43 583 Lascaris v. Shirley Lavine v. Shirley 8212 1016, 73 8212 1095

• Decision Date: 19 March 1975
• Docket Number: Nos. 73,s. 73
• Citation: 43 L.Ed.2d 583,420 U.S. 730,95 S.Ct. 1190
• Parties: . 43 L.Ed.2d 583 John LASCARIS, etc., Appellant, v. Sylvia SHIRLEY, etc., et al. Abe LAVINE, etc., Appellant, v. Sylvia SHIRLEY, etc., et al. —1016, 73—1095
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

420 U.S. 730

95 S.Ct. 1190.

43 L.Ed.2d 583

John LASCARIS, etc., Appellant,

v Sylvia SHIRLEY, etc., et al.

Abe LAVINE, etc., Appellant,

v. Sylvia SHIRLEY, etc., et al.

Nos. 73—1016, 73—1095.

Argued Dec. 18, 1974.

Decided March 19, 1975.

Alan W. Rubenstein, Albany, N.Y., for appellants.

Douglas A. Eldridge, Syracuse, N.Y., pro hac vice, by special leave of Court for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

After our previous remand, 409 U.S. 1052, 93 S.Ct. 555, 34 L.Ed.2d 506 (1972), the three-judge District Court held that amended New York Social Services Law § 101—a 'engraft(ed) . . . a condition on to the Congressionally prescribed initial AFDC eligibility requirements or on to the grounds for discontinuance of benefits.' 365 F.Supp. 818, 821 (D.C.1973). That condition, the court held, rendered the amended section invalid because in conflict with the Social Security Act, § 402(a), 42 U.S.C. § 602(a), insofar as it required recipient cooperation in a paternity or support action against an absent parent as a condition of eligibility for benefits under the program for Aid to Families with Dependent Children. On June 17, 1974, we noted probable jurisdiction of the appeals of the State and County Commissioners of Social Service, 417 U.S. 943, 94 S.Ct. 3066, 41 L.Ed.2d 664. Since that time, however, on January 4, 1975, Pub.L. 93—647, 88 Stat. 2359, amended § 402(a) of the Social Security Act expressly to resolve the conflict as to eligibility found by the three-judge District Court to exist between the federal and state laws. Amended § 402(a), like New York's amended § 101—a, requires the recipient to cooperate to compel the absent parent to contribute to the support of the child.

Section 402(a), as amended, in pertinent part provides:^*

'A State plan for aid and services to needy families with children must

______

'(26) provide that, as a condition of eligibility for aid, each applicant or recipient will be required—

______

'(B) to cooperate with the State (i) in establishing the paternity of a child born out of wedlock with respect to whom aid is claimed, and (ii) in obtaining support payments for such applicant and for a child with respect to whom such aid is claimed, or in obtaining any other payments or property due such applicant or such child and that, if the relative with whom a child is living is found to be ineligible because of failure to comply with the requirements of subparagraphs (A) and (B) of this paragraph, any aid for which such child is eligible will be provided in the form of protective payments as described in section 406(b)(2) (without regard to subparagraphs (A) through (E) of such section) . . ..'

We affirm the judgment of the three-judge court. Townsend v. Swank, 404 U.S. 282, 92 S.Ct. 502, 30 L.Ed.2d 448 (1971); Carleson v. Remillard, 406 U.S. 598, 92 S.Ct. 1932, 32 L.Ed.2d 352 (1972). In light of the resolu- tion of the conflict by Pub.L. 93—647, we have no occasion to prepare an extended opinion.

Affirmed.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, Mr. Justice POWELL, and Mr. Justice REHNQUIST dissent.

* Pub.L. 93—647 provides that § 402(a), as amended, shall become effective on July 1, 1975. However, President Ford announced when he signed the law that he would propose changes to several sections, including the child-support provisions, during the early months of the 94th Congress, stating:

'The second element of this...