Kuri v. Edelman

• Decision Date: 11 February 1974
• Docket Number: No. 74-1093.,74-1093.
• Citation: 491 F.2d 684
• Parties: Uldine KURI, on behalf of herself, her minor child, Angela, and all others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants. v. Joel EDELMAN, Individually, and in his capacity as Director of the Illinois Department of Public Aid, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

491 F.2d 684 (1974)

Uldine KURI, on behalf of herself, her minor child, Angela, and all others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants. v. Joel EDELMAN, Individually, and in his capacity as Director of the Illinois Department of Public Aid, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 74-1093.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

February 11, 1974.

Robert E. Lehrer, Legal Asst. Foundation of Chicago, Chicago, Ill., Michael F. Lefkow, Chicago Ill., for plaintiffs-appellants.

William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., Chicago, Ill., for defendant-appellee.

Before CUMMINGS, PELL, and STEVENS, Circuit Judges.

PELL, Circuit Judge.

The State of Illinois participates in the federally funded Aid To Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program established under Title IV-A of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 601 et seq. The several plaintiffs filed their action in the district court on December 18, 1973, alleging that the defendant Joel Edelman, individually and in his capacity as Director of the Illinois Department of Public Aid, was implementing a program of suspending AFDC recipients from assistance in violation of their rights under 42 U.S.C. § 601 et seq. (Social Security Act, § 401 et seq.) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act), the Supremacy Clause, and the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and members of their class (recipients of assistance), sought declaratory and injunctive relief restraining implementation of the alleged illegal program. A hearing was held in the district court on January 30, 1974, at the conclusion of which the district court denied a preliminary injunction. This appeal followed. The plaintiffs filed a motion for an injunction pending appeal, which was denied by the district court, and the case is presently before this court on the motion filed here by plaintiffs for an injunction pending the appeal.

Plaintiffs contend that benefit checks will be withheld beginning February 1, 1974, from plaintiffs and members of their class, and that an injunction pending appeal is necessary to preserve the status quo and effective appellate review of the denial of the preliminary injunction by the district court.

As background for consideration of the present matter, on or about November 8, 1973, the defendant instituted a new Illinois Department of Public Aid income reporting program. The apparent reason for this program was because of continuing obligation on the defendant to provide the assistance program only to those eligible, which in turn involves the existence of need and dependency.

An IBM card DPA 43a, with an accompanying information notice, was mailed to the "grantee relative" of each Illinois family receiving AFDC benefits.

The card called for a report on income and the notice advised that the executed form must be returned to Springfield within 15 days to continue eligibility for Aid to Dependent Children.

As the matter is put by the defendant, the 43a form is not intended itself to be a guideline or instrument for eligibility for public assistance, "but is merely intended and used by the Department to be an informational tool so as to afford the defendant an opportunity to conform with federal guidelines which require the individual states to remove those people from the public assistance rolls who are ineligible for said assistance." Further, we note the assertion of the defendant, which does not appear to be denied, that the defendant's forms and program have been stated by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare not to be in conflict with federal regulations.

Suspension notices were mailed to the relatives if the Springfield Office of the Illinois Department did not receive the form 43a within the specified time period.

The suspension notice, which was a followup of the original request, reads as follows:

"This is to inform you that the Department of Public Aid, Springfield, will suspend your assistance/food stamp benefits under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program because you failed to return the Income Report Form, DPA 43a, mailed to you on

"The Department of Public Aid will not take action to suspend your assistance/food stamp benefits if you will return Illinois Department of Public Aid Income Report Form DPA 43a in the enclosed envelope within 15 days of the date of this notice. If you have lost the card, complete the reverse side of this Notice and return this Notice.

"If you believe our intended action is wrong, you may, if you wish, meet with a representative of the County Department/District Office to be further informed about our reasons for taking this action concerning your assistance/food stamp benefits. You will be given the opportunity to present any information or evidence which you believe might affect this decision. The meeting will be informal. If you wish, you may bring another person with you to assist you or to present information or evidence for you.

"Your right to appeal the Illinois Department of Public Aid\'s action, whether or not you meet with its representative, is not affected by your decision. At any time within 60 days after the date of this Notice, you have the right to appeal for a fair hearing to the Illinois Department of Public Aid. However, your assistance benefits may be continued at its present level if you appeal within 15 days of the date this Notice was mailed. Any County Department/District Office will provide you with the appeal form and will assist you in its completion if you wish."

It is asserted in the motion before the court that some 31,000 families are involved. However, it also appears in the file that some 86% of the recipients of the original notice have now complied with the requirement of furnishing the information on other income.¹ The principal thrust of the motion is that the form is vague and not understandable, which would seem to be belied by the substantial return, and that many of the recipients understand only the Spanish language and therefore were unable...