rosado
wyman
argued
november
decided
april
lee
albert
new
york
city
petitioners
philip
weinberg
new
york
city
respondents
justice
harlan
delivered
opinion
present
controversy
involves
compatibility
new
york
social
services
law
mckinney
consol
laws
social
security
act
amended
stat
supp
iv
arises
pendent
claim
originally
included
petitioners
complaint
bringing
class
action
challenging
new
york
statute
violative
equal
protection
virtue
provision
lesser
payments
aid
families
dependent
children
recipients
nassau
county
allowed
new
york
city
residents
pursuant
recommendation
judge
weinstein
convened
april
hearing
held
decision
rendered
new
york
state
amended
permit
state
commissioner
social
services
make
discretion
grants
recipients
nassau
county
equal
provided
new
york
city
residents
panel
memorandum
opinion
may
concluded
equal
protection
issue
longer
justiciable
constitutional
attack
provision
originally
adopted
rendered
moot
attack
newly
adopted
subdivision
ripe
adjudication
opportunity
action
state
officials
held
since
existed
reason
continuing
single
judge
complaint
originally
presented
proceedings
appropriate
day
dissolved
judge
weinstein
issued
preliminary
injunction
prohibiting
respondents
reducing
discontinuing
payments
recurring
grants
special
grants
payable
predecessor
welfare
law
state
elimination
computation
welfare
benefits
subject
matter
controversy
interlocutory
appeal
taken
appeals
case
granted
calendar
preference
hearing
oral
argument
appeals
june
entered
order
staying
preliminary
junction
pending
disposition
appeal
later
converted
stay
order
staying
permanent
injunction
subsequently
issued
district
granted
summary
judgment
june
july
appeals
panel
announced
judgment
reversal
accompanied
three
opinions
chief
judge
lumbard
judge
hays
agreed
panel
properly
dissolved
view
somewhat
different
reasons
judge
weinstein
ruled
merits
petitioners
statutory
claim
also
expressed
opinion
district
hereinafter
district
erred
merits
judge
feinberg
disagreed
scores
expressing
view
district
properly
reached
correctly
decided
merits
statutory
claim
petitioners
application
author
opinion
circuit
justice
stay
accelerated
review
referred
entire
october
certiorari
granted
request
stay
denied
case
set
early
argument
reverse
essentially
reasons
stated
opinion
district
circuit
jduge
feinberg
dissent
think
district
correctly
exercised
discretion
proceeding
merits
also
unable
accept
conclusion
reached
majority
appeals
affect
like
new
york
place
limitation
level
payments
welfare
benefits
determined
standard
need
reasons
set
forth
part
ii
conclude
present
new
york
program
fulfill
requirements
federal
statute
consider
threshold
question
whether
subject
matter
jurisdiction
vested
district
decide
federal
statutory
challenge
new
york
social
services
law
jurisdiction
obliged
adjudicate
statutory
claim
preference
deciding
original
constitutional
claim
case
follows
king
smith
appeal
decided
statutory
question
order
avoid
constitutional
ruling
case
us
constitutional
claim
declared
moot
prior
decision
question
arises
whether
circumstance
removed
obligation
destroyed
power
federal
adjudicate
pendent
claim
think
jurisdiction
federal
claims
constitutional
otherwise
vested
exclusively
concurrently
federal
district
courts
courts
usually
sit
tribunals
congress
determined
certain
classes
cases
shall
heard
first
instance
district
composed
three
judges
mean
qua
loses
jurisdiction
complaint
initially
lodged
contrary
petitioners
filed
complaint
alleging
unconstitutionality
district
sitting
tribunal
properly
seised
jurisdiction
case
title
dispose
even
constitutional
question
either
dismissing
complaint
want
substantial
federal
question
ex
parte
poresky
granting
requested
injunctive
relief
decisions
made
frivolous
claim
state
statute
face
unconstitutional
bailey
patterson
even
constitutional
claim
declared
moot
appropriate
course
may
well
remand
single
district
judge
findings
determination
statutory
claim
rather
encumber
district
time
district
calendars
overburdened
consuming
time
three
federal
judges
matter
required
determined
see
swift
wickham
remand
district
correctly
considered
mootness
factor
affecting
discretion
power
balanced
policy
considerations
spawned
doctrine
pendency
countervailing
policy
federalism
extent
investment
judicial
energy
character
claim
hearings
argument
prior
dismissal
constitutional
claim
statutory
question
essentially
one
federal
policy
argument
exercise
pendent
jurisdiction
particularly
strong
mine
workers
gibbs
respondents
analogize
dismissal
mootness
dismissal
want
substantial
claim
rely
language
mine
workers
gibbs
effect
federal
pass
state
claim
federal
claim
falters
threshold
trial
argument
appear
federal
loses
power
claim
may
consider
pendent
claim
contend
mootness
like
insubstantiality
threshold
jurisdictional
defect
whether
view
insubstantial
federal
question
confer
maxim
ancient
analytically
held
mean
district
considered
without
discretion
opposed
power
hear
pendent
claim
think
respondents
analogy
fails
unlike
insubstantiality
apparent
outset
mootness
frequently
matter
beyond
control
parties
may
occur
substantial
time
energy
expended
looking
toward
resolution
dispute
plaintiffs
entitled
bring
federal
willing
defeat
commonsense
policy
pendent
conservation
judicial
energy
avoidance
multiplicity
conceptual
approach
require
jurisdiction
primary
claim
stages
prerequisite
resolution
pendent
claim
shunned
view
see
moore
new
york
cotton
hurn
oursler
dictum
reason
given
support
contention
district
declined
exercise
jurisdiction
department
health
education
welfare
appropriate
forum
least
first
instance
resolution
merits
questions
us
time
thi
action
came
hew
study
relationship
section
section
opinion
judge
hays
petitioners
answer
think
correctly
neither
principle
administrative
remedies
doctrine
jurisdiction
application
situation
us
petitioners
seek
review
administrative
order
obtained
administrative
ruling
since
hew
procedures
whereby
welfare
recipients
may
trigger
participate
department
review
state
welfare
programs
cf
abbott
laboratories
gardner
davis
administrative
law
jaffe
judicial
control
administrative
action
formal
doctrines
administrative
law
preclude
federal
jurisdiction
mean
however
federal
must
deprive
benefit
expertise
federal
agency
primarily
concerned
problems
whenever
possible
district
courts
obtain
views
hew
cases
set
forth
views
either
regulation
published
opinion
cases
real
doubt
department
standards
apply
particular
state
regulation
program
district
instance
made
considerable
effort
learn
views
hew
possibility
hew
participation
either
party
amicus
explored
district
department
hat
stage
determined
remain
aloof
circumstances
fault
district
proceeding
try
case
ii
turn
merits
may
broadly
characterized
involving
interpretation
social
security
amendments
application
certain
changes
inaugurated
new
york
method
computing
welfare
benefits
resulted
reduced
payments
petitioners
broader
scale
decreased
million
state
public
assistance
undertaking
begin
brief
review
general
structure
federal
aid
families
dependent
children
afdc
program
one
four
assistance
programs
established
social
security
act
general
topography
afdc
program
mapped
part
king
smith
several
lower
opinions
addition
opinion
surveyed
pertinent
statutory
regulatory
provisions
participating
must
comply
terms
federal
legislation
see
king
smith
supra
program
basically
voluntary
traditionally
liberty
pay
little
much
choose
fact
striking
differences
degree
aid
provided
among
two
basic
factors
enter
determination
afdc
benefits
paid
first
necessary
establish
need
yardstick
measuring
eligible
public
assistance
second
must
decided
much
assistance
given
benefits
paid
scores
congress
always
left
great
deal
discretion
king
smith
thus
include
need
items
others
take
account
diversity
also
exists
respect
level
benefits
fact
paid
impose
dollar
maximums
amount
public
assistance
payable
one
individual
family
maximums
establish
upper
limit
irrespective
far
short
limitation
may
fall
theoretical
standard
need
curtail
payments
benefits
system
reductions
whereby
recipients
receive
fixed
percentage
standard
need
course
possible
pay
need
defined
new
york
fact
purports
administration
introduced
omnibus
legislation
amend
social
security
laws
relevant
afdc
proposals
provided
adequate
assistance
welfare
recipients
set
several
programs
education
training
accompanied
child
care
provisions
designed
permit
afdc
parents
take
advantage
training
programs
former
respect
afdc
proposals
paralleled
provisions
put
forward
amendments
adjust
benefits
recipients
categorical
aid
reflect
rise
cost
living
thus
embryo
stage
amendment
administration
bill
sess
added
social
security
act
following
clause
provide
effective
july
meeting
conjunction
income
disregarded
plan
resources
need
determined
accordance
standards
applicable
plan
determining
need
individuals
eligible
receive
aid
families
dependent
children
standards
shall
lower
standards
determining
need
effect
january
effective
july
annual
review
standards
extent
prescribed
secretary
standards
take
account
changes
living
costs
emphasis
added
section
however
stillborn
provision
contained
ultimate
bill
reported
house
ways
means
committee
see
sess
administration
renewed
efforts
behalf
mandatory
increase
benefit
payments
categorical
assistance
met
limited
cess
resulting
senate
version
provided
mandatory
per
month
increase
standards
benefits
adult
categories
substance
present
committee
comment
effect
required
price
standards
reflect
changes
living
costs
tracks
statutory
language
conference
committee
eliminated
senate
provision
required
annual
adjustment
cost
living
enacted
provides
shall
provide
july
amounts
used
state
determine
needs
individuals
adjusted
reflect
fully
changes
living
costs
since
amounts
established
maximums
state
imposes
amount
aid
paid
families
proportionately
adjusted
background
reveals
little
except
us
child
born
silent
union
legislative
compromise
thus
congress
frequently
voiced
wishes
muted
strains
left
courts
discern
theme
cacophony
political
understanding
chief
resources
undertaking
words
statute
assumptions
must
made
determining
direction
without
compass
reverting
language
find
two
separate
mandates
first
must
component
factors
compose
need
equation
second
must
adjusted
think
two
broad
purposes
may
ascribed
first
require
face
realistically
magnitude
public
assistance
requirement
lay
bare
extent
programs
fall
short
fulfilling
actual
need
second
prod
apportion
payments
equitable
basis
consistent
interpretation
state
may
recomputing
standard
need
pare
payments
accommodate
budgetary
realities
reducing
percent
benefits
paid
switching
percent
reduction
system
may
obscure
actual
standard
need
congressional
purpose
discern
render
meaningless
exercise
congress
sometimes
legislates
innuendo
making
declarations
policy
indicating
preference
requiring
measures
though
falling
short
legislating
goals
serve
nudge
preferred
directions
congress
spoken
favor
increases
afdc
payments
congress
rejected
mandatory
adjustment
provision
administration
bill
embodied
legislation
exercise
practical
political
consequences
effect
requiring
recognize
accept
responsibility
additional
individuals
whose
income
falls
short
standard
need
computed
light
economic
realities
place
among
eligible
care
training
provisions
secondly
leaves
free
effect
downward
adjustments
level
benefits
paid
accomplishes
within
framework
goal
however
modest
forcing
state
accept
political
consequence
cutback
bringing
light
true
extent
actual
assistance
falls
short
minimum
acceptable
lastly
imposing
disire
maintain
requirement
appropriate
adjustment
congress
introduced
incentive
abandon
flat
system
thereby
encouraging
desirous
containing
welfare
budget
shift
percentage
system
equitably
apportion
funds
fact
allocated
welfare
also
accurately
reflect
real
measure
public
assistance
given
agree
broad
interpretation
given
district
accept
conclusion
reached
majority
affect
new
york
follows
fathom
congressional
purpose
state
may
redefine
standard
need
way
skirts
requirement
existing
standard
render
reappraisal
futile
hollow
indeed
deceptive
gesture
avoid
consequences
increasing
numbers
eligible
facing
failure
allocate
sufficient
funds
provide
conclusions
compelled
words
statute
manifested
legislative
history
represent
natural
blend
basic
courts
construe
legislative
enactments
give
compromise
origins
set
forth
background
think
precludes
adventuresome
reading
petitioners
district
give
statute
see
supra
reading
also
buttressed
fact
construction
placed
statute
department
health
education
welfare
view
congress
failure
track
administration
proposals
substitution
without
comment
present
compromise
section
hew
construction
commands
less
usual
deference
may
accorded
administrative
interpretation
based
expertise
entitled
weight
attempt
experienced
agency
harmonize
obscure
enactment
basic
structure
program
administers
cf
zuber
allen
udall
tallman
application
statute
new
york
program
means
simple
think
evidence
adduced
supports
ultimate
finding
district
unquestioned
appeals
new
york
effect
impermissibly
lowered
standard
need
eliminating
items
included
prior
enactment
prior
march
new
york
computed
standard
need
individualized
basis
schedules
existed
showing
cost
particular
items
recurring
need
example
food
clothing
required
children
given
ages
payments
grants
made
families
based
number
children
per
household
age
oldest
child
additional
payments
designated
needs
grants
also
made
experiment
new
york
city
instituted
august
many
allowances
special
needs
eliminated
flat
grant
per
person
substituted
chapter
session
laws
present
radically
altered
new
york
approach
lieu
individualized
grants
needs
supplemented
special
grants
flat
grant
new
york
adopted
system
fixing
maximum
allowances
per
family
based
number
individuals
per
household
maximum
dollar
amounts
established
ascertaining
mean
age
oldest
child
size
family
see
memorandum
law
support
defendants
motion
summary
judgment
family
maximums
exclusive
rent
fuel
costs
district
found
pecial
grants
seemingly
included
computations
attempt
made
average
across
state
add
figure
basic
recurring
grant
impact
new
system
reduce
substantially
benefits
paid
families
petitioners
similarly
situated
decrease
benefits
new
york
city
recipients
almost
effect
new
program
upstate
cases
less
severe
gains
families
apparently
cancelling
losses
others
net
effect
drastic
reduction
overall
payments
since
new
york
city
recipients
compose
approximately
state
welfare
clientele
notwithstanding
decrease
welfare
payments
adjustment
increases
cost
living
state
argues
present
represents
neither
attempt
circumvent
federal
requirements
reduction
content
former
standard
conversion
flat
grant
maximum
system
justified
advance
administrative
efficiency
prevent
state
pursuing
beyond
dispute
laudable
goal
administrative
think
congress
foreclosed
achieving
purpose
expense
significantly
reducing
content
standard
need
findings
conclusions
district
undisturbed
appeals
supported
record
clearly
demonstrate
significant
reduction
occurred
conceded
respondents
present
program
include
allowances
items
formerly
covered
grants
occasion
decide
record
us
whether
agree
part
hew
interpretation
might
approve
elimination
grants
particular
needs
without
averaging
provision
therefor
direct
payments
provider
services
suffices
case
particular
items
laundry
telephones
formerly
deemed
essential
new
york
considered
regular
recurring
expenses
significant
number
new
york
city
welfare
residents
need
look
farther
state
social
service
department
regulations
action
taken
state
administrators
providing
per
quarter
cyclical
grant
city
residents
pilot
project
thus
state
social
service
department
regulations
provided
individual
family
shall
deemed
need
budget
deficit
exists
budget
surplus
inadequate
meet
one
nonbudgeted
special
needs
required
case
circumstances
included
standards
assistance
nycrr
emphasis
added
persuasive
conclusive
evidence
constituted
standard
need
supported
testimony
administrators
new
york
welfare
program
effect
grants
covered
costs
essentials
life
numerous
welfare
residents
new
york
city
reach
conclusions
without
relying
finding
made
new
york
attempting
constrict
welfare
payments
speculation
legislative
executive
motive
shunned
section
invalidates
state
program
substantially
alters
content
standard
need
way
less
prior
enactment
unless
state
demonstrate
items
formerly
included
longer
constituted
part
reality
existence
majority
welfare
recipients
course
hold
new
york
may
consistently
federal
statutes
consolidate
items
basis
statistical
averages
obviously
averaging
may
affect
families
adversely
benefit
others
moreover
conceivable
net
payout
assuming
change
level
benefits
may
somewhat
less
streamlined
program
providing
factors
old
equation
accounted
fairly
priced
providing
consolidation
statistical
basis
reflects
fair
averaging
state
may
course
consistently
redefine
method
determining
need
state
may
moreover
noted
accommodate
increases
standard
reason
factors
budget
reducing
level
benefits
heart
dispute
elimination
special
grants
new
york
program
system
maximum
grants
based
average
age
lest
uncertainty
also
reiterate
new
york
foreclosed
accounting
basic
recurring
items
need
formerly
subsumed
special
grant
category
averaging
system
like
adopted
new
york
city
experiment
cyclical
grants
iii
new
york
course
way
prohibited
using
state
funds
according
whatever
plan
chooses
providing
violates
provision
constitution
follows
however
conclusion
new
york
program
incompatible
petitioners
entitled
declaratory
relief
appropriate
injunction
district
payment
federal
monies
according
new
schedules
state
develop
conforming
plan
within
reasonable
period
time
considered
rejected
argument
federal
without
power
review
state
welfare
provisions
prohibit
use
federal
funds
view
fact
congress
lodged
department
hew
power
cut
federal
funds
noncompliance
statutory
requirements
reluctant
assume
congress
closed
avenue
effective
judicial
review
individuals
directly
affected
administration
program
cf
abbott
laboratories
gardner
association
data
processing
service
organizations
camp
barlow
collins
adhere
king
smith
implicitly
rejected
argument
statutory
provisions
hew
review
plans
read
curtail
judicial
relief
held
alabama
father
regulation
inconsistent
federal
statute
king
advert
specifically
remedial
problem
unarticulated
premise
state
alternative
choices
assuming
additional
cost
paying
benefits
families
substitute
fathers
using
federal
funds
pay
welfare
benefits
according
plan
inconsistent
federal
requirements
prayer
district
smith
king
case
us
declaratory
injunctive
relief
enforcement
invalid
provision
see
justification
principle
drawing
distinction
invalidating
single
nonconforming
provision
entire
program
circumstances
federal
funds
allocated
paid
manner
contrary
intended
congress
king
withholding
benefits
based
invalid
state
regulation
resulted
overpayments
recipients
assuming
constant
state
welfare
budget
corresponding
misallocation
matching
federal
resources
case
us
noncompliance
may
result
limiting
welfare
rolls
unduly
thus
channeling
matching
federal
grants
way
intended
congress
may
also
assume
congress
countenance
circumnavigation
political
consequences
see
part
ii
supra
permitting
use
federal
funds
obscuring
actual
extent
programs
fall
short
ideal
unlike
king
smith
however
incremental
cost
state
assuming
desire
comply
massive
discreet
severable
provision
whose
enforcement
prohibited
accordingly
remand
case
district
fix
date
afford
new
york
opportunity
revise
program
accordance
requirements
state
wishes
district
shall
retain
jurisdiction
review
taking
account
views
hew
care
offer
tions
revised
program
adopted
state
new
york
choose
submit
revamped
program
determined
date
issue
order
restraining
use
federal
monies
pursuant
present
statute
conclusion
add
simply
view
concern
escalating
involvement
federal
courts
highly
complicated
area
welfare
one
formally
placed
supervision
hew
least
first
instance
find
slightest
indication
congress
meant
deprive
federal
courts
traditional
jurisdiction
hear
decide
federal
questions
field
course
part
business
evaluate
apart
federal
constitutional
statutory
challenge
merits
wisdom
welfare
programs
whether
state
federal
large
particular
hand
peculiarly
part
duty
tribunal
less
welfare
field
areas
law
resolve
disputes
whether
federal
funds
allocated
expended
consonance
conditions
congress
attached
use
justice
cardozo
stated
speaking
helvering
davis
federal
money
spent
promote
general
welfare
concept
welfare
opposite
shaped
congress
cf
lassen
arizona
ex
rel
arizona
highway
judgment
appeals
reversed
case
remanded
proceedings
consistent
opinion
ordered
reversed
remanded
justice
douglas
concurring
join
opinion
add
words
leading
case
pendent
jurisdiction
mine
workers
gibbs
line
gibbs
courts
distinguished
power
exercise
pendent
jurisdiction
discretionary
use
power
gibbs
abandoned
cause
action
test
controlling
standard
hurn
oursler
instead
held
pendent
jurisdiction
exists
state
federal
claims
derive
common
nucleus
operative
fact
considered
without
regard
federal
state
character
plaintiff
claims
ordinarily
expected
try
one
judicial
proceeding
claims
presented
case
attacked
new
york
statute
two
grounds
constitutional
ground
attacked
differential
level
welfare
payments
new
york
city
nassau
county
statutory
claim
attacked
state
reduction
overall
level
payments
ground
violated
social
security
act
amended
stat
supp
iv
requires
make
adjustments
amounts
used
determine
need
argument
made
parties
case
pendent
jurisdiction
statutory
claim
sole
basis
respondents
contention
pendent
jurisdiction
present
case
flows
action
remanding
case
single
district
judge
proceedings
appropriate
yet
pendent
jurisdiction
statutory
claim
power
decide
claim
despite
dismissal
constitutional
claim
held
georgia
pub
serv
convened
case
disposed
ground
whether
justified
calling
see
also
florida
lime
avocado
growers
jacobsen
rule
however
holding
required
decide
claims
presented
suit
properly
although
practice
remanding
case
initial
district
judge
proceedings
seems
little
used
see
landry
daley
judges
hays
lumbard
view
matter
discretion
district
refused
exercise
pendent
jurisdiction
factors
outlined
gibbs
guide
discretionary
exercise
pendent
jurisdiction
economy
convenience
fairness
litigants
main
distinction
case
gibbs
pendent
claim
one
federal
rather
state
law
clear
opinion
gibbs
factor
comity
highly
relevant
deciding
whether
exercise
pendent
jurisdiction
proper
thus
stated
may
hand
situations
state
claim
closely
tied
questions
federal
policy
argument
exercise
pendent
jurisdiction
particularly
strong
since
claim
involved
one
federal
law
reasons
exercise
pendent
jurisdiction
especially
weighty
exceptional
circumstances
required
prevent
exercise
moreover
incident
issuance
temporary
restraining
order
prior
impaneling
district
judge
weinstein
received
considered
substantial
testimony
affidavits
briefs
required
hearings
testimony
prior
issuing
preliminary
injunction
opinion
three
days
case
remanded
light
fact
considerations
economy
convenience
fairness
point
exercise
pendent
jurisdiction
see
moore
new
york
cotton
ii
fact
department
health
education
welfare
studying
relationship
contested
provision
new
york
statute
relevant
section
social
security
act
irrelevant
judicial
problem
state
afdc
plan
initially
approved
secretary
hew
federal
funds
provided
state
secretary
finds
notice
opportunity
hearing
state
changes
plan
administration
plan
conflict
federal
requirements
social
security
act
stat
amended
stat
supp
iv
statutory
provisions
review
hew
state
afdc
permit
private
individuals
namely
present
potential
welfare
recipients
initiate
participate
compliance
hearings
thus
sense
individuals
held
failed
exhaust
administrative
remedies
fact
hew
determination
compliance
state
statute
federal
requirements
present
case
problem
discussed
terms
district
discretion
refuse
exercise
pendent
jurisdiction
argument
refusal
little
comment
hew
extremely
reluctant
apply
drastic
sanction
cutting
federal
funds
complying
federal
law
instead
hew
usually
settles
differences
offending
informal
negotiations
see
note
federal
judicial
review
state
welfare
practices
whether
hew
provide
mechanism
welfare
recipients
theoretically
get
relief
immaterial
done
means
basis
refusal
federal
courts
adjudicate
merits
claims
refusal
act
merely
forces
plaintiffs
state
courts
certainly
competent
decide
federal
question
federal
courts
terms
new
york
statute
clear
way
state
interpret
challenged
law
way
avoid
statutory
claim
pressed
state
participation
federal
welfare
programs
required
may
choose
apply
federal
assistance
may
join
various
programs
afdc
one
state
may
choose
refuse
comply
federal
requirements
cost
losing
federal
funds
course
risk
welfare
plaintiff
takes
risk
involved
king
smith
attacked
alabama
father
regulation
inconsistent
social
security
act
long
state
receiving
federal
funds
however
legal
requirement
comply
federal
conditions
placed
receipt
funds
individuals
adversely
affected
failure
state
comply
federal
requirements
distributing
federal
funds
entitled
judicial
determination
claim
king
smith
supra
duty
state
receives
federal
bounty
comply
conditions
imposed
congress
adverted
justice
cardozo
wrote
steward
machine
davis
sustaining
constitutionality
social
security
act
seeking
obtaining
credit
many
millions
favor
citizens
treasury
nation
nowhere
scheme
limitations
express
implied
federal
find
prohibited
assenting
conditions
assure
fair
requital
benefits
received
also
said
speaking
helvering
davis
companion
case
steward
machine
money
spent
promote
general
welfare
concept
welfare
opposite
shaped
congress
suit
involves
alleged
conflict
state
regulation
federal
law
neither
hew
necessary
party
action
wrong
alleged
state
failure
comply
federal
requirements
use
federal
funds
hew
failure
withhold
funds
state
whether
hew
withhold
federal
funds
entrusted
least
preliminary
matter
social
security
act
whether
courts
role
perform
beyond
ruling
alleged
conflict
state
regulation
federal
law
question
need
reach
appendix
opinion
douglas
concurring
department
health
education
welfare
office
secretary
washington
december
george
houston
associate
librarian
street
east
capitol
washington
dear
houston
relates
conversation
december
concerning
statements
made
last
paragraph
page
volume
columbia
law
review
january
department
responded
complaint
petition
hearing
filed
georgia
arkansas
claimants
author
law
review
article
correct
fact
response
request
conformity
hearing
replied
letter
however
stated
usually
cases
conformity
hearings
held
initiative
department
determination
made
deficiencies
state
program
state
applicable
laws
responsible
official
voluntarily
bring
state
compliance
letters
one
refer
may
however
trigger
action
department
contents
bring
light
conformity
matters
department
made
aware
result
audits
date
department
initiated
conformity
hearings
connection
state
plans
nevada
connecticut
view
fact
imposition
sanctions
found
conformity
mandatory
exert
every
effort
command
bring
state
conformity
without
necessity
formal
hearing
questions
please
let
us
know
truly
robert
mardian
general
counsel
justice
black
chief
justice
joins
dissenting
petitioners
new
york
welfare
recipients
contend
recently
enacted
new
york
welfare
legislation
reduces
welfare
benefits
entitled
aid
families
dependent
children
afdc
program
inconsistent
federal
afdc
requirements
found
social
security
act
supp
iv
new
york
statute
petitioners
challenging
new
york
social
services
law
enacted
march
little
week
later
april
petitioners
filed
complaint
challenging
statute
today
holds
district
correctly
exercised
discretion
proceeding
merits
petitioners
claim
federal
state
statutes
inconsistent
reaches
conclusion
despite
fact
determination
whether
state
following
federal
afdc
requirements
clearly
vested
first
instance
federal
courts
department
health
education
welfare
hew
despite
fact
moment
district
deciding
merits
petitioners
claim
hew
performing
statutory
duty
reviewing
new
york
legislation
determine
odds
despite
fact
hew
given
enough
time
make
decision
regard
new
york
legislation
decision
might
obviated
need
perhaps
many
lawsuits
regret
join
opinion
fails
give
due
consideration
unmistakeable
intent
social
security
act
give
hew
primary
jurisdiction
highly
technical
difficult
welfare
questions
affirms
clear
abuse
discretion
district
plunges
federal
courts
unnecessary
involvement
administration
nation
categorical
assistance
programs
administered
afdc
program
supp
iv
federal
government
provides
funds
state
condition
state
plan
supplementing
distributing
funds
needy
individuals
satisfies
various
federal
requirements
set
social
security
act
statute
secretary
hew
charged
duty
reviewing
state
plans
determine
comply
considerable
list
federal
requirements
supp
iv
approval
plan
approval
qualifies
state
program
federal
financial
assistance
supp
iv
hew
may
determine
whether
state
plan
continues
times
meet
federal
requirements
state
required
regulation
submit
relevant
changes
new
state
statutes
regulations
decisions
hew
review
cfr
affording
state
reasonable
notice
opportunity
hearing
hew
determines
state
plan
conform
federal
requirements
federal
agency
legal
obligation
terminate
federal
aid
state
otherwise
entitled
supp
iv
cfr
waiver
secretary
federal
requirements
permitted
secretary
state
welfare
officials
together
undertaken
experimental
welfare
project
supp
iv
administrative
procedures
secretary
must
afford
state
denying
curtailing
use
federal
funds
elaborated
supp
iv
section
also
provides
state
obtain
judicial
review
appeals
adverse
administrative
determination
unified
coherent
scheme
reviewing
state
welfare
rules
practices
established
congress
ensure
federal
purpose
behind
afdc
fully
carried
statutory
provisions
evidence
clear
intent
part
congress
vest
hew
primary
responsibility
interpreting
federal
act
enforcing
requirements
although
agency
sanction
power
terminate
federal
assistance
might
seem
first
glance
harsh
inflexible
remedy
congress
wisely
saw
vast
majority
cases
credible
threat
termination
sufficient
bring
compliance
procedures
followed
congress
intended
render
unnecessary
countless
lawsuits
welfare
recipients
case
today
undisputed
hew
time
proceedings
district
commenced
administrative
proceedings
determine
whether
conforms
social
security
act
provisions
agency
requested
new
york
welfare
officials
provide
detailed
information
regarding
statute
preparing
make
statutorily
required
decision
conformity
nonconformity
point
hew
midst
performing
statutory
obligation
district
assumed
jurisdiction
petitioners
claim
decided
issue
pending
hew
judge
hays
judge
lumbard
appeals
opinion
district
abused
discretion
finding
jurisdiction
statutory
claim
judges
relied
part
pendency
identical
question
federal
agency
chief
judge
lumbard
reasoning
instructive
ere
judge
hays
points
federal
claim
seems
apt
initial
resolution
department
health
education
welfare
courts
two
issues
upon
resolution
claim
practical
effect
proper
construction
social
security
exceedingly
complex
briefs
arguments
parties
varying
judicial
views
elicited
demonstrated
wisdom
allowing
hew
expertise
operation
afdc
program
experience
reviewing
technical
provisions
state
welfare
laws
initial
opportunity
consider
whether
compliance
hew
responsibility
social
security
act
see
believe
district
declined
exercise
jurisdiction
thus
permitting
hew
determine
statutory
claim
asserted
plaintiffs
department
already
initiated
review
proceedings
concerning
agree
appeals
district
abused
discretion
taking
jurisdiction
case
go
holding
district
action
mere
abuse
discretion
ensuring
federal
courts
benefit
hew
expertise
welfare
area
important
means
consideration
supporting
limitation
judicial
intervention
stage
congress
given
hew
grave
responsibility
guaranteeing
case
federal
afdc
funds
used
federal
policies
followed
established
procedures
hew
enforce
federal
interests
think
congressionally
mandated
compliance
procedures
exclusive
ones
run
course
explicitness
congress
set
hew
compliance
procedures
without
referring
remdies
suggests
congressional
intent
fundamentally
think
impossible
hew
fulfill
function
social
security
act
proceedings
disrupted
authority
undercut
courts
rush
make
precisely
determination
agency
directed
act
make
instances
hew
confronted
particularly
sensitive
question
agency
might
delighted
able
pass
courts
statutory
responsibility
decide
question
long
run
judicial
agency
rightful
responsibility
lead
collapse
enforcement
scheme
envisioned
congress
fear
case
others
carried
process
well
along
way
finally
important
consideration
judicial
economy
prevention
premature
unnecessary
lawsuits
particularly
time
courts
overrun
litigants
every
subject
courts
permitted
consider
identical
questions
pending
hew
determination
inevitably
hand
large
number
decisions
mooted
postponed
deciding
issues
administrative
proceedings
completed
reasons
go
one
step
appeals
majority
hold
judicial
examinations
alleged
conflicts
state
federal
afdc
programs
prior
final
hew
decision
approving
disapproving
state
plan
fundamentally
inconsistent
enforcement
scheme
created
congress
hence
suits
completely
precluded
preclusion
judicial
action
course
necessarily
mean
individual
welfare
recipient
legal
remedies
precise
questions
circumstances
individual
welfare
recipients
properly
seek
federal
judicial
review
however
express
views
issues
footnotes
separate
action
subsequently
brought
challenging
disparity
payments
new
york
nassau
county
welfare
recipients
see
rothstein
wyman
prob
juris
noted
wyman
rothstein
judge
hays
expressed
view
single
judge
time
jurisdiction
constitutional
claim
never
claim
statutory
claim
pendent
attempted
give
single
judge
power
adjudicate
statutory
claim
done
since
dissolution
statutory
claim
longer
pendent
claim
much
less
claim
single
judge
exercise
adjudicatory
power
even
poresky
read
simply
restatement
truism
always
jurisdiction
determine
jurisdiction
view
settled
rule
insubstantiality
federal
question
occasion
jurisdictional
dismissal
opposed
dismissal
merits
failure
state
claim
upon
relief
granted
still
lends
support
proposition
jurisdiction
vested
outset
district
panel
intimate
view
whether
situation
might
different
constitutional
claim
become
moot
district
invested
substantial
time
resolution
see
mine
workers
gibbs
said
considered
without
regard
federal
state
character
plaintiff
claims
ordinarily
expected
try
one
judicial
proceeding
assuming
substantiality
federal
issues
power
federal
courts
hear
whole
persuasive
analogy
found
rule
federal
lose
jurisdiction
diversity
action
well
founded
outset
even
though
one
parties
may
later
change
domicile
amount
recovered
falls
short
see
smith
sperling
paul
mercury
indemnity
red
cab
smithers
smith
see
generally
wright
federal
courts
pp
since
conclude
district
properly
exercised
pendent
jurisdiction
occasion
consider
whether
urged
petitioners
statutory
claim
satisfies
controversy
requirement
general
federal
jurisdiction
provision
whether
maintained
contains
limitation
action
redress
deprivation
color
state
law
right
privilege
immunity
secured
act
congress
providing
equal
rights
citizens
see
king
smith
see
generally
note
federal
judicial
review
state
welfare
practices
order
evaluate
argument
necessary
understand
mechanism
hew
reviews
state
plans
afdc
program
desiring
obtain
federal
funds
available
afdc
programs
required
submit
plan
secretary
hew
approval
supp
iv
initially
approved
federal
funds
provided
state
change
plan
formally
disapproved
supp
iv
secretary
must
afford
state
notice
alleged
noncompliance
federal
requirements
opportunity
hearing
ibid
notice
hearing
secretary
finds
state
comply
federal
requirements
directed
make
total
partial
cutoff
federal
funds
state
ibid
supp
iv
describes
administrative
procedures
secretary
must
afford
state
cutting
funds
also
provides
review
courts
appeals
secretary
action
behest
state
whether
hew
provide
mechanism
welfare
recipients
theoretically
get
relief
immaterial
done
means
basis
refusal
federal
courts
adjudicate
merits
claims
observed
southwestern
sugar
molasses
river
terminals
issue
appropriate
ultimately
judicial
rather
administrative
resolution
mean
courts
must
therefore
deny
enlightment
may
consideration
relevant
facts
administrative
agency
charged
regulation
transaction
peculiarly
well
equipped
marshal
initially
evaluate
see
also
far
east
conference
four
categorical
assistance
programs
old
age
assistance
oaa
et
seq
aid
families
dependent
children
afdc
et
seq
aid
blind
ab
et
seq
aid
permanently
totally
disabled
aptd
et
seq
see
lampton
bonin
jefferson
hackney
williams
dandridge
prob
juris
noted
dandridge
williams
decided
date
according
information
supplied
hew
reported
explanation
provisions
annually
family
four
marked
level
according
report
define
need
poverty
level
state
pays
much
amount
appears
time
provided
less
avowed
standard
need
frequently
fell
short
poverty
mark
new
york
purports
paid
full
standard
thus
appear
paid
enough
take
family
poverty
see
hearings
house
committee
ways
means
pt
maximum
may
either
fixed
relation
number
persons
welfare
dollars
per
child
matter
age
terms
family
dollars
per
family
unit
irrespective
number
persons
th
unit
latter
procedure
challenged
equal
protection
grounds
see
williams
dandridge
supra
reduction
represents
fixed
percentage
standard
need
paid
recipients
event
income
first
deducted
ratable
reduction
applied
amount
individual
family
income
falls
short
need
see
secretary
gardner
testified
house
bill
nothing
improve
level
state
public
assistance
payments
things
stand
today
required
set
assistance
standards
needy
persons
order
determine
need
make
assistance
payments
basis
standards
result
welfare
payments
much
low
good
many
state
widely
accepted
fact
among
concerned
programs
indeed
probably
widely
fact
among
welfare
experts
today
strongly
urge
adopt
administration
proposal
requiring
meet
need
full
determine
state
assistance
standards
update
standards
periodically
keep
pace
changes
cost
living
hearings
senate
committee
finance
pt
see
also
testimony
undersecretary
cohen
comment
senate
report
reads
security
benefits
increased
percent
across
board
committee
minimum
average
increase
percent
however
similar
increase
amount
benefits
payable
aged
welfare
recipients
view
situation
need
recognize
increase
cost
living
since
last
change
made
federal
matching
formula
also
detrimental
recipients
committee
recommending
change
law
proposed
law
amended
provide
recipients
assistance
aid
blind
aid
permanently
totally
disabled
shall
receive
average
increase
assistance
plus
social
security
assistance
alone
recipients
receive
social
security
benefits
month
accomplish
changes
adjust
standards
maximums
imposed
payments
july
produce
average
increase
assistance
alone
assistance
social
security
benefits
income
state
wishes
claim
credit
increase
may
made
since
december
thus
state
needs
make
increase
extent
recently
done
required
price
standards
used
determining
amount
assistance
afdc
program
july
reprice
least
annually
thereafter
adjusting
standards
maximums
imposed
payments
reflect
changes
living
costs
see
also
cong
pp
district
disclaiming
construction
preclude
converting
system
averaging
concluded
ection
precludes
state
making
changes
resulting
either
reduced
standards
need
levels
payments
emphasis
added
extensive
alternation
basic
underlying
structure
established
program
inferred
ambiguous
language
clarified
legislative
history
legislative
history
suggests
opposite
senate
failure
adopt
administration
proposals
failure
provide
afdc
recipients
increase
like
provided
adult
program
notwithstanding
proposed
amendment
effect
senator
mcgovern
gives
rise
inference
negatived
noncommittal
unilluminating
comments
committee
see
supra
congress
purpose
considerations
think
foreclose
broad
construction
adopted
district
might
technically
said
majority
holding
merits
appeals
overlooks
judge
hays
preface
discussion
merits
persuaded
district
judge
power
adjudicate
action
turn
brief
discussion
merits
sinc
decision
rest
solely
jurisdictional
grounds
chief
judge
lumbard
disavowed
reaching
merits
expressly
disagreed
judge
feinberg
circumstances
hypertechnical
conclude
merits
faced
decided
make
remand
desirable
prior
review
decision
cf
barlow
collins
regulations
explanations
set
forth
government
amicus
memorandum
new
york
points
preamble
sets
forth
purpose
streamlining
administration
welfare
grant
system
relies
part
hew
program
invites
adopt
administrative
programs
curtail
unnecessarily
burdensome
calculations
paperwork
hew
position
set
forth
government
amicus
memorandum
seems
regulations
content
necessarily
result
recognition
special
needs
department
however
recognized
administratively
government
memorandum
certain
needs
properly
regarded
part
basic
standard
thus
memorandum
suggests
payments
special
diets
special
attendants
extraordinary
susceptible
averaging
leaves
open
question
whether
new
york
special
grants
recurring
items
basic
see
also
former
nycrr
aspects
eligibility
investigation
shall
cover
following
aspects
initial
continuing
eligibility
need
consideration
shall
given
individual
family
requirements
items
basic
maintenance
items
special
need
second
emphasis
added
judiciary
called
upon
increasing
frequency
review
viability
state
welfare
procedures
goldberg
kelly
wheeler
montgomery
wyman
james
prob
juris
noted
inspections
house
also
substance
structure
state
programs
validity
innumerable
individual
provisions
see
shapiro
thompson
residence
requirements
king
smith
supra
substitute
father
solman
shapiro
aff
lewis
stark
supp
prob
juris
noted
rule
least
two
actions
instituted
review
various
aspects
state
programs
light
statutory
provisions
involved
case
see
lampton
bonin
jefferson
hackney
cf
rothstein
wyman
dandridge
williams
decided
today
procedure
hew
reviews
state
plans
set
opinion
see
appendix
concurrence
section
act
provides
case
state
plan
aid
services
needy
families
children
approved
secretary
secretary
reasonable
notice
opportunity
hearing
state
agency
administering
supervising
administration
plan
plan
changed
impose
residence
requirement
prohibited
section
title
administration
plan
prohibited
requirement
imposed
knowledge
state
agency
substantial
number
cases
administration
plan
failure
comply
substantially
provision
required
section
title
included
plan
secretary
shall
notify
state
agency
payments
made
state
discretion
payments
limited
categories
parts
state
plan
affected
failure
secretary
satisfied
prohibited
requirement
longer
imposed
longer
failure
comply
satisfied
shall
make
payments
state
shall
limit
payments
categories
parts
state
plan
affected
failure
supp
iv
precise
issue
clearly
sharply
presented
king
smith
joined
see
issues
canvassed
note
federal
judicial
review
state
welfare
practices