Barnett v. Lindsay, C 328-69.

• Decision Date: 20 April 1970
• Docket Number: No. C 328-69.,C 328-69.
• Citation: 319 F. Supp. 610
• Parties: Clifford BARNETT et al., Plaintiffs, v. Richard P. LINDSAY et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Utah

319 F. Supp. 610

Clifford BARNETT et al., Plaintiffs, v. Richard P. LINDSAY et al., Defendants.

No. C 328-69.

United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division.

April 20, 1970.

David S. Dolowitz, Salt Lake City, Utah, for plaintiffs.

R. Ralph Raat and Ronald G. Greenhalgh, Asst. Attys. Gen. for the State of Utah, for defendants.

John G. Detmer, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, appeared at the request of the court as amicus curiae.

Before LEWIS, Circuit Judge, CHRISTENSEN, District Judge, and ARRAJ, Chief District Judge.

LEWIS, Circuit Judge.

In this class action for declaratory and injunctive relief, the plaintiffs have challenged the constitutionality of the Utah statutory provisions governing the period of residency required as a condition for eligibility to receive welfare benefits and the "fair hearing" provisions regulating the nature of the notice and hearing to be accorded a welfare applicant or recipient upon denial or termination of public assistance.

The plaintiffs' first contention is that under the compulsion of Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 22 L.Ed.2d 600, the one-year residency requirement imposed by Utah law¹ as a condition of eligibility for welfare assistance under the state-funded assistance programs is unconstitutional. Shapiro expressly invalidated such a residency requirement as a condition to assistance under federally-funded welfare programs administered by a state and subsequent decisions by the Supreme Court extended the rule to apply to combined federal-state assistance programs. See Robinson v. Johnson, 394 U.S. 847, 89 S.Ct. 1622, 23 L.Ed.2d 30; Montgomery v. Burns, 394 U.S. 848, 89 S.Ct. 1623, 23 L.Ed.2d 31.

The defendants' argument is that in neither of these later cases was there an express showing that any of the welfare recipients involved had qualified solely for state-funded general assistance as is the case here. Therefore, the defendants reason, Shapiro and its progeny do not compel the invalidation of the Utah statute. The defendants then argue affirmatively that since only state-funded assistance is involved, the tenth amendment reserving to the states or to the people those powers not delegated to the federal government, must be applied to constitutionally justify the one-year residency requirement, applied by Utah only to recipients under the state-funded programs.

However, the constitutional basis of the decision in Shapiro was unrelated to the source of the welfare funds, as the defendants' argument presupposes. The decision was based upon the unconstitutional manner in which the state programs dispensing those funds were administered. Imposition of a one-year residency requirement was held to be a denial of equal protection of the laws under the fourteenth amendment and additionally an unconstitutional restriction on the right to travel. The exercise by a state of its police power, the residuary grant contemplated by the tenth amendment, is as circumscribed by the mandates of the fourteenth amendment as any similar exercise of legislative or executive power by the federal government. Therefore, in this case, the source of welfare funds is entirely irrelevant and the residency requirement is unconstitutional whether applied to recipients under state- or federally-funded programs or both.

Secondly, the plaintiffs challenge the "fair hearing" procedure established by the State of Utah, alleging that the type of hearing accorded to a Utah welfare recipient upon application, termination or alteration of his assistance payments fails to comport with the requirements of due process of law. In a very recent case the Supreme Court has held that procedural due process demands that termination of benefits to a welfare recipient be preceded by an evidentiary hearing at which the recipient is accorded the opportunity to appear personally with counsel, to offer evidence...