|
|
United States Dept. Of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528 (1973)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
United States Dept. Of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528 (1973)
United States Department of Agriculture v. Moreno No. 72-534 Argued April 23, 1973 Decided June 25, 1973 413 U.S. 528
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Syllabus
Section 3(e) of the Food Stamp Act of 1964, as amended in 1971, generally excludes from participation in the food stamp program any household containing an individual who is unrelated to any other household member. The Secretary of Agriculture issued regulations thereunder rendering ineligible for participation in the program any "household" whose members are not "all related to each other." Congress stated that the purposes of the Act were
to safeguard the health and wellbeing of the Nation’s population and raise levels of nutrition among low income households . . . [and] that increased utilization of food in establishing and maintaining adequate national levels of nutrition will promote the distribution . . . of our agricultural abundance and will strengthen cur agricultural economy. . . .
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.
Held: The legislative classification here involved cannot be sustained, the classification being clearly irrelevant to the stated purposes of the Act and not rationally furthering any other legitimate governmental interest. In practical operation, the Act excludes not those who are "likely to abuse the program," but, rather, only those who so desperately need aid that they cannot even afford to alter their living arrangements so as to retain their eligibility. Pp. 533-538. 345 F.Supp. 310, affirmed.
BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which DOUGLAS, STEWART, WHITE, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, and POWELL, JJ., joined. DOUGLAS J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 538. REHNQUIST, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BURGER, C.J., joined, post, p. 545.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," United States Dept. Of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528 (1973) in 413 U.S. 528 413 U.S. 529. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=4EUMBP8UWYRSFIM.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." United States Dept. Of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528 (1973), in 413 U.S. 528, page 413 U.S. 529. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=4EUMBP8UWYRSFIM.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in United States Dept. Of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528 (1973). cited in 1973, 413 U.S. 528, pp.413 U.S. 529. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=4EUMBP8UWYRSFIM.
|