Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
No. 92-1764
JENNA SKIDGEL, ET AL.,
Plaintiff, Appellee,
v.
MAINE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Defendant, Appellee.
v.
LOUIS W. SULLIVAN,
Defendant, Appelllant.
No. 92-1824
JENNA SKIDGEL, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs, Appellees,
v.
MAINE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES
ROLLIN IVES,
Defendants, Appellants.
____________
ERRATA SHEET
5,
footnote
5,
line
5:
Change
"principle"
to
"principal".
Page 6,
"principal".
footnote
7,
line
2:
Change
"principle"
to
____________________
APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
____________________
[Hon. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Circuit Judge,
_____________
Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________
and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
_____________
____________________
__________________________
____________________
June 3, 1993
____________________
Dependent
conflicted
At
provisions
the Maine
decision of the
regarding Aid to
(AFDC),
upon
plain language
finding
of the
Families
that
they
Social Security
601 et seq.
__ ___
issue
of
the
602(a)(38), covering
and
and policies
Children
with the
Act, 42 U.S.C.
unit,1
certain regulations
with
42
is
the
Social
the
U.S.C.
application
Security
composition
607
of
Act,
of
the
(b)(1)(B)(iv),
two
42
distinct
U.S.C.
AFDC
filing
covering
the
____________________
1.
42 U.S.C.
deduction
of
payment,2 to
where
unemployment
a particular situation.
the principal
wage-earner
is
compensation
the
of
an
AFDC
in a
two-parent household
stepchild
from
the
and at least
principal
one child
earner.
The
42 U.S.C.
of a parent.3
Prior to the
____________________
2.
42 U.S.C.
607(b)(1)(B)(iv) provides,
unemployment of the
42 U.S.C.
606(a) provides:
principal
earner,
child[ren]
neither
the
principal
earner
nor
the
filing unit.
Pursuant
to HHS/DHS
policy and
regulations, once
the principal
earner becomes
rule requires
that the
common to both
parents be
well.4
inclusion is required
Such
are considered
included in the
dependent under
statute, 42 U.S.C.
filing
the child[ren]
filing unit,
as
a separate provision
of the
of the
____________________
equivalent
level
of vocational
or technical
training), if, before he attains age nineteen, he
may reasonably be expected to complete the program
of such secondary school (or such training)[.]
4. The Secretary's interpretation of the family filing rule
has been embodied in regulations and official transmissions.
See 45 C.F.R.
206.10(a)(1)(vii) which provides, in part,
___
that,
in order for the
family to be eligible, an
application with respect to a dependent child must
also include, if living in the same household and
otherwise eligible for assistance:
(A) Any natural or adoptive parent, or stepparent
(in the case of States with laws of general
applicability); and
(B)
Any
sister.
. . .
blood-related
or
adoptive
brother
or
See also SSA Transmittal 86-1 at 9 (Jan. 12, 1986) (on two___ ____
step process whereby application of family filing rule must
precede determination of need).
-44
parent
who
is
the principal
Secretary's interpretation
of
earner.5
According to
the
the family
filing rule,
the
42 U.S.C.
In
the
602(a)(38).
case
of
the
plaintiff
class,6
the
composed
family
233.20(a)(3)(ii)
filing
(B),
unit.
unemployment
to 45
compensation
C.F.R.
is
not
need, but
is deducted
from the
AFDC payment
after the
____________________
5.
42 U.S.C.
607(a) provides:
unemployment
interpretation
and
607(b)(1)(B)(iv).
compensation is
implementation
The
practical
of
result
This special
the
42
of
Secretary's
U.S.C.
the
HHS/DHS
45 C.F.R.
233.20(a)(3)(ii)(B) provides:
Plaintiffs
Rollin Ives,
Services,
payments
that
standards
going
third-party
this action
Commissioner of
arguing
statutory
brought
the
in
to members
against defendant
State
was
violating
determining
the
of their
class.
complaint against
amount
Louis Sullivan,
Ives
of Human
federal
of
AFDC
filed a
Secretary of
the United
States Department
of Health and
Human Services.
interpretations of both
602(a)(38),
compensation,
conflicted
Skidgel
_______
and
the
42
U.S.C.
with
v. Ives,
____
on the grounds
the plain
U.S.C.
regarding
unemployment
607(b)(1)(B)(iv),
impermissibly
meaning
No. 90-0209-B,
of
the statute.
slip op.
court ruled
The
(D. Me.
See
___
Jan. 2,
district court
See id. at
___ __
____________________
in the determination of need, the new filing unit initially
met the criteria for the maximum AFDC payment for a family of
five, $685.00.
Pursuant to regulations interpreting
607(b)(1)(B) (iv), the State then subtracted the amount of
unemployment compensation received by Mr. Blake, $498.80,
from the maximum AFDC payment of $685.00, to arrive at an
AFDC payment of $186.00.
Although the total level of
government income going to the family increased following Mr.
Blake's
unemployment,
the
AFDC
payment
decreased
considerably.
-77
7.
The
district
607(b)(1)(B)(iv),
court
by
its
express
determined
terms,
applies only
On
to
that
606(a).
a final
also
90-0209-B-H, slip
See Skidgel
___ _______
Mar. 23,
1992)
(final judgment).
Plaintiffs/appellees urge us to affirm the district
court's
decision.
district
court's
contravenes
the
Defendants/appellants
reading
of
very purpose
42
of
As
result of
children who
child provided
in
that
U.S.C.
the
the
the
602(a)(38)
rule, and
draws
meet the
607(a)
argue
district court's
an
607(a)
holding,
definition of
a dependent
included in
of federal
provided in
district court's
606(a) to be so included.
Section A 3.
reading of
With respect
607(b)(1)(B)(iv),
to
it is
defendants'
textual
position
that
the
court
failed
to
consider
602(a)(38).
-88
of the
district court.
I.
I.
Statutory and Regulatory Scheme
Statutory and Regulatory Scheme
_______________________________
AFDC
authorized
U.S.C.
is
by Title
601
cooperative
IV-A
et seq.
__ ___
of the
The
federal-state
Social
AFDC
program
Security Act,
program
42
provides cash
HHS.
We begin with a
brief explanation of
and
requirements,
needy.
The
U.S.C.
to
families
meeting
other
receiving AFDC
main statutory
602(a)(7),
agencies for
unit.
addition
which
assessing the
must
be financially
provision covering
provides
U.S.C.
602(a)(38),
resources must
42
state
a family
602(a)(8),
that may be
The family
establishes the
be considered
to
resources available to
need is
guidelines
whose
eligibility
filing
individuals
in determining
need in
-99
Financial
remaining after
the
State.
The
standard of
need
is "the
amount
deemed
Shea v.
____
States assign a
a family of four
Maine is calculated by
income,
other than
principal earner,
provide
253
the size of
An
AFDC payment in
U.S. 251,
standard according to
Vialpando, 416
_________
families with
the full
by a
standard
required
of need.
In
between
standard
of need.
the need
standard
without penalty.
and
the maximum
In other
payment
words, families
with
countable income below the need standard, but above the level
of payment paid by
the
instant
case
the maximum
of
the
operation
at 42 U.S.C.
of
the
602(a)(31).
principal
earner
the family
-1010
filing
unit
did
not
not then
statute.
See
___
dependent children
42 U.S.C.
for
the purposes
602(a)(38).
portion of
the
to the
For
many in
State, so that
of the
categories
current
of
AFDC
"dependent
statute
children":
provides
those
for
defined
two
in
607(a), who
of
the program
a parent's
606(a).
In the 1960's,
to include children
unemployment.
At
deprived
that time,
the
AFDC-UF, for
families who
Philbrook
_________
v.
Philbrook,
_________
Glodgett,
________
the
421
Supreme
U.S.
Court
707,
decided,
only to those
benefits.
See
___
711
(1975).
In
in
essence,
that
-1111
parents had
the choice
compensation or
the
Philbrook
_________
assure
that
of applying either
for AFDC.
decision,
unemployed
See
___
for unemployment
id. at 719.
__
Congress
parents
amended
would
In response to
the
seek
statute to
and
obtain
used
levels."
only
to
"supplement
UC
benefits
up to
AFDC-UF
Sess.
amendment
607(b)(1)(B)(iii)
was
and
the
predecessor
(iv).
See
Pub.
to
the
L.
current
No. 94-566,
The
___
507(a)(2), 90
U.S.C.
C.
C.
__
Stat. 2688
at 42
could
choose to
unit if
1983,
exclude household
those members
family's
had resources
members from
the filing
the
Secretary
of
HHS
proposed
an
amendment
the
In
"`to
must file
Bowen v.
_____
Gillard,
_______
U.S. 587,
592
(1986)
483
1984, Pub. L.
As part of the
-1212
Deficit Reduction
Congress amended
See 98
___
Stat.
1145
(1984)(codified,
602(a)(38)).
as
amended, at
42
U.S.C.
(1984)).
inclusion
Thus,
in the
the
amendment
family filing
sought to
unit of
compel
dependent children
enacted,
inclusion of
the
family
606(a)
filing
rule
the
required
When it
only
the
were deprived
-1313
due
to
the continuous
parent.
As part
amended
of the
602(a)(38)
1883(b)(2)(A)
entitled, "Technical
Programs,"
the
to
include
607(a).
of the
Report
of 1986,
children
who
Act).
Under a
AFDC and
accompanying
death of a
of a
Congress
meet
the
2085, 2917
subsection
Child Support
the
amendment
death
Corrections to
Senate
explained that no
incapacity or
to
conditions described in
(1986)
absence,
due
unemployment of a parent,
was intended.
therefore, de novo.
United States v. M.I.M., 932 F.2d 1016, 1019 (1st Cir. 1991).
_____________
______
See
___
428
(1st Cir.
1990) (questions
of law
decided by
a trial
____________________
9.
Id.
___
-1414
1.
1.
__
Background
Background
__________
We
begin
by
addressing
the
application of
the
class.
of
with respect
need
to
dependent child,
states
must
include
sister
any parent of a
if
described
section
such
brother
in clauses
607(a)."
(1) and
Id.
__
"meets
(2) of
Plaintiffs
any brother or
the
conditions
section 606(a)
challenge
the
or in
State's
filing
unit
because,
under
the
Secretary's
We
must
determine
what
referred
to
the
"conditions
Congress meant
described" in
it
607(a);
in
incorporate need as
included
when
respect to children
606(a), the
rule as
defined as
originally enacted,
607(a) children.
to be needy.
In so holding,
-1515
are first
of
children
without such a
Decision
at
as dependent
n.11.
The
district
placement
sections of
of
606(a)
the
and
word "needy"
607(a).
Both
606(a)
See Memorandum
___
court's
in
the
reason
for
children centered
in
the
sections
respective
begin
by
meets
607(a).
certain
conditions.
42
U.S.C.
606(a) and
that, because the word "needy" appears before clauses (1) and
(2) in
606(a),10 it is not to be
determination
under
607(a).11
basis
for
and
The
607
(a), by contrast,
the word
needy
the family
filing
placement of
what the
conditions specified in
rule
simply references
district court
found
was the
to be
sole
the plain
The
a
statute
needy child
begins, "[t]he
(1)
who
term
has been
We examine
the
place in
the
statutory
See
___
Conroy v.
______
Aniskoff, 61 U.S.L.W.
________
family
1993)
in
filing
(No.
statute
statutory
607(a) of
rule
91-1353)
in the
(citations omitted));
basis of
of
its
rule
March 31,
that
plain or
not,
depends
upon context."
context
(noting
is to be read as a
language,
the statute.
5 (1st Cir.
the language
of the
1991) (concluding on
statute as
read in
the
its purposes).
F.2d
325, 331
analysis after
A thorough
we
(1st
Cir.
1987) (applying
are charged
with
interpreting a
detailed
of the statute).
where, as here,
complex and
technical
contains
we
explain
below,
we
think
that
the
term
we
find
considerable
such
ambiguity
weight to
agency charged
the
in
607(a).
statute,
we
interpretation rendered
give
by the
See Evans,
___ _____
-1717
933
F.2d at
context of
its
7.
Our
examination
of the
language in
the
statutory
purpose
interpretation of
convinces
us
602(a) (38)(B) is
that
the Secretary's
See Chevron
___ _______
ambiguous with
for
if a statute
the court is
is silent or
is based on a
2.
2.
__
Ambiguity
Ambiguity
_________
of the terms
607(a),
Although the
it does
not
and thus to
necessarily follow
that
602(a)(38).
606(a)
"dependent
children"
who
may
receive AFDC
financially needy.
be
eligible
AFDC.
-1818
for
or family
rule has a
is
different
to which need
which
under
the unit
602(a)(7).
begins: "in
making
the rule,
the determination
under
As
AFDC purposes
the
family filing
for
the
to the assessment
purpose of
the
it
might
be reasonable
607(a).
to
presume
of the
when it
While in
that
refers to
all descriptive
terms contained
in that
By
interpretation does
not properly
account for,
and
function of the
-1919
Our examination of
the case
law interpreting
the
behind Congress'
607(a),
leads
interpretation
us
to
amendment
conclude that
is erroneous
and to
of the
rule
the
district
to add
court's
uphold
the Secretary's
context entails
policy.
Part of
reviewing
filing
the
rule to
case law
which
compel the
has
interpreted the
inclusion of
606(a).
family
non-needy children
Overwhelmingly, courts
See
___
See
___
Creaton
_______
v.
Bowen, 826
_____
F.2d 6
(9th
Cir. 1987);
in
a case
upholding
family
filing rule,
citing
to clear
the
593 n.5.
The Court
argument in
intent
unit.
to
the
a footnote,
include
non-needy
The Supreme
constitutionality of
dismissed the
legislative
Oliver v.
______
the rule
at
to
Id.
__
-2020
performed
Supp.
1529,
reference
1548
to the
family
1986),
Eighth Circuit's
F.2d at 513-516.
The
(W.D.N.Y.
and
Kirk, 633 F.
____
made
decision in
favorable
Gorrie, 809
______
express purpose
filing
in Gillard v.
_______
rule,
as
behind the
apparent
in
enactment of
the
Senate
the
Print
Part I,
families
i.e.,
Section C,
could exclude
children who
was to
children
were not
change the
who had
practice whereby
other
resources,
independently needy,
from the
(noting that
a supported
child
reading of
from the
filing
the cornerstone
the family
unit").
of the
filing rule
to
to
This
district
require the
at
1546.
It
the court
language of
by the placement
of the
The
detailed
analysis
corroborated
that
court's
-2121
initial
needy
filing unit.
F.2d at 513-16.
Unlike the
the
purpose
it
of
reading of
in the
context of the
court
would
have
continued to
perform
discovered
that the
rule, and
its
served by
its reading.
function
The
meaning that
family filing
the
rule to
607(a).
district
analysis,
district court in
rule.
detailed
legislative
in the
Like the
statutory
Supreme
children is that
We
from the
truncated reading
of
but proceed to
606(a).
The
word
"needy" appears
in
607(a), and
the
is offset
to
in
clauses
606(a) and
that do
not
the family
contain
filing rule
that
term.
The
rule in the
purpose,
-2222
and the
other
manner in which
interpreted.
In
cross-reference to a previously-
off in a
referenced section, a
need as one
of the
607(a) children?
First,
within the
intent to include
"conditions described" as
applied to
the
extent
that
the
issue
is
the
cited
applies to
Senate
this case.
Print
Moreover, in
accompanying
the
the
DEFRA
to be.
Namely, the
provision would
stepchildren.
C (citing S. Print
the
See
___
No. 98-169 at
980).
I,
Otherwise,
an inclusive
amendment
eligible
Second,
the
of 42
U.S.C.
under
Congressional
602(a)(38),
607(a), unambiguously
history
to include
See S. REP.
___
the
children
expresses Congress'
behind
eligible under
-2323
to
607(a)
intended
children in
to
create
no
stated that
it
distinction between
children
eligible under
607(a).
That
Congress
labeled
[c]orrection[]"
further
the
amendment
underscores
different
children.
of these
non-needy children
we note that
this matter of
difficult by the
has
within
a statute,
We deal
which
exclusion of
compelling
606(a).12
of the district
court,
statutory construction is
been enacted.
children in a
607(a), but
with a
has been
of
eligible under
against
categories
"[t]echnical
its intention
substantively
In
treatment
made
statute, and
a section
amended frequently,
and
amendment.
____________________
12. Plaintiffs note that the legislative history of the Tax
Reform Act, which amended the family filing rule to include
607(a) children, refers to
the required inclusion
of
dependent children.
From Congress' use
of the word
dependent, plaintiffs conclude that Congress meant to require
the inclusion of only needy
607(a) children.
The
legislative history of the DEFRA amendment which created the
original family filing rule covering
606(a) children,
however, similarly refers to the compelled inclusion of
dependent children.
As we have explained, the compelled
inclusion of
606(a) children has been upheld by other
federal courts.
Plaintiffs' argument, without more, does
nothing to advance a reasonable basis for treating
607(a)
children differently from
606(a) children.
-24-
24
As we observed
AFDC statute,
the provision
at issue
in this
case is
We
607(a)
children in
court
held
payments
that
by the
conflicted
with
607(b)(1)(B)(iv).
issue is
more difficult.
the
HHS/DHS
amount
of
the
plain
practice
the
of
reducing
stepparents'
meaning
Once again,
The district
of
the district
AFDC
unemployment
42
U.S.C.
court anchored
its
inquiry there.
The
court
determined
to
[a]
child .
specified
that
income
in [ 607(a)].'"
Memorandum Decision at 5.
by the
interpretation.
607(b)(1)(B)(iv)
reduction
of
First,
the
the
statute
court
ignored
actually
that
compels
the
-2525
or
__
relative
________
specified" in
607(a).
The
word "relative"
Second,
once
this language
is
placed in
the
reading
cannot be
reconciled with
For the
the family
filing rule.
we conclude that
deference to
607(b)(1)(B)(iv).
or relative
specified
in
607(a).
Turning
to
607(a), one
sees that
specified in
the
reference encompasses
606(a)(1) -- a
grandmother,
brother,
sister,
stepfather,
stepbrother,
or
42 U.S.C.
niece."
606(a).
plausible interpretation
of
relatives
stepmother,
Defendants argue
607(b)(1)(B)(iv)
that a
is that
to any
argument
that
intended
to represent
the
child.
607(b)(1)(B)(iv),
Plaintiffs offer a
relatives
listed
only the
Whether
Congress
co-resident relatives or to
relatives is,
AFDC
dependent
it
strong contrary
in
606(a)(1)
caretaker relatives
for
meant
the
to
purposes
provide
are
of the
of
list
of
arguably, ambiguous.
As we
explained supra,
_____
-2626
when we find
ambiguity we give
deference to the
considered
___ _____
Even were we to
to
the
meaning
of
the
problem
encounter
the
word
"relative,"
of conflict
rule
applies
establishes a
to
would still
the later-enacted
607(B)(1)(B)(iv)
children.
The
whereby need is
the anomalous
reading of
607(b)(1)(B)(iv)
practice of
proper
picture,
AFDC
and
payment.
arrive
To
at
assess
benefits
Adopting
would lead to
rule
calculated on
into the
607(a)
uniform system
with
we
need
based
and
determining
based on
on
one
another,
is
98-169
at 980) (noting
of the rule
is to
different provisions
are in tension, a
such provisions
See Atwell
___ ______
of the
same statutory
every effort to
so as
consistency and
to achieve
-2727
670
F.2d 272,
possible,
be construed to
(duty
provisions).
to
To
the potential
v. EPA,
___
achieve
reconciling
the fact
issue is one
to the meaning of a
policies).
809
at
proposing
(noting the
the legislation
for
best
U.S. at
U.S. 374,
is
of
followed
statute involves
Our
conclusion
Secretary was
in the
interpretations
that the
that has
the family
v. Shimer, 367
______
proposing
F.2d
conflicting
conflicting
buttressed by
of
the Secretary is
conflict.
administrative
(D.C. Cir.
United States
_____________
whenever a decision as
844, 871
harmonization
believe that
(1984) (citing
deference
600 F.2d
for undermining
filing rule, we
rule.
is
involved in
See Gorrie,
___ ______
Secretary's
involvement
in
the purpose
of establishing
rules about who must file together for AFDC); Bowen, 483 U.S.
_____
at 592, 593
n.5 (same);
creation
and thus
810 F.2d at
331
to
be in
a better
observe,
as did
the district
presented; namely,
the
court,
addressed the
application of
these
-2828
the Supreme
statute
courts
Congress
has
issue."
the
606(a) and
607(a) children.
Court explained
should
first
directly spoken
Chevron,
_______
particular situation of
seek
to
that in
to
the
construing a
ascertain
"whether
precise question
Although
In
at
we do not take
possible
scenarios
that might
arise
under
a statute,
we
believe
that
this
is a
case
explained in
in
which
is especially warranted.
implied delegation
deference to
F.2d at
the
As
331, "[a]n
everyday administration
special judicial
areas of the
of the
statute, implicates
law."
Cf. Drysdale
__ ________
to affect broad
v. Spirito, 689
_______
and "imbued
with
no
F.2d 252,
the issue is
administrative history
and
complexity").
The factors of ambiguity
statutory
provisions, and
arising
in
counsel
deference to
whether the
the
daily
in a statute, conflicting
a complex,
interstitial question
administration of
the Secretary.
We
Secretary's interpretation is
the
statute--all
must only
assess
permissible.
We
-2929
provisions,
The
while
doing violence
reading
607(b)(1)(B)(iv)
unemployment
Secretary
compensation
reasonably
treat
AFDC as
rather
than
to
to
require
from
the
effectuates
supplement
treating
neither individually.
the
the
AFDC
the will
as
In
deduction
of
payment,
the
of
to unemployment
two
rule.
Congress to
compensation,
alternative
forms
of
assistance.
At
oral
argument,
court and
reading,
children and
both
parties
highlighted
families
which
Under the
contain
of
district
both
607(a)
out that,
607(a) children.
by carving
effectively permits
while the
out two
one unit
units,
Defendants
the district
to receive
the maximum
the maximum
payment
of AFDC,
payment
of unemployment compensation.
Plaintiffs emphasized
and
607(a) children
composed only of
receive
606(a) children.
characterized
in the
supplement to
less
light of
its statutory
AFDC
than
Once AFDC is
purpose as
it is
apparent
-3030
of
going to a
606(a) family
plaintiff
dramatically
earner.
class,
following
The income
life
on families
circumstances
unemployment
of
in
changed
the principal
reduced by
received.
in the amount of
The impact
unemployment
on the families
in the
Maine treats
A.
maximum AFDC
earned by the
of
unemployment of
the standard
the principal
attain the
of countable income
See id.
___ __
to live at a
higher level of
HHS and DHS are charged with the difficult task of allocating
limited funds
believe
families. Overall, we
implications of
the Secretary's
construction given by
-3131
the
district court.
Reversed.
Reversed.
________
No costs.
No costs.
________
The
decision of the
district court is
-3232