Strong v. Collatos, 78-1315

• Decision Date: 09 March 1979
• Docket Number: No. 78-1315,78-1315
• Parties: Danny STRONG, etc., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles N. COLLATOS, etc., Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

Page 420

593 F.2d 420

Danny STRONG, etc., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles N. COLLATOS, etc., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 78-1315.

United States Court of Appeals First Circuit.

Argued Nov. 8, 1978.

Decided March 9, 1979.

Louis A. Rizoli, Asst. Atty. Gen., Boston, Mass., with whom Francis X. Bellotti, Atty. Gen., Boston, Mass., was on brief, for appellant.

Jim Hammerschmith, Northampton, Mass., for appellee.

Before COFFIN, Chief Judge, CAMPBELL and BOWNES, Circuit Judges.

BOWNES, Circuit Judge.

This appeal involves the constitutionality of a Massachusetts durational residency requirement for veterans' welfare benefits. The district court held unconstitutional that portion of Massachusetts General Laws, ch. 115 § 5, which denies certain veterans' welfare benefits to residents of the Commonwealth who have not resided there for at least three years preceding their application for such benefits. ¹ We affirm.

Appellee Danny Strong served in the United States Army from November 1967, until December, 1973, when he received an honorable discharge. He resided in Vermont after his discharge until he moved to Massachusetts in August, 1974. In January, 1977, he was discharged from his job at the National Felt Company in Easthampton. The Massachusetts Department of Employment Security denied him unemployment benefits because it determined he was terminated for cause. Pending appeal of that decision, he applied for benefits under the Massachusetts Veterans' Services Program (MVSP). These were denied because he was found ineligible since he did not meet the three year durational residency requirement of Mass.Gen.Laws Anno. ch. 115 § 5. He then filed the present action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. ²

The district court after certifying the suit as a class action, declared the durational residency requirement of Mass.Gen.Laws ch. 115 § 5 violated the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution and enjoined the officials administering the MVSP from denying otherwise eligible applicants benefits under the statute.

Mass.Gen.Laws ch. 115 § 5 is part of a comprehensive program designed to help needy veterans and their dependents. ³ The MVSP provides for public assistance payments to needy veterans and their dependents. It is administered by the individual cities and towns of the Commonwealth under the supervision of the Massachusetts Commissioner of Veterans Services. Benefits under the program are paid by the cities and towns which receive a reimbursement of 50% From the state. The residency requirement obviously creates two classes of needy veterans indistinguishable from each other except that the first is composed of veterans who have resided in Massachusetts for three years or more, and, the second, of veterans who have resided there for less than three years. Appellees claim that the denial of assistance to veterans with less than three years residence in Massachusetts constitutes an invidious discrimination which serves no compelling governmental interest and, thus, denies them equal protection of the laws. We agree.

In Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1969), the Supreme Court found that a durational residency requirement for welfare applicants denied "welfare aid upon which may depend the ability of the families to obtain the very means to subsist food, shelter, and other necessities of life." Id. at 627, 89 S.Ct. at 1327. The Court held "But in moving from State to State or to the District of Columbia appellees were exercising a constitutional right, and any classification which serves to penalize the exercise of that right unless, shown to be necessary to promote a Compelling governmental interest, is unconstitutional." Id. at 634, 89 S.Ct. at 1331.

Mass.Gen.Laws ch. 115 § 5 provides for payments to veterans or their dependents "as may be necessary to afford him sufficient relief or support." "The phrase obviously includes at least 'food, shelter and necessities to a needy family.' " Selectmen of Sterling v. Governor, 2 Mass.App. 597 317 N.E.2d 209, 211 (1974), Aff'd sub nom. Board of Selectmen of Sterling v. The Governor, et al., 334 N.E.2d 50, 368 Mass. 814 (1975). ⁴

Appellants' primary position is that the statute is part of a unique and elaborate state program of benefits to veterans reflecting a legitimate desire to reward Massachusetts citizens who have served their country in the armed forces. They urge that, since the program is a reward to a certain finite group, it is distinguishable from the Shapiro type of benefits which are needed for the basic necessities of life.

This argument simply does not wash. It has been stipulated that appellee, because he was single and had no dependents, was ineligible for any other program of public assistance at the time the complaint was brought. Since he had no income from January 8, 1977, until mid-July, 1977, when he obtained temporary employment through the CETA Programs, the Veterans' Services Program was appellee's only source of subsistence aid.

It is difficult to understand how these benefits are in any meaningful way distinguishable from the welfare aid involved in Shapiro. Nor can we conceive why veterans who have served the entire United States, including Massachusetts, are made worthier by waiting three years to become eligible for the benefits. The reward, we assume, is for serving in the armed forces, not for living in Massachusetts. A three-judge court from this circuit covered essentially the same ground in Stevens v. Campbell, 332 F.Supp. 102, 106 (D.C.Mass.1971):

What we have here is an attempt by Massachusetts to prefer its own residents to those of other states upon a time basis which is entirely arbitrary, and which at most could be said to have some relation to the prior contributions made by Massachusetts residents to the Commonwealth. But even if the time periods were not arbitrarily selected, it would not be constitutionally permissible for Massachusetts to make a right or privilege depend upon the mere fact that the recipient was one of Massachusetts' own people who presumptively had contributed his taxes or services to the Commonwealth. Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 632-633, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1969).

Appellants also argue that the statute encourages veterans from other states to move to Massachusetts and, thus, does not have a negative impact on the right of interstate travel. The three year residency requirement, they contend, therefore, only postpones the date of eligibility and is not a penalty on the right to freely travel from one state to another. This reasoning flies in the face of the two cases that have added strength and gloss to Shapiro. In Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 92 S.Ct. 995, 31 L.Ed.2d 274 (1972), the Court rebutted the argument that "durational residence requirements for voting neither seek to nor actually do deter such travel," Id. at 339, 92 S.Ct. at 1001, by pointing out:

This view represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the law. It is irrelevant whether disenfranchisement or denial of welfare is the more potent deterrent to travel. Shapiro did not rest upon a finding that denial of welfare actually deterred travel. Nor have other "right to travel" cases in this Court always relied on the presence of actual deterrence. In Shapiro we explicitly stated that the compelling-state-interest test would be triggered by "any classification which serves to penalize the exercise of that right (to travel) . . . ."

Id. at 339-40, 92 S.Ct. at 1001-2 (footnotes omitted). The Supreme Court in striking down...