Legal Services Challenges New Jersey Family Cap
This year, Legal Services of New Jersey failed in its attempt
to overturn New Jersey’s “Family Cap” provision. The “Family Cap” eliminates
increases in AFDC payments for additional children born to a recipient.
New Jersey implemented the cap to remove the perverse incentives for having
illegitimate children. However, Legal Services argued that the cap unconstitutionally
infringes upon a woman’s private procreative choices. They believed that
since a woman’s right to reproduce is constitutionally protected then it
is incumbent upon government to subsidize it. However, the court held that
a woman’s right to reproduce does not in any way entitle her to government
financial assistance.
See C.K. v. Shalala, 883 F. Supp. 991 (US Dist. Ct.) 1995
California’s Work Incentive Program Attacked as Illegal Experimentation
In 1993, the Western Center on Law and Poverty, an LSC grantee, challenged
California’s work incentive program on the grounds that it violated federal
laws against experimentation on human research subjects. The work program’s
goal was to encourage recipients to seek gainful employment by allowing
them to earn more money while reducing benefit levels 1.3% to make welfare
less attractive. Western Center lawyers argued that the work program was
illegal because it was an experiment that posed a danger to the physical,
mental or emotional well-being of the human participants and thus could
only be implemented with their written consent. The court rejected the
claim because the law against human experimentation was primarily designed
to protect individuals involved in medical experiments. Reductions in the
level of public assistance programs do not fall within the scope of that
prohibition.
See Beno v. Shalala, 853 F. Supp. 1195 (US Dist. Ct.) 1993
Wisconsin Program Attacked for Discouraging Migrant Recipients
In 1994, Legal Action of Wisconsin filed suit against the state for trying to discourage welfare recipients from migrating there to get higher benefits. Under Wisconsin’s two-tier assistance system, new arrivals receive benefits equal to those in their home state for the first six months. Studies indicate that at least 30% of Wisconsin welfare recipients move to the state to get higher benefits. The state pays $517 a month to a family of three which is considerably higher than neighboring states such as Illinois ($377) and Indiana ($288). Legal services says the cost-control program is unconstitutional because it prevents the poor from traveling freely.
See Rogers Worthington, “Study Finds Evidence Some
View Wisconsin As a Welfare Magnet,” Chicago Tribune, May 23, 1995,
p.4
Michigan Sued For Kicking Able-Bodied Adults Off Welfare
In 1991, several LSC grantees tried to prevent Michigan from removing
more than 80,000 able-bodied adults from its welfare rolls. Under the General
Assistance program, adults who were healthy and had no children received
$144 a month which was in addition to other welfare payments such as Food
Stamps. Legal services claimed that the state violated recipients’ due
process rights under the state constitution by not giving them adequate
notice of the impending changes. A state appeals court rejected the claim
because they saw no reason to interpret the state constitution more broadly
than the federal.
See Saxon v. Department of Social Services, 191 Mich. App. 689,
1991
Massachusetts Group Seeks Disability for Felon Serving Sentence
Western Massachusetts Legal Services sought social security benefits
for a convicted felon while he was still doing his time. Legal services
claimed that the government owed Felix Calaf disability benefits for the
last four months of his sentence because he spent it in a Home Electronic
Monitoring Program. They reasoned that a home monitoring program -- in
which Calaf was hooked to an electronic tether -- does not constitute confinement
as defined in social security regulations. These regulations specifically
prohibit assistance to individuals “confined in a jail, prison or
other penal institution.” The court rejected legal services claim because
he was not on parole and thus legally confined.
See Calaf v. Secretary of HHS (US Dist. Ct.) 1994
Legal Services Demands Disability for Habitual Criminal
In 1994, the Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago sued the federal
government demanding social security disability benefits for a man who
admitted to making a living from crime. Legal Aid’s client in the case,
one Jimmie Jones, freely admitted that he robbed people and stole cars
to support his $60 dollar a day drug habit. Jones, who had been arrested
more than 100 times in his life, also received welfare so that the money
he earned from theft apparently went solely to support his drug habit.
Nevertheless, Legal Assistance argued that even though Jones could support
himself through illegal “gainful activity,” he was still incapable of finding
legal gainful employment. The judge in the case ruled that if Jones could
make a living from a life of crime, he was certainly capable of earning
a living from legal employment.
See Jones v. Shalala, 21 F.3d 191 (US App. Ct.) 1994