Sterling v. Harris

• Decision Date: 05 October 1979
• Docket Number: 73 C 3070.,No. 73 C 2337,73 C 2337
• Parties: Thomas STERLING et al., Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Patricia R. HARRIS, Secretary of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Defendant. Charles Edward WILSON et al., Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Patricia R. HARRIS, Secretary of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

478 F. Supp. 1046

Thomas STERLING et al., Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Patricia R. HARRIS, Secretary of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Defendant.

Charles Edward WILSON et al., Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Patricia R. HARRIS, Secretary of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Defendant.

Nos. 73 C 2337, 73 C 3070.

United States District Court, N. D. Illinois, E. D.

October 5, 1979.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Thomas Grippando, James D. Weill, Legal Asst. Foundation, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs.

James R. Thompson, U. S. Atty., William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., c/o George L. Grumley, Chicago, Ill., for defendant Patricia R. Harris, Sec. of HEW.

ORDER

BUA, District Judge.

These consolidated cases are here on remand from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, where the plaintiffs successfully challenged a district court's dismissal of their complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Wilson v. Edelman, 542 F.2d 1260 (7th Cir. 1976). As noted by the court of appeals, jurisdiction over this matter arises under 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3). 542 F.2d at 1269. Before the court are the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment.

The plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of 42 U.S.C. § 1382(e)(1)(A)-(B).¹ These subsections, when read together, serve to exclude certain plaintiffs, who are aged, blind, and/or disabled individuals, from benefits received by other such individuals under the federally funded Supplemental Security Income Program (SSI), 42 U.S.C. § 1381 et seq. The plaintiffs claim that this exclusion constitutes a violation of their rights to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The facts of the two cases are undisputed. Plaintiffs represent two classes of individuals: residents of public mental health institutions between the ages of twenty-one and sixty-five (the Wilson plaintiffs) (No. 73 C 3070), and pretrial detainees (the Sterling plaintiffs) (No. 73 C 2337). The exclusion of these two groups from receipt of benefits is not directly stated in the statute. Instead, it arises from a series of related provisions.

I. THE PUBLIC MENTAL HEALTH INSTITUTION EXCLUSION

The statute provides initially that all aged, blind, or disabled individuals who are found to be eligible under the Act are entitled to receipt of SSI benefits paid by the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare. 42 U.S.C. § 1381a.² The exclusion at issue in the present case arises from two modifying provisions. The first of these provisions provides that inmates of public institutions are not eligible for SSI benefits. 42 U.S.C. § 1382(e)(1)(A). This general exclusion is then altered, however, by 42 U.S.C. § 1382(e)(1)(B), which provides a maximum $25 per month stipend to inmates of institutions that are eligible to receive payments on behalf of individuals under the Medical Assistance title (Medicaid).

The exclusion of the Wilson plaintiffs from the $25 per month living stipend results from this use of the Medicaid subchapter in determining eligibility for the SSI benefits. The Medicaid statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1396 et seq., while providing for payments to most public and private medical facilities, 42 U.S.C. § 1396d(a)(1)-(17), excludes from its coverage payments on behalf of an individual who is between the ages of twenty-one and sixty-five and who is a patient in a public institution for mental illness. 42 U.S.C. § 1396d(a)(16), (17)(A)-(B). Thus, the Wilson plaintiffs note that while needy aged, blind and disabled persons in institutions are ordinarily eligible to receive the $25 a month SSI benefit, their class has been excluded because the Medicaid eligibility scheme has been pyramided into the SSI statute. This exclusion is said to violate the equal protection clause.

A. The Appropriate Level of Review: The Three-Tier Approach

The Supreme Court has used a three-tier analysis in scrutinizing legislation that has created a classification that has served to exclude a certain group from its benefits. See L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law 1082 (1978). The usual form of review, the "rational relationship test" or "minimal scrutiny" analysis, requires only that the statute bear some rational or reasonable relation to a legitimate state interest. See, e. g., Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471, 90 S.Ct. 1153, 25 L.Ed.2d 491 (1970). If this test is employed, the defendant must show merely that "the distinctions that are drawn have `some relevance to the purpose for which the classification is made'." Rinaldi v. Yeager, 384 U.S. 305, 309, 86 S.Ct. 1497, 1500, 16 L.Ed.2d 577 (1966).

The second level of review frequently employed by the Court is the "strict scrutiny" test. If a suspect class, Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365, 91 S.Ct. 1848, 29 L.Ed.2d 534 (1971) (alienage); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967) (race); Oyama v. California, 332 U.S. 633, 68 S.Ct. 269, 92 L.Ed. 249 (1948) (national origin), or a fundamental interest, Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1969) (interstate travel); Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 86 S.Ct. 1079, 16 L.Ed.2d 169 (1966) (voting) is involved, the Court will require that a challenged statute be a necessary means of furthering a compelling state interest if it is to withstand an equal protection challenge. See San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 16, 93 S.Ct. 1278, 36 L.Ed.2d 16 (1973).

A third level of scrutiny, that of a heightened or intermediate judicial review has recently evolved. See Gunther, The Supreme Court, 1971 Term—Forward: In Search of Evolving Doctrine on a Changing Court: A Model for a Newer Equal Protection, 86 Harv.L.Rev. 1 (1972). This tier has been employed by the Court in scrutinizing legislation that serves to discriminate against groups that possess certain characteristics in common with the suspect groups. See L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law 1090. While the Court has been hesitant to recognize new suspect classifications, it has recognized instead certain "quasi-suspect" groups that will receive an intermediate level of judicial review. Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U.S. 762, 97 S.Ct. 1459, 52 L.Ed.2d 31 (1977) (illegitimacy); Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, 93 S.Ct. 1764, 36 L.Ed.2d 583 (1973) (sex). Under this level of scrutiny a classification "must serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to achievement of those objectives." Califano v. Webster, 430 U.S. 313, 316-17, 97 S.Ct. 1192, 1194, 51 L.Ed.2d 360 (1977). See Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 197, 97 S.Ct. 451, 50 L.Ed.2d 397 (1976).

Accordingly, the equal protection analysis here must begin with an analysis of the classification created by the statute and a determination of whether that classification discriminates on the basis of either suspect or quasi-suspect criteria.³ As recently noted by the Supreme Court, "proper classification for purposes of equal protection analysis is not an exact science, but scouting must begin with the statutory classification itself." Califano v. Boles, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 99 S.Ct. 2767, 2775, 61 L.Ed.2d 541 (1979).

B. The Statutory Classifications

The statute at issue in the present case creates three classifications: (1) age, and (2) residence in a public, (3) mental health hospital.

1. Age

Age classifications have not been recognized as suspect for purposes of equal protection analysis. Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307, 96 S.Ct. 2562, 49 L.Ed.2d 520 (1976); Trafelet v. Thompson, 594 F.2d 623 (7th Cir.) cert. docketed 48 U.S.L.W. 3001 (June 25, 1979). Thus, if, as the defendant claims, the classification in the present case is based on age alone, lower-tier scrutiny would apply, and the defendant would have to show merely a rational relationship between the classification and a legitimate state interest. See Murgia, supra.

There is certainly an age classification present here, for only those inmates of public mental health institutions who are between the ages of twenty-one and sixty-five are excluded from receipt of the SSI benefits. Age, however, is not the sole operative factor in this classification. Blind and disabled persons between the ages of twenty-one and sixty-five who do not reside in public mental hospitals are eligible to receive benefits under the statute. Thus, the statute discriminates on the basis of residence in a public mental health institution as well as age, and this court's analysis must continue on the basis of impact upon people residing in such institutions.

2. Residence in a public institution

The statute's distinction between residents of public and private institutions withstands equal protection scrutiny. Residence in a public institution has never been recognized as a classification that compels a heightened level of equal protection scrutiny, nor can this court discern any commonalities between this classification and those that have received such treatment. Thus, lower-tier "rational relation" scrutiny must be applied.

Since a classification that furthers any legitimate state purpose can survive lower-tier analysis, the public/private classification, by itself, must be upheld. The purpose for classifying according to public and private institutions is apparent in the statutory scheme. Congress recognized that most subsistence needs of public institution inmates were being met, and they were not in need of equal treatment under the full SSI benefits. 1972 U.S.Code Cong. and Admin. News. p. 4989 at 5136. Congress could well conclude that public institution inmates are receiving all of the funds from the public treasury to which they are entitled. See Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471, 90 S.Ct. 1153, 25 L.Ed.2d 491 (1970).

3. Mental illness

If the statute classified only according to age and residence in a public institution, it would merely have...