- 9 -
is to be disregarded where the State agency having jurisdiction
has refused or failed to make the placement because it
disapproves what in a majority of other States would be
considered a “legitimate family living arrangement”. Neither
does the Court believe it has any proper standing to base its
decision on its disagreement with the State agency’s failure to
draw a compassionate distinction between the technical illegality
under Mississippi law of petitioner’s living arrangement with the
mother and the social benefit to be gained from providing
additional encouragement of his continued support and surrogate
fatherhood of the children.
Although respondent, in an effort to help petitioner,
suggested at trial that petitioner might be arguing the new
requirement is unconstitutional as applied to him because of its
interaction with Mississippi law and administrative practice,
petitioner has made no such argument. Neither the record in this
case nor the arguments of the parties provide any basis for an
inquiry by the Court into the issue of constitutionality. See
Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U.S. 288, 346-348 (1936) (Brandeis, J.,
concurring).
The Court is constrained to sustain respondent’s
determination that petitioner is not entitled to the earned
income credit for the year 2000.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011