Cuyahoga County Board of Commissioners v. State, 2005-1438.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Ohio
Writing for the CourtLanzinger
Citation2006 Ohio 6499,858 N.E.2d 330,112 Ohio St.3d 59
PartiesCUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, Appellee, v. The STATE of Ohio et al., Appellants.
Docket NumberNo. 2005-1438.,2005-1438.
Decision Date27 December 2006
858 N.E.2d 330
112 Ohio St.3d 59
2006-Ohio-6499
CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, Appellee,
v.
The STATE of Ohio et al., Appellants.
No. 2005-1438.
Supreme Court of Ohio.
Submitted May 24, 2006.
Decided December 27, 2006.

Page 331

Jim Petro, Attorney General, Douglas R. Cole, State Solicitor, and Henry G. Appel, Assistant Solicitor, for appellants.

LANZINGER, J.


{¶ 1} We accepted this discretionary appeal to determine whether a board of county commissioners has standing to challenge a law permitting the transfer of federal welfare grant money to the state's General Revenue Fund and, if so, whether the law was valid.

{¶ 2} In 1996, Congress revamped the federal welfare program with enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. Pub.L. No. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105. Aid to Families with Dependent Children was replaced with Temporary Assistance to Needy Families ("TANF"), which provided block grants to participating states. The purpose of TANF is "to increase the flexibility of States in operating a program designed to—

{¶ 3} "(1) provide assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives;

{¶ 4} "(2) end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage;

{¶ 5} "(3) prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and establish annual numerical goals for preventing and reducing the incidence of these pregnancies; and

{¶ 6} "(4) encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families." Section 601(A), Title 42, U.S.Code.

{¶ 7} The federal government also provides block grants to the states for social services known as Title XX. See Section 1397 et seq., Title 42, U.S.Code. These funds are to be used "to furnish services directed at the goals of—

{¶ 8} "(1) achieving or maintaining economic self-support to prevent, reduce, or eliminate dependency;

{¶ 9} "(2) achieving or maintaining self-sufficiency, including reduction or prevention of dependency;

{¶ 10} "(3) preventing or remedying neglect, abuse, or exploitation of children and adults unable to protect their own interests, or preserving, rehabilitating or reuniting families;

{¶ 11} "(4) preventing or reducing inappropriate institutional care by providing for community-based care, home-based care, or other forms of less intensive care; and

{¶ 12} "(5) securing referral or admission for institutional care when other forms of care are not appropriate, or providing services to individuals in institutions." Section 1397, Title 42, U.S.Code.

{¶ 13} A state wishing to participate in the federal welfare program must submit a plan to the federal government detailing the programs it intends to implement to meet the goals of TANF. Section 602, Title 42, U.S.Code. A state that receives a TANF block grant may transfer a portion of its grant to implement programs under Title XX, as long as the funds are used "only for programs and services to children or their families whose income is less than 200 percent of the income official poverty line." Section 604(d), Title 42, U.S.Code.

{¶ 14} In 1997, Ohio enacted Sub.H.B. No. 408, 147 Ohio Laws, Part II, 3381 ("H.B. 408"), which created two programs—Ohio Works First, R.C. Chapter 5107, and Prevention, Retention, and Contingency, R.C. Chapter 5108—to comply

Page 332

with the TANF regulations. The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services ("ODJFS") is charged with administration and supervision of the TANF programs, R.C. 5101.80, and is authorized to enter into agreements with the boards of county commissioners to implement these programs. R.C. 5101.21. The state directly provides some TANF and Title XX services, such as cash assistance. It also allocates funds to the county departments of job and family services to administer TANF and Title XX programs.

{¶ 15} Ohio received approximately $728 million in TANF block grants annually from 1997 through 2001. Each year, the state elected to transfer ten percent of its TANF funds, approximately $72.8 million, to its Title XX account. Former R.C. 5101.46(H) delineated how these funds could be used:

{¶ 16} "If federal funds received by the department of job and family services for use under Chapters 5107. and 5108. of the Revised Code are transferred by the controlling board for use in providing social services under this section, the distribution and use of the funds are not subject to the provisions of division (C) of this section. The department may do one or both of the following with the funds:

{¶ 17} "(1) Distribute the funds to the county departments of job and family services;

{¶ 18} "(2) Use the funds for services that benefit individuals eligible for services consistent with the principles of Title IV-A of the `Social Security Act,' 49 Stat. 620 (1935), 42 U.S.C.A. 301, as amended." Am.Sub.H.B. No. 283, 148 Ohio Laws, Part II, 2339, 2873.

{¶ 19} In the biennial budget for state fiscal years 2002 and 2003, the state again provided for a transfer of ten percent of TANF funds to Title XX. Section 63.09, Am.Sub.H.B. No. 94, 149 Ohio Laws, Part III, 4126, 5533 ("H.B. 94")1 and Section 1397a(d), Title 42, U.S.Code. Of the TANF funds transferred to Title XX, however, $60 million was required to be placed into a special revenue fund and held until it was determined how much of it would be needed to balance the General Revenue Fund ("GRF"). Id. Once the amount was determined, it was to be transferred into the GRF. Id. Any remaining funds were to be returned to the TANF account. Id. The director of ODJFS's fiscal office ordered the transfer of $60 million into Fund 5Q8 on July 13, 2001, and on May 10,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
79 cases
  • Ohioans for Concealed Carry, Inc. v. City of Columbus, 2019-1274
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • 18 de dezembro de 2020
    ...established standing is a question of law, which we review de novo. See Moore at ¶ 20, citing Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. State , 112 Ohio St.3d 59, 2006-Ohio-6499, 858 N.E.2d 330, ¶ 23.{¶ 13} Standing " ‘ "is not dispensed in gross;" ’ " it must be demonstrated for each claim and each ......
  • Moore v. City of Middletown, 2010–1363.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • 30 de agosto de 2012
    ...standing to bring an action before the court is a question of law, which we review de novo. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. State, 112 Ohio St.3d 59, 2006-Ohio-6499, 858 N.E.2d 330, ¶ 23. {¶ 21} In Clifton, we set forth Ohio's general law on standing: “It is well established that before an ......
  • Ohio Democratic Party v. LaRose, 20AP-432
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • 2 de outubro de 2020
    ...standing to bring an action before the court is a question of law reviewed de novo on appeal. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. State , 112 Ohio St.3d 59, 2006-Ohio-6499, 858 N.E.2d 330, ¶ 23. {¶ 14} Ohio courts are not bound by federal standing principles derived from Article III of the Unit......
  • State ex rel. Ohio Gen. Assembly v. Brunner, 2007-0209.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • 1 de agosto de 2007
    ..."A preliminary inquiry in all legal claims is the issue of 114 Ohio St.3d 390 standing." Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. State, 112 Ohio St.3d 59, 2006-Ohio-6499, 858 N.E.2d 330, ¶ 22. "It has been long and well established that it is the duty of every judicial tribunal to decide actual con......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Taking a Stand on Standing: The Real Party in Interest Conflict in Ohio Foreclosure Actions
    • United States
    • Capital University Law Review No. 40-4, December 2012
    • 1 de dezembro de 2012
    ...209 (Ohio 2010) (citing Ohio Pyro, Inc. v. Dep’t of Commerce, 875 N.E.2d 550, 557 (Ohio 2007); Cuyahoga Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs v. State, 858 N.E.2d 330, 333 (Ohio 2006)). 87 Id. (citing Fortner v. Thomas, 257 N.E.2d 371, 372 (Ohio 1970)). 88 Suster , 701 N.E.2d at 1008. 89 State ex rel. Ohio ......

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