UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE V. MORENO
413 U.S. 528 (1973)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This case requires us to consider the constitutionality of 3(e) of
the Food Stamp Act of 1964, which, with certain exceptions, excludes from participation in
the food stamp program any household containing an individual who is unrelated to any other
member of the household. Section 3(e) creates two classes of persons for food stamp
purposes: one class is composed of those individuals who live in households all of whose
members are related to one another, and the other class consists of those individuals who
live in households containing one or more members who are unrelated to the rest.
FACTS: The federal food stamp program was established in 1964 and in January, 1971,
Congress redefined the term 'household' so as to include only groups of related individuals.
The Secretary of Agriculture promulgated regulations rendering ineligible for participation
in the program any 'household' whose members are not 'all related to each other.' Appellee
Jacinta Moreno, for example, is a 56-year-old diabetic who lives with Ermina Sanchez and the
latter's three children. They share common living expenses, and Mrs. Sanchez helps to care
for appellee. Appellee's monthly income, derived from public assistance, is $75; Mrs.
Sanchez receives $133 per month from public assistance. The household pays $135 per month
for rent, gas, and electricity, of which appellee pays $50. Appellee spends $10 per month
for transportation to a hospital for regular visits, and $5 per month for laundry. That
leaves her $10 per month for food and other necessities. Appellee has been denied federal
food assistance solely because she is unrelated to the other members of her household. Mrs.
Sanchez and her three children were permitted to purchase $108 worth of food stamps per
month for $18, their participation in the program will be terminated if appellee Moreno
continues to live with them. The District Court held, that the 'unrelated person' provision
of 3(e) creates an irrational classification in violation of the equal protection
component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment