Bailey v. Engelman

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
Writing for the CourtWEINTRAUB
Citation56 N.J. 54,264 A.2d 442
Decision Date04 May 1970
PartiesYvonne BAILEY, Claimant-Appellant, v. Irving ENGELMAN, as Director of Public Welfare, and Stella Cassi, as Director of Bergen County Welfare, Respondents.

Page 54

56 N.J. 54
264 A.2d 442
Yvonne BAILEY, Claimant-Appellant,
v.
Irving ENGELMAN, as Director of Public Welfare, and Stella
Cassi, as Director of Bergen County Welfare, Respondents.
Supreme Court of New Jersey.
Argued Nov. 18, 1969 and Dec. 1, 1969.
Decided May 4, 1970.

Page 55

Ronald B. Atlas, Hackensack, of Bergen County Legal Services Assur. Corp., for appellant.

Eugene T. Urbaniak, Deputy Atty. Gen., for Irving Engelman (Arthur J. Sills, Atty. Gen., attorney).

The opinion of the court was delivered by

WEINTRAUB, C.J.

This matter involves the program for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). Plaintiff, who had received such assistance for herself and her child, contends the State regulations violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution and the implied guarantee of equality which reposes in Art. I, 1, of our State Constitution, Washington National Ins. Co. v. Board of Review, 1 N.J. 545, 554, 64 A.2d 443 (1949). She contends also that the regulations violate the Federal and State statutes under which the assistance program was erected. The New Jersey Division of Public Welfare having decided the challenge against her, 1 plaintiff sought review in the Appellate Division, and we certified the matter before argument there.

Page 56

The AFDC program is one of four categorical assistance programs established by the Social Security Act of 1935. 42 U.S.C. §§ 301--1394. Our State elected to participate in the AFDC program, N.J.S.A. 44:10--1 et seq., and adopted a plan which received [264 A.2d 443] the approval of the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, as required by the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 601--604. Such approval is prerequisite to eligibility for federal funds to help finance the programs. The history of the federal legislation is recounted in King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309, 88 S.Ct. 2128, 20 L.Ed.2d 1118 (1968).

Our State regulations, contained in the Categorical Assistance Budget Manual, fix income ceilings for determining eligibility for aid, which ceilings vary with the number of members of the family unit. Sec. 615. The assistance payable is limited to the difference between the applicable ceiling and the 'total available adjusted income' of the family unit as determined under the regulations. Sec. 615.1a. Section 615.5 of the regulations read as follows at the time the immediate controversy arose: 2

For Family Budget Units of 7 or more add $50 to the Monthly Administrative Ceiling for each additional child.

Page 57

Thus the regulation deals uniformly with all families on the basis of the size of the family unit. Appellant objects to such uniform treatment precisely because it is uniform. She says that individual needs are not identical, and hence, unless the budget need of each family unit is determined upon an individualized inquiry, the treatment of the recipients of aid is disparate and unequal. Although plaintiff contends the regulation in this respect departs from the policy of Federal and State statutes, we find no provision in either law which mandates the course she urges. The question, then, is whether the constitutional concept of equal protection makes that demand.

Appellant correctly concedes the State is not required to meet the total needs of a recipient of aid. Indeed the State need not participate in the federally assisted program at all, and if it does, 'There is no question that States have considerable latitude in allocating their AFDC resources, since each State is free to set its own standard of need and to determine the level of benefits by the amount of funds it devotes to the program.' King v. Smith, Supra, 392 U.S. 309, 318--319, 88 S.Ct. 2128, 2134, 20 L.Ed.2d 1118, 1126; and to the same effect, see Rosado v. Wyman, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 practice notes
  • MR. X v. McCorkle, Civ. A. No. 1242-69
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • July 6, 1970
    ...contesting the validity of section 615. On May 4, 1970, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued an opinion in that case, Bailey v. Engelman, 56 N.J. 54, 264 A.2d 442 (1970), sustaining section 615. There is, therefore, no longer a question of Defendants, however, continue to maintain that the p......
  • Robinson v. Cahill
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • April 3, 1973
    ...the Fourteenth Amendment and the equal protection provision implicit in Art. I, 1, of our State Constitution of 1947, Bailey v. Engelman, 56 N.J. 54, 55, 264 A.2d 442 (1970), reach our statutory scheme. It is urged, and the trial court agreed, that equal protection was denied both the stude......
  • Franklin v. New Jersey Dept. of Human Services
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • May 31, 1988
    ...acknowledged these limitations upon the full realization of the goals set forth in N.J.S.A. 44:10-1 et seq. In Bailey v. Engelman, 56 N.J. 54, 264 A.2d 442 (1970), the Court rejected a claim that the State is required to make an individualized determination of the budget needs of each recip......
  • Peper v. Princeton University Bd. of Trustees
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • July 5, 1978
    ...Tp. of Mt. Laurel, 67 N.J. 151, 174-175, 336 A.2d 713 (1975), Robinson v. Cahill, supra, 62 N.J. at 482, 303 A.2d 273; Bailey v. Engelman, 56 N.J. 54, 55, 264 A.2d 442 (1970); General Public Loan Corp. v. Director, Div. of Taxation, 13 N.J. 393, 401, 99 A.2d 796 (1953); Washington Nat. Ins.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 cases
  • MR. X v. McCorkle, Civ. A. No. 1242-69
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • July 6, 1970
    ...contesting the validity of section 615. On May 4, 1970, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued an opinion in that case, Bailey v. Engelman, 56 N.J. 54, 264 A.2d 442 (1970), sustaining section 615. There is, therefore, no longer a question of Defendants, however, continue to maintain that the p......
  • Robinson v. Cahill
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • April 3, 1973
    ...the Fourteenth Amendment and the equal protection provision implicit in Art. I, 1, of our State Constitution of 1947, Bailey v. Engelman, 56 N.J. 54, 55, 264 A.2d 442 (1970), reach our statutory scheme. It is urged, and the trial court agreed, that equal protection was denied both the stude......
  • Franklin v. New Jersey Dept. of Human Services
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • May 31, 1988
    ...acknowledged these limitations upon the full realization of the goals set forth in N.J.S.A. 44:10-1 et seq. In Bailey v. Engelman, 56 N.J. 54, 264 A.2d 442 (1970), the Court rejected a claim that the State is required to make an individualized determination of the budget needs of each recip......
  • Peper v. Princeton University Bd. of Trustees
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • July 5, 1978
    ...Tp. of Mt. Laurel, 67 N.J. 151, 174-175, 336 A.2d 713 (1975), Robinson v. Cahill, supra, 62 N.J. at 482, 303 A.2d 273; Bailey v. Engelman, 56 N.J. 54, 55, 264 A.2d 442 (1970); General Public Loan Corp. v. Director, Div. of Taxation, 13 N.J. 393, 401, 99 A.2d 796 (1953); Washington Nat. Ins.......
  • 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