Federally-funded legal services programs in Michigan have been especially
active in trying to thwart Governor John Engler and the state legislatures’
efforts to reform welfare and cut excessive spending.
Opposes Kicking Able-Bodied Off Welfare
In 1991, legal services tried to stop the state from expelling 82,000
able-bodied adults from the welfare rolls. Confronted with an $800 million
budget deficit upon assuming office, Governor Engler asked the legislature
to abolish General Assistance (GA) payments for childless adults who are
physically able to work. General Assistance, targeted to individuals who
are otherwise unqualified for federal welfare, paid an average of $144
a month plus food stamps to recipients. However, lawyers from Michigan
Legal Services, Legal Aid of Western Michigan and Legal Services of Southeastern
Michigan argued that the cutoff was unconstitutional. Legal services claimed
that because the termination notices sent to GA recipients were supposedly
too confusing and inadequate, the state, by taking away their welfare,
illegally deprived recipients of their property under the Michigan constitution.
A state appeals court dismissed the argument ruling that the state did
give adequate notice. More importantly, the court also held that welfare
is not accorded the same legal protections as property under the state
or federal constitutions.
See Saxon v. Miller, 191 Mich. App. 689, 1991; “Court Upholds
a Welfare Cutoff,” The New York Times, November 9, 1991
Challenges Reduction in AFDC Benefits
In 1991, legal services sued the state for cutting AFDC benefits alleging
that the reductions violated federal laws guaranteeing minimal payment
levels. Governor Engler and the legislature reduced AFDC payments by 9.2%
as part of a general budget-cutting drive they implemented to cut the budget
deficit. However, legal services lawyers argued that Medicaid amendments
prohibited decreases in AFDC benefits beneath 1988 levels. However, a federal
court rejected the claim because the purpose of the Medicaid amendments
was not to prohibit states from cutting their AFDC benefits but to prevent
states from cutting AFDC to expressly fund Medicaid. The court determined
that Michigan was not violating this amendment because the cuts were instituted
to reduce the deficit and not to provide more money for Medicaid.
See Babbitt v. State of Michigan, 778 F. Supp. 941, US Dist.
Ct., 1991
Engler Official Ordered to Jail for Not Spending Money
For more than a year, Michigan Legal Services vigorously fought the
Engler Administration’s attempt to close down a state-funded mental health
clinic in Detroit. Engler sought to close the Lafayette Clinic in 1991
as part of his campaign to reduce spending. However, legal services in
conjunction with a labor union and mental health activists took the administration
to court claiming that they had no authority to take such action. The dispute
grew so acrimonious that at one point a judge ordered the Director
of the Mental Health Department, James Haveman, to jail for not spending
money to keep the clinic open. Haveman objected that he couldn’t spend
the money because Engler had vetoed clinic funding. Haveman refused to
show up in court and was never jailed. Eventually, a state appeals court
upheld Engler’s veto and the clinic was closed in October, 1992. The appeals
court also overturned the order to jail Haveman on account that he couldn’t
spend money that wasn’t there.
See “Temporary Injunction Ends,” UPI Regional News, October
16, 1992
Legal Services Participates in Prison Class Action Suit
Michigan Legal Services lawyers participated in a recently-settled lawsuit
against the state for failing to provide female prisoners legal representation
in child custody cases. From 1979 to 1993, the Department of Corrections
contracted with a non-LSC prison legal services group to provide female
inmates legal assistance in areas that included child custody disputes.
In November 1993, the state terminated the contract on the grounds that
it was unfair to spend money so prisoners can have free legal representation
while law-abiding Michiganders have no such right. In the lawsuit which
followed, Michigan Legal Services submitted an amicus curiae supporting
the idea that the state is constitutionally obligated to provide female
prisoners legal assistance in child custody disputes. A federal appeals
court rejected the argument ruling that the Constitution only mandates
legal assistance for prisoners in criminally-related cases; the Constitution
does not require the state to provide prisoners with lawyers in civil actions
such as custody disputes. The court concluded that “if the ordinary law-abiding
Michigander has no constitutional right ” to a lawyer in civil cases, then
neither does a convict.
See Glover v. Johnson, 75 F.3d 264, US App. Ct., 1996
Claims AFDC Recipients Can Quit Jobs and Still Get Welfare
In 1990, Legal Services of Eastern Michigan sued the federal government
and the state claiming that they wrongly terminated an AFDC recipient’s
benefits for quitting a job. The recipient in question, Tim Boettger, was
receiving AFDC benefits under the Work Incentive Program (WIN), a special
program to encourage recipients to seek and retain employment. On February
14, 1987, Boettger through his own efforts got a job and then voluntarily
quit two days later. The Michigan Department of Social Services then terminated
his benefits for three months for quitting without good cause. Legal services
argued that if Boettger got the job himself, he should be able to quit
when he wants. The federal appeals court, calling legal services arguments
“illogical” and “disingenuous,” rejected the claim ruling that the ability
of a recipient to terminate his employment and still receive AFDC totally
defeats the purpose of the WIN program.
See Boettger v. Bowen, 923 F.2d 1183, US App. Ct., 1991