Carleson v. Remillard

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Carleson v. Remillard (1972)
Syllabus
4572964Carleson v. Remillard — Syllabus1972
Court Documents
Concurring Opinion
Burger

Supreme Court of the United States

406 U.S. 598

Carleson, Director, Department of Social Welfare, et al.  v.  Remillard et al.

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

No. 70-250.  Argued: April 10, 1972 --- Decided: June 7, 1972

This is a class action for injunctive and declaratory relief by a child and mother whose husband is away from home on military duty, challenging the validity of California's Department of Social Welfare Regulation EAS § 42-350.11, pursuant to which they had been denied Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits. Though California incorporates in its AFDC eligibility provisions the "continued absence" concept of the Social Security Act, under which a dependent child "deprived of parental support... by reason of [a parent's] continued absence from the home," is deemed eligible for AFDC benefits, EAS § 42-350.11 excludes absence because of military service from the definition of "continued absence." The District Court granted the relief sought.

Held: Section 402 (a)(10) of the Social Security Act imposes on each State participating in the AFDC program the requirement that benefits "shall be furnished with reasonable promptness to all eligible individuals." Under the Act the eligibility criterion of "continued absence" of a parent from the home means that the parent may be absent for any reason. Consequently, that criterion applies to one who is absent by reason of military service, and California's definition is invalid under the Supremacy Clause. Pp. 600-604.

325 F. Supp. 1272, affirmed.


DOUGLAS, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. BURGER, C. J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 604.


Jay S. Linderman, Deputy Attorney General of California, argued the cause for appellants. With him on the brief was Evelle J. Younger, Attorney General.

Carmen L. Massey, by appointment of the Court, 405 U.S. 951, argued the cause and filed a brief for appellees pro hac vice.

Solicitor General Griswold and Richard B. Stone filed a brief for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal.