Harrell v. Board of Commissioners of District of Columbia, Civ. A. No. 1497-67.
| Decision Date | 22 June 1967 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 1497-67. |
| Citation | 269 F. Supp. 919 |
| Parties | Minnie HARRELL et al., Plaintiffs, v. The BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Laurens H. Silver, Peter S. Smith, Rhoda Lakritz, and David Marlin, Washington, D. C., for plaintiffs.
John Suda, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Washington, D. C., for defendants.
The Court has before it an application for the convening of a Three-Judge Court on the ground that this action is brought to enjoin the enforcement of an Act of Congress, it being claimed that the statutory provision in question is unconstitutional.
Such an application should be granted if the constitutional question raised is substantial, that is, reasonably debatable. This limitation is strictly enforced, because otherwise numerous Federal Judges would be immobilized in Three-Judge Courts in actions that may be entirely lacking in merit.
The plaintiff in this action is an applicant for public assistance for herself and three minor children. She made this application to the welfare authorities of the District of Columbia. The application was denied on the ground that she and her children had not resided in the District of Columbia for one year immediately preceding the date of the filing of the application. The residence requirement is contained in the District of Columbia Code, Title 3, Section 203.
It is claimed in this action: first, that this statute, construed as the District of Columbia authorities have construed it, is unconstitutional; and, second, that as a matter of statutory interpretation, this statute has been misconstrued by the District of Columbia authorities. Only the first aspect of this matter is before the Court on this application.
The Court is of the opinion that no substantial constitutional question is involved. Public assistance is a grant. It is not the fulfillment of a contractual obligation. The Congress may surround grants with reasonable requirements and prescribe the categories of persons to whom grants shall be given. To impose a residence requirement is perfectly reasonable. Such provisions have been in existence in similar statutes throughout the country for many years.
If such a requirement did not exist, the District of Columbia might receive a migration of indigent persons and might become a Mecca for persons applying for relief, especially because of the liberal payments made in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Snell v. Wyman
...test." whatever issues of policy it may raise, must be outlawed under the Constitution. 24 Compare Harrell v. Board of Commissioners of District of Columbia, 269 F. Supp. 919 (D.D.C.1967), denying an application for the convening of a three-judge court to determine the constitutionality of ......
-
Smith v. Reynolds
...on appeal to the United States Supreme Court); Ramos v. Health & Social Services Bd., 276 F.Supp. 474 (Wis. 1967); Harrell v. Tobriner, 269 F.Supp. 919 (D.C.1967). 1 District of Columbia Public Assistance Act of 1962, Title 3, Chapter 2, D.C. Code, § 3-203 "Eligibility for public assistance......
-
Holland v. Parker
...v. Ridley, 309 F.Supp. 1308 (D.C.D.C.1970); Carlough v. Finch, 309 F.Supp. 1025 (S.D.Fla. 1969); Harrell v. Board of Commissioners of District of Columbia, 269 F.Supp. 919 (D.C.D.C.1967). The case of Kesler v. Dept. of Public Safety of Utah, 369 U.S. 153, 82 S.Ct. 807, 7 L.Ed.2d 641 (1962),......
-
Green v. Department of Public Welfare of State of Del., Civ. A. No. 3349.
...a somewhat similar Connecticut statute unconstitutional, inter alia, under the equal protection clause. But see Harrell v. Bd. of Com'rs of D. C., 269 F.Supp. 919 (June 22, 1967), in which a District Court judge in the District of Columbia upheld the constitutionality of a one year residenc......