new
york
dept
social
services
dublino
argued
decided
june
together
onondaga
county
department
social
services
et
al
dublino
et
also
appeal
amendments
social
security
act
included
federal
work
incentive
program
win
designed
help
individuals
welfare
become
members
society
required
incorporate
program
aid
families
dependent
children
afdc
program
provide
certain
employable
individuals
condition
receiving
aid
shall
register
manpower
services
training
employment
new
york
enacted
provisions
social
welfare
law
commonly
referred
new
york
work
rules
similarly
required
cooperation
employable
individuals
continue
receive
assistance
appellees
new
york
public
assistance
recipients
subject
work
rules
challenge
rules
win
provisions
social
security
act
district
ruled
afdc
program
win
new
york
work
rules
held
win
provisions
social
security
act
new
york
work
rules
new
york
social
welfare
law
pp
substantial
evidence
congress
intended
either
expressly
impliedly
state
work
programs
required
apparent
comprehensiveness
win
legislation
show
clear
manifestation
congressional
intention
must
exist
federal
statute
held
supersede
exercise
state
action
schwartz
texas
pp
affirmative
evidence
exists
establish
congress
intention
terminate
state
work
programs
foreclose
future
state
cooperative
programs
win
limited
scope
application
partial
program
state
supplementation
illustrated
new
york
department
health
education
welfare
responsible
administering
social
security
act
never
considered
win
pp
coordinate
state
federal
efforts
exist
within
complementary
administrative
framework
pursuit
common
purposes
case
federal
persuasive
pp
question
whether
particular
sections
work
rules
might
contravene
specific
provisions
social
security
act
resolved
remanded
district
consideration
pp
powell
delivered
opinion
burger
douglas
stewart
white
blackmun
rehnquist
joined
marshall
filed
dissenting
opinion
brennan
joined
post
jean
coon
assistant
solicitor
general
new
york
argued
cause
appellants
cases
briefs
louis
lefkowitz
attorney
general
ruth
kessler
toch
solicitor
general
philip
pinsky
filed
brief
appellants
dennis
yeager
argued
cause
filed
briefs
appellees
fn
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
reversal
cases
filed
solicitor
general
griswold
wilmot
hastings
john
barrett
evelle
younger
attorney
general
elizabeth
palmer
assistant
attorney
general
john
klee
deputy
attorney
general
state
california
steven
cole
henry
freedman
filed
brief
national
welfare
rights
organization
et
al
amici
curiae
urging
affirmance
cases
justice
powell
delivered
opinion
question
us
whether
social
security
act
stat
amended
bars
state
independently
requiring
individuals
accept
employment
condition
receipt
federally
funded
aid
families
dependent
children
precisely
issue
whether
part
social
security
act
known
federal
work
incentive
program
win
preempts
provisions
new
york
social
welfare
law
commonly
referred
new
york
work
rules
brief
description
state
federal
programs
necessary
work
rules
enacted
new
york
part
governor
rockefeller
efforts
reorganize
new
york
welfare
program
aim
explained
governor
encourage
young
temporarily
need
assistance
fault
achieve
education
skills
motivation
determination
make
possible
become
increasingly
independent
citizens
contribute
share
responsibility
families
society
achieve
work
rules
establish
presumption
certain
recipients
public
assistance
employable
require
recipients
report
every
two
weeks
pick
assistance
checks
person
file
every
two
weeks
certificate
appropriate
public
employment
office
stating
suitable
employment
opportunities
available
report
requested
employment
interviews
report
public
employment
office
result
referral
employment
fail
willfully
report
suitable
employment
available
addition
establishing
system
referral
employment
private
sector
economy
work
rules
permit
establishment
public
works
projects
new
york
social
service
districts
failure
employable
persons
participate
operation
work
rules
results
loss
assistance
like
work
rules
win
designed
help
individuals
welfare
acquire
sense
dignity
confidence
flow
recognized
member
society
supp
program
enacted
part
amendments
social
security
act
whereby
required
incorporate
win
aid
families
dependent
children
afdc
plans
et
seq
ed
supp
every
state
afdc
plan
must
provide
certain
employable
individuals
condition
receiving
aid
shall
register
manpower
services
training
employment
regulations
promulgated
secretary
labor
supp
available
services
provided
state
must
include
health
vocational
rehabilitation
counseling
child
care
social
supportive
services
necessary
enable
individuals
accept
employment
receive
manpower
training
supp
required
services
provided
state
must
certify
secretary
labor
individuals
ready
employment
training
programs
ed
supp
employment
consists
work
regular
economy
participation
public
service
programs
ed
supp
work
rules
cooperation
win
necessary
employable
individuals
continue
receive
assistance
appellees
new
york
public
assistance
recipients
subject
work
rules
challenged
rules
violative
several
provisions
constitution
win
provisions
federal
social
security
act
district
rejected
last
contention
supp
wdny
point
held
afdc
program
win
preempts
new
york
work
rules
holding
affected
continued
operation
new
york
rules
raised
serious
doubts
viability
supplementary
work
programs
set
cause
argument
reverse
holding
holding
affects
work
rules
insofar
apply
afdc
recipients
new
york
home
relief
program
example
general
state
assistance
plan
federal
reimbursement
support
remains
untouched
ruling
afdc
participants
however
decision
render
work
rules
inoperative
hold
win
exclusive
manner
applying
carrot
stick
efforts
place
recipients
gainful
employment
sweeping
step
strikes
core
state
prerogative
afdc
program
program
careful
describe
scheme
cooperative
federalism
king
smith
dandridge
williams
jefferson
hackney
impair
capacity
state
government
deal
effectively
critical
problem
mounting
welfare
costs
increasing
financial
dependency
many
citizens
new
york
legitimate
interest
encouraging
citizens
work
thus
contribute
societal
addition
personal
family
support
extent
work
rules
embody
new
york
attempt
promote
civic
responsibility
assure
limited
state
welfare
funds
spent
behalf
genuinely
incapacitated
need
cope
fiscal
hardships
enveloping
many
state
local
governments
lightly
interfere
problems
confronting
society
areas
severe
state
governments
cooperation
federal
government
must
allowed
considerable
latitude
attempting
resolution
repeatedly
refused
void
state
statutory
programs
absent
congressional
intent
congress
authorized
act
field
manifest
intention
clearly
presumed
federal
statute
intended
supersede
exercise
power
state
unless
clear
manifestation
intention
exercise
federal
supremacy
lightly
presumed
schwartz
texas
principle
relates
directly
state
afdc
programs
already
acknowledged
considerable
latitude
allocating
afdc
resources
since
state
free
set
standard
need
determine
level
benefits
amount
funds
devotes
program
king
smith
supra
dandridge
williams
supra
jefferson
hackney
supra
moreover
time
passage
win
already
initiated
welfare
work
requirements
condition
afdc
eligibility
congress
intended
state
plans
efforts
important
dimension
afdc
program
employment
referrals
assistance
intentions
likelihood
expressed
direct
unambiguous
language
expression
exists
however
either
federal
statute
committee
reports
appellees
argue
nonetheless
congress
intended
state
work
programs
comprehensive
nature
win
legislation
legislative
history
alleged
conflicts
certain
sections
state
federal
laws
agree
reject
begin
contention
inferred
merely
comprehensive
character
federal
work
incentive
provisions
et
seq
ed
supp
subjects
modern
social
regulatory
legislation
often
nature
require
intricate
complex
responses
congress
without
congress
necessarily
intending
enactment
exclusive
means
meeting
problem
cf
askew
american
waterways
given
complexity
matter
addressed
congress
win
detailed
statutory
scheme
likely
appropriate
completely
apart
questions
intent
especially
case
federal
work
incentive
provisions
sufficiently
comprehensive
authorize
govern
programs
welfare
work
requirements
well
cooperatively
requirements
appellees
also
rely
district
legislative
history
supporting
view
win
legislation
addressed
afdc
recipients
leaving
employable
recipients
subject
state
work
rules
brief
appellees
pointed
specific
legislative
history
supportive
conclusion
appellees
cite
fragmentary
statements
find
unpersuasive
reliance
placed
example
statement
report
house
ways
means
committee
win
legislation
follows
committee
bill
required
develop
program
appropriate
relative
dependent
child
assure
maximum
extent
possible
individual
enter
labor
force
order
become
accomplish
assure
adult
family
child
age
attending
school
given
appropriate
employment
counseling
testing
job
training
emphasis
supplied
sum
attention
directed
relevant
argument
supports
except
peripheral
way
view
congress
intended
either
expressly
impliedly
state
work
programs
far
required
show
clear
manifestation
congressional
intention
must
exist
federal
statute
held
supersede
exercise
state
action
schwartz
texas
ii
persuasive
affirmative
reasons
exist
case
also
strongly
negate
view
congress
intended
enactment
win
legislation
terminate
existing
state
work
programs
foreclose
additional
state
cooperative
programs
future
note
first
win
designed
face
embracing
federal
work
incentive
programs
established
political
subdivisions
secretary
labor
determines
significant
number
individuals
attained
age
receiving
aid
families
dependent
children
political
subdivisions
shall
use
best
efforts
provide
programs
either
within
subdivisions
provision
transportation
persons
political
subdivisions
state
programs
established
supp
even
districts
win
operate
reach
limited
new
york
according
federal
estimates
win
registrants
current
fiscal
year
secretary
labor
contracted
state
provide
services
registrants
majority
receive
full
job
training
placement
assistance
fiscal
new
york
asserts
individuals
referred
participation
win
program
federal
government
allowed
opportunities
enrollment
california
claims
employable
afdc
recipients
last
year
available
win
slots
evident
win
partial
program
stops
short
providing
adequate
job
training
opportunities
large
numbers
state
afdc
recipients
incongruous
congress
one
hand
promote
work
opportunities
afdc
recipients
prevent
undertaking
supplementary
efforts
toward
end
interpret
federal
statutes
negate
stated
purposes
significance
state
supplementation
illustrated
experience
new
york
work
rules
aided
objectives
federal
work
incentives
july
september
first
months
work
rules
operation
state
employment
service
claimed
job
placements
approximately
recipients
moreover
department
health
education
welfare
agency
government
responsible
administering
federal
social
security
act
including
reviewing
state
afdc
programs
never
considered
win
legislation
hew
followed
consistently
policy
approving
state
plans
containing
welfare
work
requirements
long
requirements
arbitrary
unreasonable
congress
presumably
knew
settled
administrative
policy
time
enactment
win
welfare
work
programs
subsequent
win
passage
hew
continued
approve
state
work
requirements
pursuant
approval
new
york
received
federal
operation
afdc
plan
including
work
provisions
interpreting
statute
must
mindful
construction
statute
charged
execution
followed
unless
compelling
indications
wrong
red
lion
broadcasting
fcc
dandridge
williams
case
indications
wholly
absent
new
york
furthermore
attempted
operate
work
rules
manner
avoid
friction
overlap
win
officials
state
department
labor
local
social
service
department
testified
every
afdc
recipient
appropriate
win
first
referred
person
referred
state
program
participating
win
position
available
win
recipient
referred
employment
pursuant
state
statute
coordinate
state
federal
efforts
exist
within
complementary
administrative
framework
pursuit
common
purposes
case
federal
becomes
less
persuasive
one
context
dissenting
opinion
reliance
townsend
swank
carleson
remillard
king
smith
misplaced
cases
clear
state
law
excluded
people
afdc
benefits
social
security
act
expressly
provided
eligible
found
room
either
act
language
legislative
history
warrant
additional
eligibility
requirements
contrast
act
allows
complementary
state
work
incentive
programs
procedures
incident
thereto
even
become
conditions
continued
assistance
programs
procedures
necessarily
invalid
supplementary
regulations
promulgated
within
legitimate
sphere
state
administration
see
wyman
james
snell
wyman
supp
sdny
aff
see
also
dandridge
williams
supra
jefferson
hackney
iii
thus
reverse
holding
win
new
york
work
rules
ruling
establishes
validity
state
work
program
one
means
helping
afdc
recipients
return
gainful
employment
resolve
however
question
whether
particular
sections
work
rules
might
contravene
specific
provisions
federal
social
security
act
last
question
remand
opportunity
consider
issue
specific
conflict
state
federal
programs
free
misapprehension
work
rules
entirely
new
york
legislature
amended
work
rules
provide
among
things
exemption
persons
engaged
training
vocational
rehabilitation
programs
reporting
check
pickup
requirements
laws
monthly
rather
payments
shelter
allowances
significantly
definition
employable
afdc
recipient
claimed
new
york
identical
used
win
inasmuch
opportunity
consider
amendments
related
issue
potential
conflict
remand
afford
deem
unnecessary
present
time
intimate
view
whether
extent
particular
provisions
work
rules
may
contravene
purposes
provisions
win
determination
made
initially
consistent
principles
set
forth
opinion
judgment
district
reversed
cases
remanded
proceedings
consistent
opinion
ordered
footnotes
special
message
new
york
state
legislature
mar
brief
appellant
state
depts
statutory
definition
persons
deemed
employable
see
supra
see
ibid
provisions
employment
recipients
public
works
projects
implemented
hew
regional
commissioner
indicated
projects
approved
federal
aid
brief
appellant
state
depts
see
supra
social
services
administrative
letter
reads
relevant
part
laws
place
renewed
expanded
emphasis
restoring
employable
recipients
public
assistance
employment
regular
economy
accordingly
unemployed
employable
persons
applying
receiving
public
assistance
required
register
new
york
state
employment
service
district
office
community
report
regularly
appropriate
employment
counseling
services
job
referral
effective
july
also
pick
assistance
checks
penalty
cooperating
procedure
ineligibility
public
assistance
whether
individual
grantee
head
family
single
person
living
alone
family
app
amendments
dealing
win
enacted
act
pub
stat
state
plans
aid
services
needy
families
children
contents
approval
secretary
state
plan
aid
services
needy
families
children
must
provide
every
individual
condition
eligibility
aid
part
shall
register
manpower
services
training
employment
provided
regulations
secretary
labor
unless
individual
child
age
attending
school
full
time
ii
person
ill
incapacitated
advanced
age
iii
person
remote
work
incentive
project
effective
participation
precluded
iv
person
whose
presence
home
required
illness
incapacity
another
member
household
mother
relative
child
age
six
caring
child
vi
mother
female
caretaker
child
father
another
adult
male
relative
home
excluded
clause
ii
iii
iv
subparagraph
unless
failed
register
required
subparagraph
found
secretary
labor
section
title
refused
without
good
cause
participate
work
incentive
program
accept
employment
described
subparagraph
paragraph
penalized
reduction
assistance
fail
certify
secretary
labor
least
average
number
registered
year
supp
district
parties
case
used
word
rather
special
sense
litigation
involve
arguable
federal
wholly
independent
state
program
dealing
similar
problem
huron
portland
cement
detroit
afdc
federal
statutory
program
win
program
part
state
work
rules
also
promulgated
part
implementation
afdc
therefore
wholly
independent
federal
program
caveat
however
preserve
district
usage
advantage
focusing
attention
critical
question
whether
congress
intended
win
provide
exclusive
mechanism
establishing
work
rules
afdc
found
additional
points
conflict
state
federal
programs
regard
procedures
termination
benefits
presence
certain
hearings
counseling
services
win
absent
work
rules
supp
postponed
consideration
question
jurisdiction
hearing
merits
conclude
constitutional
questions
raised
appellees
insubstantial
deprive
district
jurisdiction
appellees
due
process
claim
directed
state
implement
suitable
means
informing
home
relief
recipients
hearing
rights
state
stipulates
done
tr
oral
arg
issue
address
appeal
whether
state
program
superseded
whole
part
federal
law
afdc
program
jointly
financed
federal
government
dandridge
williams
appellees
position
also
one
complete
exclusion
work
rules
least
regard
afdc
recipients
tr
oral
arg
brief
appellees
response
brief
amicus
curiae
see
brief
amicus
curiae
information
derived
survey
state
plans
conducted
department
health
education
welfare
express
intention
eliminate
state
work
programs
appears
either
time
original
enactment
win
see
time
amendments
supra
asserted
legislative
history
supportive
intent
view
remand
part
iii
infra
reach
issue
specific
alleged
conflicts
sum
however
sufficient
indicate
intent
especially
light
impressive
evidence
contrary
citations
similar
effect
appear
brief
appellees
perhaps
revealing
legislative
expressions
confirm
subsequent
enactment
congressional
desire
preserve
supplementary
state
work
programs
supersede
wake
invalidation
new
york
work
rules
district
members
new
york
congressional
delegation
became
concerned
misconstrued
intent
congress
following
colloquy
occurred
senator
buckley
new
york
senator
long
louisiana
chairman
finance
committee
considered
win
prior
approval
senate
buckley
ever
intention
congress
time
provisions
win
statutes
preempt
field
employment
training
adc
recipients
long
mind
buckley
far
distinguished
chairman
concerned
ever
intention
least
body
preemption
field
long
never
intention
prevent
state
requiring
recipients
something
money
employable
cong
rec
house
representatives
similar
dialogue
took
place
congressman
carey
new
york
congressman
mills
chairman
house
ways
means
committee
considered
win
program
carey
new
york
specific
question
chairman
intent
congress
authorizing
win
program
amendments
program
subsequent
years
understanding
congress
intended
win
program
merely
assist
critical
area
guiding
welfare
recipients
toward
supersede
individual
state
programs
designed
achieve
end
interpretation
new
york
operate
programs
supplementary
federal
win
program
understanding
congressional
intent
area
correct
mills
arkansas
agree
interpretation
friend
gentleman
new
york
matter
long
state
program
contravene
provisions
federal
law
cong
rec
win
guidelines
issued
department
labor
provide
according
appellants
establishment
win
programs
areas
least
potential
win
enrollees
brief
appellant
state
depts
see
title
iii
supp
may
also
contemplated
limited
application
win
since
exempts
win
registration
person
remote
work
incentive
project
effective
participation
precluded
see
brief
amicus
curiae
citing
dept
labor
manpower
administration
contract
modification
june
government
contends
current
level
win
funding
win
registrants
receive
full
job
training
placement
assistance
contemplated
act
ibid
brief
appellant
state
depts
brief
california
amicus
curiae
brief
appellant
state
depts
app
appellants
claim
january
june
job
placements
win
program
placements
work
rules
figures
must
qualified
however
observation
many
job
placements
temporary
many
placed
work
rules
may
recipients
forms
assistance
afdc
number
win
placements
counts
afdc
recipients
single
recipients
may
referred
placed
thus
statistically
tabulated
one
occasion
see
brief
appellees
none
observations
however
obscures
basic
fact
work
rules
materially
contribute
toward
attainment
objective
win
restoring
employable
afdc
recipients
members
society
see
supp
see
brief
amicus
curiae
filed
solicitor
general
joined
general
counsel
hew
ibid
excerpts
depositions
nelson
hopper
director
employment
service
bureau
new
york
state
dept
labor
george
demmon
senior
employment
counsellor
erie
county
dept
social
services
app
see
also
brief
appellant
state
depts
tr
oral
arg
considering
question
possible
conflict
state
federal
work
programs
take
account
prior
decisions
congress
given
broad
discretion
afdc
program
jefferson
hackney
see
also
dandridge
williams
king
smith
long
state
actions
violation
specific
provision
constitution
social
security
act
courts
may
void
jefferson
supra
conflicts
merit
judicial
rather
cooperative
resolution
substance
merely
trivial
insubstantial
conflict
substance
eligibility
provisions
federal
law
course
must
control
king
smith
supra
townsend
swank
carleson
remillard
justice
marshall
justice
brennan
joins
dissenting
today
ignores
fundamental
rule
interpreting
social
security
act
must
respectfully
dissent
said
townsend
swank
absence
congressional
authorization
exclusion
clearly
evidenced
social
security
act
legislative
history
state
eligibility
standard
excludes
persons
eligible
assistance
federal
afdc
standards
violates
social
security
act
therefore
invalid
supremacy
clause
see
also
king
smith
carleson
remillard
new
york
work
rules
fall
squarely
within
statement
clearly
exclude
persons
eligible
assistance
federal
standards
hardly
maintained
impose
additional
conditions
eligibility
example
federal
standards
irrelevant
determination
eligibility
recipient
filed
every
two
weeks
certificate
local
employment
office
suitable
employment
opportunities
available
yet
work
rules
recipient
fails
file
certificate
deemed
refused
accept
suitable
employment
eligible
assistance
soc
serv
law
supp
thus
according
rules
interpretation
heretofore
followed
proper
inquiry
whether
social
security
act
legislative
history
clearly
shows
congressional
authorization
state
employment
requirements
involved
win
answer
neither
act
legislative
history
shows
authorization
relevant
conditions
eligibility
act
found
supp
addition
exempting
certain
persons
registration
participation
win
act
permits
disregard
needs
persons
otherwise
eligible
assistance
refused
without
good
cause
participate
work
incentive
program
accept
employment
able
engage
supp
act
thus
makes
actual
refusal
participate
win
program
accept
employment
permissible
ground
denying
assistance
contrast
new
york
adopted
technique
deeming
persons
accepted
employment
example
obtained
certain
certificate
local
employment
office
every
two
weeks
deeming
familiar
legal
device
evade
applicable
requirements
saying
satisfied
fact
satisfied
federal
requirement
state
may
alter
without
clear
congressional
authorization
requires
actual
refusal
participate
win
program
accept
employment
refusal
participate
program
fictitious
refusal
employment
legislative
history
social
security
act
confirms
interpretation
whenever
congress
legislated
respect
work
requirements
focused
actual
refusals
accept
employment
participate
certain
special
programs
clearly
authorized
congress
time
congress
authorized
adopt
programs
make
refusal
participate
programs
condition
eligibility
even
guise
deeming
refusal
refusal
accept
employment
inception
program
aid
dependent
children
designed
lessen
somewhat
burden
supporting
children
program
provided
assistance
children
deprived
parental
support
reason
absence
parent
stat
assistance
provided
supply
needs
children
thus
releas
ing
parent
role
doc
see
also
thus
program
purposes
many
ways
inconsistent
requirement
parent
leave
home
accept
employment
yet
operation
original
program
failed
provide
sufficient
inducement
parent
remain
home
since
amount
assistance
measured
solely
child
needs
order
relieve
pressures
parent
leave
home
accept
work
congress
amended
act
aid
include
payments
meet
needs
relative
dependent
child
living
sole
emphasis
social
security
act
provisions
assistance
dependent
children
preserving
integrity
family
unit
year
congress
expanded
definition
dependent
child
include
children
deprived
parental
support
reason
unemployment
parent
families
two
parents
present
first
time
receive
assistance
one
parent
leave
home
work
without
impairing
integrity
family
unit
congress
therefore
required
participating
program
aid
families
unemployed
parent
deny
assistance
provision
individuals
refused
accept
bona
fide
offers
employment
pub
stat
refusal
actual
offers
employment
clearly
contemplated
condition
see
congress
developed
concept
permitting
establish
community
work
training
programs
work
public
projects
pub
stat
rendered
inapplicable
pub
stat
refusal
accept
work
assignment
project
without
good
cause
ground
denial
public
assistance
see
congress
established
win
abandon
previous
policies
recipients
public
assistance
required
accept
bona
fide
offers
employment
placement
specified
programs
indication
whatsoever
legislative
history
congress
intended
permit
deny
assistance
potential
recipients
refused
participate
programs
supervised
secretary
labor
win
programs
parameters
win
program
designed
accommodate
congress
dual
interests
guaranteeing
integrity
family
maximizing
potential
employment
recipients
public
assistance
without
careful
federal
supervision
sort
contemplated
delegation
secretary
labor
establish
testing
counseling
services
require
design
employability
plans
stat
state
work
programs
might
upset
accommodation
congress
sought
work
incentive
program
thus
carefully
coordinated
system
whose
individual
parts
fit
integrated
whole
hardly
surprising
congress
expressly
impliedly
authorize
develop
independent
work
programs
since
win
program
represented
congress
recognition
programs
kept
careful
scrutiny
variety
goals
congress
sought
promote
achieved
believe
seriously
misconceives
purposes
federal
programs
public
assistance
apparent
belief
congress
sole
purpose
promoting
work
opportunities
purpose
precluding
additional
state
programs
negate
ante
instead
congress
consistently
indicated
desire
adopt
programs
enhance
employability
recipients
public
assistance
maintaining
integrity
families
receiving
assistance
program
regulated
persons
required
participate
terms
must
participate
congress
consistently
recognized
regulation
requires
close
federal
supervision
work
programs
view
course
legislation
mentioned
neither
ambiguous
fragmentary
peripheral
ante
matter
viewed
however
one
fairly
say
social
security
act
legislative
history
clearly
evidences
congressional
authorization
making
participation
state
work
programs
condition
eligibility
public
assistance
policy
clear
statement
townsend
serves
useful
purpose
informs
legislators
wish
alter
accommodations
previously
arrived
act
major
importance
must
indicate
clearly
wish
since
may
appear
minor
changes
narrow
scope
may
fact
ramifications
throughout
administration
act
policy
clear
statement
insures
congress
consider
ramifications
regularly
adhered
finally
particularly
appropriate
require
clear
statement
authorization
impose
additional
conditions
eligibility
public
assistance
myths
abound
area
widely
yet
erroneously
believed
example
recipients
public
assistance
little
desire
become
see
goodwin
poor
want
work
recipients
public
assistance
generally
lack
substantial
political
influence
state
legislators
may
find
expedient
accede
pressures
generated
misconceptions
order
lessen
possibility
erroneous
beliefs
lead
state
legislators
single
politically
unpopular
recipients
assistance
harsh
treatment
congress
must
clearly
authorize
impose
conditions
eligibility
different
federal
standards
observed
king
smith
rule
leaves
considerable
latitude
allocating
afdc
resources
since
state
free
set
standard
need
determine
level
benefits
amount
funds
devotes
program
today
quotes
observation
misses
import
latitude
adjust
benefits
two
ways
mentioned
imposing
additional
conditions
eligibility
adjustments
like
made
legislators
single
especially
unpopular
groups
discriminatory
treatment
reasons
affirm
judgment
district
appellants
state
work
rules
constitute
additional
condition
eligibility
public
assistance
reply
brief
appellant
state
depts
arguments
present
however
relate
entirely
purported
congressional
authorization
additional
conditions
sort
federal
conditions
eligibility
relating
registration
employment
found
supp
amicus
curiae
argues
rule
stated
townsend
swank
fairly
characterize
course
interpretation
social
security
act
relies
primarily
decision
wyman
james
reasons
escaped
time
see
address
statutory
argument
wyman
therefore
express
limitation
rule
townsend
similarly
summary
affirmance
snell
wyman
district
opinion
king
smith
least
offset
summary
affirmances
carleson
taylor
juras
meyers
weaver
doe
argument
authority
weak
argument
matter
logic
even
weaker
suggests
may
narrow
class
persons
eligible
assistance
federal
standards
may
impose
additional
conditions
eligibility
pursuit
independent
state
policies
distinction
withstand
analysis
makes
decision
turn
meaningless
verbal
tricks
one
easily
find
independent
state
policy
townsend
narrowing
class
eligible
persons
state
might
policy
minimizing
subsidies
persons
clear
prospect
future
income
well
poverty
level
denying
assistance
persons
attending
colleges
granting
attending
vocational
training
schools
system
subsidies
almost
certainly
held
constitutional
due
process
clause
position
seems
may
impose
conditions
eligibility
squarely
conflict
federal
standards
pursuit
constitutional
state
interest
example
child
attending
school
full
time
need
register
supp
take
find
conflict
substance
ante
provision
state
work
requirement
applicable
children
legislative
history
clear
congress
defining
conditions
eligibility
spell
ed
people
think
required
go
work
senator
long
put
cong
rec
see
also
position
assume
provision
narrow
class
persons
eligible
assistance
appellants
argue
provision
section
aid
furnished
eligible
individuals
read
within
context
social
security
act
means
individuals
eligible
state
requirements
federal
reply
brief
appellant
state
depts
expressly
rejected
argument
townsend
may
course
adopt
procedures
necessary
insure
offers
employment
transmitted
recipients
public
assistance
hardly
needs
extended
argument
however
show
new
york
work
rules
taken
whole
necessary
congress
required
adopt
plans
provide
social
services
strengthen
family
life
pub
stat
original
proposal
work
incentive
program
permitted
state
operate
community
work
training
programs
federal
win
program
operated
state
thus
either
win
program
state
program
operate
within
state
final
version
authorization
community
work
training
programs
eliminated
federal
win
program
implemented
every
state
congress
recognized
federal
state
work
programs
coexist
amendments
win
program
pub
stat
demonstrate
congress
desire
federal
control
work
requirements
state
must
establish
separate
administrative
unit
provide
social
services
connection
win
supp
anomalous
congress
require
devote
substantial
resources
unit
connection
win
program
yet
permit
operate
independent
work
programs
using
federal
funds
without
providing
special
services
congress
thought
important
unnecessary
discuss
length
analysis
problem
note
ante
case
present
classic
question
enactment
statute
congress
preclude
state
attempts
regulate
subject
question
new
york
may
impose
whatever
work
requirements
wishes
consistent
constitutional
limitations
gives
public
assistance
solely
state
funds
see
ante
question
relates
conditions
congress
placed
state
programs
supported
federal
funds
distinction
without
importance
makes
inapposite
strictures
earlier
cases
relied
lightly
interfering
state
programs
ante
must
course
cautious
prevent
state
regulating
area
absence
congressional
action
important
interests
holding
federal
win
program
exclusive
method
imposing
work
requirements
conjunction
federally
funded
programs
public
assistance
impact
new
york
remain
free
operate
public
assistance
programs
state
funds
whatever
work
requirements
chose
see
hart
sacks
legal
process
tent
ed
connection
let
pass
without
comment
extraordinary
use
makes
legislative
history
relying
exchanges
floor
house
senate
occurred
decision
district
case
ante
although
reliance
floor
exchanges
criticized
schwegmann
calvert
distillers
jackson
concurring
force
generally
accepted
proposition
exchanges
particularly
sponsors
bill
committee
chairmen
involved
relevant
determination
purpose
congress
sought
achieve
enacting
bill
paul
legislators
know
legislative
history
made
aware
importance
floor
exchanges
disagree
interpretation
placed
bill
exchanges
may
offer
amendments
vote
thus
congress
enacting
statute
may
fairly
taken
endorsed
interpretations
offered
exchanges
none
true
floor
exchanges
bearing
pending
legislation
disinterested
legislator
might
well
pay
scant
attention
senator
buckley
representative
carey
wished
congressional
expression
intent
issue
barred
introducing
legislation
possibility
treatment
discriminatory
unconstitutional
insubstantial
shown
brief
discussion
jurisdiction
district
ante