 'non-budgeted special needs required by the case circumstances.'
- In 1969, New York enacted Social Services Law § 131-a, which replaced the individualized grant system with a system of flat maximum allowances per family based on the number of individuals per household.
- This new system consolidated payments and eliminated the separate special needs grants, failing to account for items previously covered by them, such as laundry and telephone costs, which the state had considered regular recurring expenses for many recipients.
- The implementation of § 131-a resulted in a substantial reduction in total welfare benefits paid, particularly for recipients in New York City, decreasing overall payments by approximately $40 million.
Procedural Posture:
- New York welfare recipients (Petitioners) filed a class-action lawsuit against New York state officials (Respondents) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
- The complaint alleged a constitutional equal protection claim, which required the convening of a three-judge court, and a pendent statutory claim challenging New York's new welfare law.
- Before the three-judge court could rule, New York amended its law, which the court determined rendered the constitutional claim moot.
- The three-judge court dissolved itself and remanded the remaining statutory claim to a single district judge for disposition.
- The single district judge granted summary judgment for the recipients, finding that the New York law violated the federal Social Security Act and issuing an injunction.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the district court's decision on both jurisdictional and substantive grounds.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision.
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 New York's Social Services Law § 131-a, which altered the state's method of calculating welfare benefits by eliminating certain 'special needs' grants, violate § 402(a)(23) of the Social Security Act, which requires states to adjust their standards of need to reflect cost-of-living increases?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Harlan
Yes, New York's program is incompatible with § 402(a)(23) of the Social Security Act. While states retain the discretion to alter their payment systems for administrative efficiency or to reduce the percentage of need they pay, they may not redefine their 'standard of need' in a way that effectively lowers it by eliminating items previously included. Section 402(a)(23) requires states to adjust their established standard of need for cost-of-living increases, and New York's elimination of special grants without incorporating their value into the new standard constitutes an impermissible reduction of that standard's content. This action skirts the federal mandate to realistically assess and update the full measure of need. The Court also held that the District Court properly exercised pendent jurisdiction over the statutory claim even after the constitutional claim that invoked its jurisdiction became moot.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Black
No, the Court should not have decided this issue because the federal courts lack jurisdiction at this stage. Congress explicitly vested the primary responsibility for determining state compliance with federal AFDC requirements in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW). At the time of the District Court's decision, HEW was already engaged in its own statutory review of the New York law. Judicial intervention before the administrative process is complete disrupts the coherent enforcement scheme established by Congress, undermines HEW's authority and expertise, and leads to premature and unnecessary litigation. The congressionally mandated compliance procedures should be the exclusive remedy until they have run their course.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Douglas
Yes, the majority is correct. Pendent jurisdiction was properly exercised because the statutory claim is one of federal law, which creates a particularly strong argument for a federal court to hear it. Furthermore, the ongoing HEW review is irrelevant to the judicial question because individual welfare recipients have no mechanism to initiate or participate in HEW's compliance review process. Therefore, federal courts are the only forum where these individuals can seek effective relief to enforce the conditions Congress attached to the state's receipt of federal funds. A state that accepts federal funds is legally required to comply with federal conditions, and individuals adversely affected by non-compliance are entitled to a judicial determination of their claim.
Analysis:
This decision significantly curtailed states' discretion in administering federal welfare programs by establishing that administrative changes cannot serve as a pretext for substantive reductions in the 'standard of need.' It affirmed a right of action for individual welfare recipients in federal court to challenge state non-compliance with federal statutes, preventing states from hiding benefit cuts behind complex recalculations. The ruling forces states to be more transparent; if a state wishes to reduce welfare expenditures, it must do so by explicitly reducing the percentage of need it will pay, thereby facing the political consequences, rather than by implicitly lowering the standard of need itself.
Unlock the full brief for Rosado et al. v. Wyman, Commissioner of Social Services of New York, et al.