Federally-funded legal services programs systematically violate their
mission to help the deserving poor by defending individuals who do not
merit taxpayer-funded assistance. The most glaring examples involve legal
services attorneys fighting for the rights of alcoholics to get Social
Security Disability pensions.
New York Legal Services Gets Alcoholic on Disability
In 1996, Neighborhood Legal Services of Buffalo, New York successfully
sued to get federal disability benefits for an alcoholic. The man in question,
David Reed, had been a chronic alcoholic since at least 1981. Reed applied
for Social Security Disability in 1990, citing his repeated failure to
stop drinking and complete alcohol detoxification programs. At the time
of his application, Reed was consuming three quarts of wine per day. He
was already receiving welfare from other sources. Federal officials denied
his application on the grounds that chronic alcoholism was not a sufficient
reason for getting disability. The government said that there had to be
another disabling physical or psychiatric condition. Other than alcoholism,
Reed did not have any other illnesses. Legal services, however, argued
that alcohol addiction is reason enough to be eligible for SSI. After more
than three years of litigation, a federal judge ruled for NLS. The judge
held that, “Since the inability to control drinking is itself a disabling
disease if it prevents the claimant from engaging in substantial gainful
activity,” Reed’s application should be approved.
See Reed v. Chater, 92-CV-863S, U.S. Dist. Ct., 1996
Bronx Legal Services Seeks Welfare for Healthy Beggar
In 1997, Bronx Legal Services attempted to get federal disability benefits
for a beggar on the grounds of alcoholism and debilitating illnesses. Miguel
Pena filed for Social Security Disability in 1992. Pena, who had not worked
since 1969, claimed he suffered from physical and mental handicaps including
alcoholism, arthritis and varicose veins which prevented him from getting
a job. Federal officials denied Pena’s application. They judged that his
alcoholism, as well as his relatively minor physical ailments, were not
severe enough to incapacitate him. In rejecting BLS’ claims, officials
were especially struck by Pena’s own admission that he spends a typical
day begging, picking up cans, mopping floors, visiting the beach and playing
pool at the local billiards hall. A federal judge upheld the decision ruling
that if he could go to the beach and play pool, he could find a job.
See Pena v. Chater, 968 F.Supp. 930, U.S. Dist. Ct., 1997
CRLA Defends Right of Illegal aliens to Federal Housing Aid
In 1996, California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA) sued the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for prohibiting illegal aliens from
receiving federal housing assistance. Pursuant to the federal 1980 Housing
and Community Development Act, HUD issued regulations in 1995 that restricted
federal housing aid to U.S. citizens and eligible aliens. However, CRLA
filed suit claiming that the regulation violated the constitutional rights
of citizens and legal aliens who lose assistance because they are living
with illegal aliens. A state district court rejected CRLA’s claim, ruling
that a regulation denying citizens the right to live with illegal aliens
did not violate anybody’s constitutional rights.
See Yolano-Donnelly Tenant Ass’n v. Cisneros, S-86-846, E.D.
Cal., 1996