New Jersey Welfare Rights Organization v. Cahill 8212 6258

Decision Date07 May 1973
Docket NumberNo. 72,72
Citation93 S.Ct. 1700,411 U.S. 619,36 L.Ed.2d 543
PartiesNEW JERSEY WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATION et al., v. William T. CAHILL, etc., et al. —6258
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

On

appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

PER CURIAM.

This case presents the question of the constitutionality under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the New Jersey 'Assistance to Families of the Working Poor' program, N.J.Stat.Ann. § 44:13—1 et seq., that allegedly discriminates against illegitimate children in the provision of financial assistance and other services. Specifically, appellants challenge that aspect of the program that limits benefits to only those otherwise qualified families 'which consist of a household composed of two adults of the opposite sex ceremonially married to each other who have at least one minor child . . . of both, the natural child of one and adopted by the other, or a child adopted by both . . ..' N.J.Stat.Ann. § 44:13—3(a). Appellants do not challenge the statute's 'household' requirement. Rather, they argue that although the challenged classification turns upon the marital status of the parents as well as upon the parent-child relationship, in practical effect it operates almost invariably to deny benefits to illegitimate children while granting benefits to those children who are legitimate. Although apparently conceding the correctness of this position, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, sitting as a three-judge court,* upheld the statutory scheme on the ground that it was designed 'to preserve and strengthen traditional family life.' 349 F.Supp. 491, 496 (1972).

Confronted with similar arguments in the past, we have specifically declared that:

'The status of illegitimacy has expressed through the ages society's condemnation of irresponsible liaisons beyond the bonds of marriage. But visiting this condemnation on the head of an infant is illogical and unjust. Moreover, imposing disabilities on the illegitimate child is contrary to the basic concept of our system that legal burdens should bear some relationship to individual responsibility or wrongdoing. Obviously, no child is responsible for his birth and penalizing the illegitimate child is an ineffectual—as well as an unjust—way of deterring the parent.' Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 406 U.S. 164, 175, 92 S.Ct. 1400, 1406, 31 L.Ed.2d 768 (1972).

Thus, in Weber we held that under the Equal Protection Clause a State may not exclude illegitimate children from sharing equally with other children in the recovery of workmen's compensation benefits for the death of their parent. Similarly, in Levy v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 68, 88 S.Ct. 1509, 20 L.Ed.2d 436 (1968), we held that a State may not create a right of action in favor of children for the wrongful death of a parent and exclude illegitimate children from the benefit of such a right. And only this Term, in Gomez v. Perez, 409 U.S. 535, 93 S.Ct. 872, 35 L.Ed.2d 56 (1973), we held that once a State posits a judicially enforceable right on behalf of children to needed support from their natural father, there is no constitutionally sufficient justification for denying such an essential right to illegitimate children. See also Davis v. Richardson, 342 F.Supp. 588 (D.C.Conn.), aff'd 409 U.S. 1069, 93 S.Ct. 678, 34 L.Ed.2d 659 (1972); Griffin v. Richardson, 346 F.Supp. 1226 (D.C.Md.), aff'd, 409 U.S. 1069, 93 S.Ct. 689, 34 L.Ed.2d 660 (1972).

Those decisions compel the conclusion that appellants' claim of the denial of equal protection must be sustained, for there can be no doubt that the benefits extended under the challenged program are as indispensable to the health and well-being of illegitimate children as to those who are legitimate. Accordingly, we grant the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, reverse the judgment of the District Court, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE concurs in the result.

Mr. Justice REHNQUIST, dissenting.

The New Jersey Legislature has enacted a statute entitled 'Assistance to Families of the Working Poor,' which is designed to provide...

To continue reading

Request your trial
64 cases
  • McKay v. Horn, Civ. A. No. 80-3509.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • December 10, 1981
    ...The saving of welfare costs cannot justify an otherwise invidious classification." See also New Jersey Welfare Rights Organization v. Cahill, 411 U.S. 619, 93 S.Ct. 1700, 36 L.Ed.2d 543 (1973); Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 265-66, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 1019, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970). If the Tax I......
  • Trimble v. Gordon
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • April 26, 1977
    ...1400, 31 L.Ed.2d 768 (1972); Gomez v. Perez, 409 U.S. 535, 93 S.Ct. 872, 35 L.Ed.2d 56 (1973); New Jersey Welfare Rights Org. v. Cahill, 411 U.S. 619, 93 S.Ct. 1700, 36 L.Ed.2d 543 (1973); Jimenez v. Weinberger, 417 U.S. 628, 94 S.Ct. 2496, 41 L.Ed.2d 363 (1974). But see Mathews v. Lucas, 4......
  • Edmonds v. Murphy, 1480
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • September 1, 1989
    ...S.Ct. 2832, 37 L.Ed.2d 767 (1973) (interest of individuals in receiving food stamps); and New Jersey Welfare Rights Org. v. Cahill, 411 U.S. 619, 93 S.Ct. 1700, 36 L.Ed.2d 543 (1973) (per curiam) (interest of individuals in receiving public assistance).24 See O'Connell & Bailey, The History......
  • Fiallo v. Bell
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • April 26, 1977
    ...478 F.2d 300 (CA5 1973), summarily aff'd, 418 U.S. 901, 94 S.Ct. 3190, 41 L.Ed.2d 1150 (1974); New Jersey Welfare Rights Org. v. Cahill, 411 U.S. 619, 93 S.Ct. 1700, 36 L.Ed.2d 543 (1973); Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 406 U.S. 164, 92 S.Ct. 1400, 31 L.Ed.2d 768 (1972); Davis v. Ric......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Rethinking constitutional welfare rights.
    • United States
    • Stanford Law Review Vol. 61 No. 2, November 2008
    • November 1, 2008
    ...County, 415 U.S. 250 (1974); USDA v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528 (1973); USDA v. Murry, 413 U.S. 508 (1973); N.J. Welfare Rights Org. v. Cahill, 411 U.S. 619 (1973); Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970); Sniadach v. Family Fin. Corp., 395 U.S. 337 (1969); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969)......
  • The Equal Protection Clause
    • United States
    • The Path of Constitutional Law Part IV: The Final Cause Of Constitutional Law Sub-Part Three: Civil War Amendments And Due Process Generally
    • January 1, 2007
    ...on grounds that the writ was improvidently granted, thus not reaching the merits of the case); New Jersey Welfare Rights Org. v. Cahill, 411 U.S. 619 (1973) (welfare benefits denied to illegitimate children); Jimenez v. Weinberger, 417 U.S. 628 (1974) (federal law denied some illegitimate c......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • The Path of Constitutional Law Suplemmentary Materials
    • January 1, 2007
    ...993 (1998), 667, 900 New Jersey v. Wilson, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 164, 3 L.Ed. 303 (1812), 953 New Jersey Welfare Rights Org. v. Cahill, 411 U.S. 619, 93 S.Ct. 1700, 36 L.Ed.2d 543 (1973), 1178 New Mexico, United States v., 455 U.S. 720, 102 S.Ct. 1373, 71 L.Ed.2d 580 (1982), 852 New Motor Vehi......
  • Certifying Identity
    • United States
    • Capital University Law Review No. 42-2, March 2014
    • March 1, 2014
    ...5 (asking whether the mother was married at birth, conception, or anytime between). 204 See, e.g. , N.J. Welfare Rights Org. v. Cahill, 411 U.S. 619, 621 (1973) (indicating the state must provide the same benefits to marital and nonmarital children); Gomez v. Perez, 409 U.S. 535, 537–38 (19......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT