Court cases related to work requirements for public assistance programs
From Ballotpedia
(Redirected from Court cases related to work requirements)
| Work requirements |
|---|
|
| • Index of articles • Major arguments for and against • Reform proposals •Medicaid work requirements • Public housing work requirements • Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) work requirements • Child care subsidy work requirements • Laws • Court cases • Scholarly work |
| Click here for more coverage of work requirements in public assistance programs on Ballotpedia |
The table on this page features major state and federal court cases related to work requirements for public assistance programs.
For more information about the main areas of inquiry and disagreement related to work requirements for public assistance programs, click here.
| Cases relevant to the nondelegation doctrine | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Case | Court | Year | Impact |
| Bread for the City, et al.v, v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, No. 16-5329 | United States District Court for the District of Columbia | 1904 | Denied a motion for a preliminary injunction regarding the U.S. Department of Agriculture's final work requirement rule in 2020. |
| Pearson v. State Social Welfare Board, 54 Cal.2d 184 | Supreme Court of California | 1960 | Held that the LA County Bureau of Public Assistance did not violate the equal protection clause of the federal and state constitutions by enforcing a rule that considered home valuation as income in determining need for old-age assistance. |
| Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 | U.S. Supreme Court | 1969 | Held that residency requirements for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) violated the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause. |
| Washington v. Legrant, 394 U.S. 618 | U.S. Supreme Court | 1969 | Held that residency requirements for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) violated the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause. |
| Reynolds v. Smith, 394 U.S. 618 | U.S. Supreme Court | 1969 | Held that residency requirements for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) violated the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause. |
| Wheeler v. Montgomery, 397 U.S. 280 | U.S. Supreme Court | 1970 | Held that California's welfare termination regulation which did not require notice and a hearing prior to ending welfare payments violated the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution |
| Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 | U.S. Supreme Court | 1971 | Held that states violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when they deny welfare benefits to those who are not U.S. citizens. |
| Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67 | U.S. Supreme Court | 1976 | Held that the residency requirement of the Social Security Act does not violate the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution |
| Stewart v. Azar, 366 F.Supp.3d 125 | United States District Court for the District of Columbia | 2018 | Asked the Department of Health and Human Services to reconsider the constitutionality of Kentucky's HEALTH waiver that creates work requirements for Medicaid. |
| District of Columbia, et al., v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, et al., 444 F.Supp.3d 1 | United States District Court for the District of Columbia | 2020 | Denied a motion for preliminary injunction regarding the U.S. Department of Agriculture's final work requirement rule in 2020. |
| Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco, Citation pending | U.S. Supreme Court | 2022 | Pending case on the U.S. Supreme Court's docket concerning whether or not states may implement Trump administration rule defining public charge as a noncitizen likely to need public benefits or public housing after the Biden administration declined to defend the rule in court and filed to dismiss all related cases. |
| Department of Homeland Security v. New York, Citation pending | U.S. Supreme Court | 2022 | Pending case on the U.S. Supreme Court's docket concerning the state of New York's challenge to a 2019 DHS notice that required adjudicators to predict whether noncitizens will be likely to become dependent on government assistance for over 12 months in a three-year period. |
| United States v. Vaello-Madero, Citation pending | U.S. Supreme Court | 2022 | Held that the U.S. Constitution does not require Congress to make Supplemental Social Security benefits available to residents of Puerto Rico. |
See also
- Areas of inquiry and disagreement related to work requirements for public assistance programs
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
- Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
- U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
- U.S. Department of Agriculture
External links
Footnotes
