California Department of Human Resources Development v. Java

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
California Department of Human Resources Development v. Java
Syllabus
942654California Department of Human Resources Development v. Java — Syllabus
Court Documents

United States Supreme Court

402 U.S. 121

California Department of Human Resources Development et al.  v.  Java et al.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California

No. 507.  Argued: February 24, 1971 --- Decided: April 26, 1971

Section 303 (a)(1) of the Social Security Act requires a method of administration "reasonably calculated to insure full payment of unemployment compensation when due." In light of the intent of Congress to make payments available at the earliest stage of unemployment as is administratively feasible, in order to provide a substitute for wages, the language "when due" must be construed to mean when benefits are allowed as a result of a hearing of which both parties have notice and at which they are permitted to present their respective positions. California's initial interview provides such a hearing and accordingly enforcement of § 1335 of the California Unemployment Insurance Code, providing for the withholding of insurance benefits upon an employer's appeal from the initial eligibility determination, must be enjoined because it conflicts with the requirement of § 303 (a)(1) of the Social Security Act. Pp. 124-135.

317 F. Supp. 875, affirmed.


BURGER, C.J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. DOUGLAS, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 135.


Asher Rubin, Deputy Attorney General of California, argued the cause for appellants. With him on the brief was Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General.

Stephen P. Berzon argued the cause for appellees pro hac vice. With him on the brief was Kenneth F. Phillips.

Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed by Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Gray, Robert V. Zener, and Peter G. Nash for the United States; by Duke W. Dunbar, Attorney General, John P. Moore, Deputy Attorney General, and Robert L. Harris, Assistant Attorney General, for the State of Colorado; by Robert M. Robson, Attorney General, and R. LaVar Marsh, Assistant Attorney General, for the State of Idaho; by Francis B. Burch, Attorney General, and Louis B. Price, Special Assistant Attorney General, for the State of Maryland, joined by the State of Illinois; by Warren E. Rudman, Attorney General, and William F. Cann, Deputy Attorney General, for the State of New Hampshire, joined by David M. Pack, Attorney General, and Lance D. Evans, Assistant Attorney General, for the State of Tennessee; by Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General, Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Assistant Attorney General, and Brenda Soloff, Assistant Attorney General, for the State of New York; by Paul W. Brown, Attorney General, and Franklin R. Wright, Assistant Attorney General, for the State of Ohio; and by Willard Z. Carr, Jr., for the Southern California Edison Co. et al.

Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed by C. Lyonel Jones, Ed J. Polk, Don B. Kates, Jr., and Joseph A. Matera for California Rural Legal Assistance et al.; by J. Albert Woll, Laurence Gold, and Thomas E. Harris for American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations; by Stephen I. Schlossberg, John A. Fillion, and Jordan Rossen for the International Union, UAW; and by the Employment Project, Center on Social Welfare Policy and Law.

Notes[edit]

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).

Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse