Petry v. Block, Nos. 82-1804

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
Writing for the CourtBefore GINSBURG and SCALIA; PER CURIAM
Citation697 F.2d 1169,225 U.S. App. D.C. 279
PartiesJoanna PETRY, et al. v. John BLOCK, Secretary of Agriculture, et al., Appellants. Joanna PETRY, et al. v. John BLOCK, Secretary of Agriculture, et al., Appellants. Joanna PETRY, et al., Appellants, v. John BLOCK, Secretary of Agriculture, et al.
Decision Date21 January 1983
Docket Number82-1840 and 82-1884,Nos. 82-1804

Page 1169

697 F.2d 1169
225 U.S.App.D.C. 279
Joanna PETRY, et al.
v.
John BLOCK, Secretary of Agriculture, et al., Appellants.
Joanna PETRY, et al.
v.
John BLOCK, Secretary of Agriculture, et al., Appellants.
Joanna PETRY, et al., Appellants,
v.
John BLOCK, Secretary of Agriculture, et al.
Nos. 82-1804, 82-1840 and 82-1884.
United States Court of Appeals,
District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Dec. 2, 1982.
Decided Jan. 21, 1983.

Nicholas S. Zeppos, Atty., Dept. of Justice, with whom Stanley S. Harris, U.S. Atty., and Leonard Schaitman, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellants in 82-1804 and 82-1840, and cross-appellees in 82-1884.

Kathleen A. McKee, Alexandria, Va., for appellees in 82-1804 and 82-1840, and cross-appellants in 82-1884.

Barbara Milstein, Washington, D.C., was on the brief for amici curiae, urging affirmance.

Page 1170

Before GINSBURG and SCALIA, Circuit Judges, and GESELL, * Judge, United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

Opinion PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM:

The Secretary of Agriculture appeals a preliminary injunction ordered by the District Court setting aside an interim regulation promulgated by the Secretary pursuant to a recent amendment to the Department's Child Care Food Program (CCFP). See 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1766 et seq. (1976). The sole issue on appeal is whether the District Court misinterpreted the meaning and effect of the amendment in setting aside the regulation.

The CCFP provides financial assistance to the states for meals served to children in day care homes. Under implementing regulations each day care home receiving assistance must have a sponsoring organization to supervise the home and assist in the administration of the CCFP. The sponsoring organizations are in turn reimbursed out of CCFP funds for administrative expenses incurred in supervising the day care homes. See 7 C.F.R. Sec. 226 et seq. (1982). Appellees/cross-appellants are various individuals and organizations who participate in the CCFP in several states.

In 1981, concerned with the rapid increases in the level of federal spending, Congress passed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act ("OBRA"), reducing the expenditures of a variety of federal programs. Pub.L. 97-35, 95 Stat. 357 (Aug. 13, 1981). Included in OBRA were amendments to the CCFP. These amendments ordered the Secretary to reduce federal expenditures for the CCFP. Specifically, section 810(d)(3)(B) of OBRA (codified at 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1766(f)(3)(B) (West Supp.1982)) provides:

Family or group day care home sponsoring organizations shall also receive reimbursement for their administrative expenses in amounts not exceeding the maximum allowable levels prescribed by the Secretary. Such levels shall be adjusted July 1 of each year to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index for all items for the most recent 12-month period for which such data are available. The maximum allowable levels for administrative expense payments, as in effect as of the date of the enactment of this subparagraph, shall be adjusted by the Secretary so as to achieve a 10 percent reduction in the total amount of reimbursement provided to institutions for such administrative expenses. In making the reduction required...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • Alcaraz v. Block, Nos. 83-2137
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • November 2, 1984
    ...--- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 719, 79 L.Ed.2d 181 (1984), in the face of "rapid increases" in federal spending, Petry v. Block, 697 F.2d 1169, 1170 (D.C.Cir.1983), Congress so amended many program eligibility requirements. OBRA section 820 authorized the Secretary to promulgate regulat......
  • Petit v. U.S. Dept. of Educ., Civil Action No. 07-1583(RMU).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • September 29, 2008
    ...in the enactment process ... have no probative weight and represent only the personal views of the legislator." Petry v. Block, 697 F.2d 1169, 1171 (D.C.Cir.1983). Therefore, the court disregards Senator Gregg's statements concerning the proper interpretation of the 2004 amendment. Fur......
  • American Cetacean Society v. Baldridge, Civ. A. No. 84-3414.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • March 5, 1985
    ...the intent of the lawmakers. United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 580, 101 S.Ct. 2524, 2527, 69 L.Ed.2d 246 (1981); Petry v. Block, 697 F.2d 1169 (D.C.Cir.1983). Because the phrase which triggers certification is not clearly defined in either statute, the Court will look to the legislat......
  • West Virginia Ass'n of Community Health Centers, Inc. v. Heckler, No. 83-2113
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • May 18, 1984
    ...sections of U.S.Code), a statute which has not infrequently been at issue in recent federal litigation. See, e.g., Petry v. Block, 697 F.2d 1169 (D.C.Cir.1983) (per curiam); Ambach v. Bell, 686 F.2d 974 (D.C.Cir.1982) (per curiam). Under the PCBG statute, participating States receive a bloc......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • Alcaraz v. Block, Nos. 83-2137
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • November 2, 1984
    ...--- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 719, 79 L.Ed.2d 181 (1984), in the face of "rapid increases" in federal spending, Petry v. Block, 697 F.2d 1169, 1170 (D.C.Cir.1983), Congress so amended many program eligibility requirements. OBRA section 820 authorized the Secretary to promulgate regulat......
  • Petit v. U.S. Dept. of Educ., Civil Action No. 07-1583(RMU).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • September 29, 2008
    ...in the enactment process ... have no probative weight and represent only the personal views of the legislator." Petry v. Block, 697 F.2d 1169, 1171 (D.C.Cir.1983). Therefore, the court disregards Senator Gregg's statements concerning the proper interpretation of the 2004 amendment. Fur......
  • American Cetacean Society v. Baldridge, Civ. A. No. 84-3414.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • March 5, 1985
    ...the intent of the lawmakers. United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 580, 101 S.Ct. 2524, 2527, 69 L.Ed.2d 246 (1981); Petry v. Block, 697 F.2d 1169 (D.C.Cir.1983). Because the phrase which triggers certification is not clearly defined in either statute, the Court will look to the legislat......
  • West Virginia Ass'n of Community Health Centers, Inc. v. Heckler, No. 83-2113
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • May 18, 1984
    ...sections of U.S.Code), a statute which has not infrequently been at issue in recent federal litigation. See, e.g., Petry v. Block, 697 F.2d 1169 (D.C.Cir.1983) (per curiam); Ambach v. Bell, 686 F.2d 974 (D.C.Cir.1982) (per curiam). Under the PCBG statute, participating States receive a bloc......
  • 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