|
|
United States Dept. Of Agriculture v. Murry, 413 U.S. 508 (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. Murry, 413 U.S. 508 (1973)
United States Dept. of Agriculture v. Murry No. 72-848 Argued April 23, 1973 Decided June 25, 1973 413 U.S. 508
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Syllabus
Appellees challenge the constitutionality of § 5(b) of the Food Stamp Act of 1964, as amended in 1971, providing that
[a]ny household which includes a member who has reached his eighteenth birthday and who is claimed as a dependent child for Federal income tax purposes by a taxpayer who is not a member of an eligible household, shall be ineligible to participate in any food stamp program . . . during the tax period such dependency is claimed and for a period of one year after the expiration of such tax period.
This provision was generated by congressional concern over nonneedy households participating in the food stamp program, and abuses of the program by "college students" and "children of wealthy parents." The District Court held the provision unconstitutional, finding that it went far beyond the congressional goal, and operated inflexibly to deny stamps to households, containing no college students, that had established clear eligibility for stamps and remained in dire need, only because a member of the household 18 years or older is claimed by someone as a tax dependent.
Held: The tax deduction taken for the benefit of the parent in a prior year is not a rational measure of the need of a different household with which the child of the tax deducting parent lives, and the administration of the Act allows no hearing to show that the tax deduction is irrelevant to the need of the household. Section 5(b) therefore violates due process. Pp. 511-514.
348 F.Supp. 242, affirmed.
DOUGLAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN, STEWART, WHITE, and MARSHALL, JJ., joined. STEWART, J., post, p. 514, and MARSHALL, J., post, p. 517, filed concurring opinions. BLACKMUN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 520. REHNQUIST, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BURGER, C.J., and POWELL, J., joined, post, p. 522.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," United States Dept. Of Agriculture v. Murry, 413 U.S. 508 (1973) in 413 U.S. 508 413 U.S. 509. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=MYHK8FDGTM564Y1.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." United States Dept. Of Agriculture v. Murry, 413 U.S. 508 (1973), in 413 U.S. 508, page 413 U.S. 509. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=MYHK8FDGTM564Y1.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in United States Dept. Of Agriculture v. Murry, 413 U.S. 508 (1973). cited in 1973, 413 U.S. 508, pp.413 U.S. 509. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=MYHK8FDGTM564Y1.
|