Anderson v. Edwards, 514 U.S. 143, 5 (1995)

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

147

Cite as: 514 U. S. 143 (1995)

Opinion of the Court

of payment." 45 CFR 206.10(b)(5) (1993). The regulation at issue in this case—California's "non-sibling filing unit rule" (California Rule)—goes even further in this regard. It provides: "Two or more AUs in the same home shall be combined into one AU when . . . [t]here is only one [adult] caretaker relative." Cal. Dept. of Social Servs., Manual of Policies & Procedures 82-824.1.13, App. to Pet. for Cert. 52. In other words, the California Rule groups into a single AU all needy children who live in the same household, whether or not they are siblings, if there is only one adult caring for all of them.

The consolidation of two or more AU's into a single AU pursuant to the California Rule results in a decrease in the maximum per capita AFDC benefits for which the affected individuals are eligible. This occurs because, while California (like many States) increases the amount of assistance for each additional person added to an AU, the increase is not proportional. Thus, as the number of persons in the AU increases, the per capita payment to the AU decreases.1

1 Between July 1, 1989, and August 31, 1991, California adhered to the following schedule of maximum monthly AFDC payments:

Number of
persons in AU
Maximum aid
payment
Per capita
payment
1$ 341$341.00
2560280.00
3694231.33
4824206.00
5940188.00
61,057176.17
71,160165.71
81,265158.13
91,366151.78
10 or more1,468146.80

Joint Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment in No. CV-S 91 1473 (ED Cal.), p. 7 (Feb. 13, 1992). Cf. Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 471, 488 (1970) (reproducing similar Maryland schedule.) The current schedule is set forth in

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: October 4, 2007