Free Declaration - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

EXHIBIT 24 TO SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF ELLEN KATZ

Case 2:03-cv-02506-EHC

Document 138-10

Filed 03/10/2008

Page 1 of 8

/o.:db

>/LJ

ROBERT M. CHRIST, CLER

IN F UNITED STATES D I S T R I C T COURT Y
FOR TKE DISTRICT OF 0.9EffiN

QUIDING, et al,
I

Plaintf ffs,
vs

)

C I V I L NO. 81-251 PA

.
Defendants.

1

1
)

)

?ERyALVENT IN3UNCTIOPf

HEGSTROM, et al,

1
1

D e f e n d a n t s Leo Hegstrorn, Keith Putman, the Department of

Human Resources of the S t a t e of O r - o n ,

and the Adult 'and F d l y the
Departsent

Services

Division,

a

Division

of

of

Huma~b

I*

*
20
21

Resources are hereby p e r m a n e n t l y enjoined from implementing OAR
461-05-427.

cr any s i m i l a r rule, v h i c h would withhold benefits to
family u n i t ,
rather

an

entire

than

only t o a non-cocperating

individual, u n d e r the A i d t o OepenEent Children ( A X ) provisions

22

of the Social. Security A c t , 42 U.S.C.

5601, e t s e q .

23 24

T h e d e f e n d a n t s a r e charge6 vith the responsibility %or

e n s u r i n ~that the various public assistance proarms of the S t a t e

25
'

of O r e e n are operated in accord with applicable federal and
state

26

laws

and

regulations..

These

programs

include Aid
Page 2 of 8

to

Page Case 2:03-cv-02506-EHC Document 138-10 1 PERMANENT INJUNCTION

-

Filed 03/10/2008

.
#

'
3

Dependent Children

(AX) nd a

t h e Work

~ n c e n t i v e Program $601 e t s e q .

(WIN)

u n d e r the S o c i a l S e c u r i t y Act, 4 2 U . S . C .

The S o c i a l S e c u r i t y ' ~ c t , a t 42 U . S . C . provides cooperate

$ 6 0 2 ( a ) ( 1 9 ) (P),

that
with

if

an a p p l i c a n t o r r e c i p i e n t
WIN

for

PDC

fails to after

the

program,

that

person's

needs,

a p p r o p r i a t e due p r o c e s s , may b e removed from the g l a n t .

The same

s e c t i o n s p e c i f i c a l l y p r o v i d e s t h z t i n s u c h everit t h e n e e d s of t h e c h i l d r e n or other family members w i l l c o n t i n u e and w i l l b e pro-

9
10

tected.

"Each t i m e C o n g r e s s has amended t h e S o c i a l S e c u r i t y A c t

t o add new c o n d i t i o n s of e l i g i b i l i t y
v i d e d that i f a p a r e n t

. . . it has

expressly pro-

f a i l s t o comply w i t h t h e c o n d i t i o n t h e

*
I4

c h i l d r e n a r e n o t t o be p e n a l i z e d , b u t a r e t o r e c e i v e p r o t e c t i v e
-

payments

....

T h i s s p e c i f i c t a i l o r i n g of t h e c o n d i t i o n s t o

ptescrve t h e r i g h t s of needy c h i l d r e n i s s t r i k i n g l y a b s e n t from

the blunderbuss

approach

. . .

u n d e r which

a s s i s t a n c e t o the

. l6

e n t i r e f a m i l y i s t e r m i n a t e d i f the p a r e n t f a i l s t o appear
Rush v. Smith, 573 F2d 1

..

a m

118 (2nd Cir. 1978).

I n Rush,

-

the

C o u r t - of A p p e a l s found that t h e r e was a 'common s t a t u t e - t h a t t h e s i n OF t h e nother
20 21

law of t h e MIX

. . .

shall n o t be v i s i t e d

upon the c h i l d r e n .

',

1

I n August of 1981, t h e ADC p r o v i s i o n s

of t h e S o c i a l S e c u r i t y A c t were a g a i n e x t e n s i v e l y amended, but
C o n g r e s s c o n t i n u e d these p r o t e c t i o n s f o r t h e c h i l d r e n . The

22
.-

23

State,

throughout

this

czse.

conceded

that

the

24 ' ] s t a t u t e and c a s e l a w p r o t e c t t h e c h i l d r e n ,

and allow s a n c t i o n s However. effective the State October

25
26

'

only against
adopted

the

non-cooperating

person.

rules,

i n c l u d i n g OAR

461-05-427,

1 .

Page Case 2:03-cv-02506-EHC Document 138-10 2 PERMANENT INJUNCTION

-

Filed 03/10/2008

Page 3 of 8

,

I

1901. w h i c h w o u l d h a v e prevented opening o f the ADC grant for the
entire family o f applicants if the parent failed t o cooperate.
In the April 1981 hearing

in 'this case, this Court declined t o

issue a Restraining Order, although it found instances in which

5

the entire family had been improperly removed from the ADC grant,
b e c a u s e the C o u r t was assured by
were c o n t r a r y

6

the State ,that'such r m o v a l s

7
8

to law 2nd policy and that the State would take
instead the State claimed to h a v e federal Department of Eealth and

steps to m i n i m i z e such errors.
sought a d obtained from t h e

9
10

Human Services (EHS), which administers a e Social Security Act,

11 .
1.2

a Waiver, dated August

10,

1981, pursuant t o 42 U.S.C.

$1315.

The State claimed that this Waiver authorized

it to remove an

1 3

entire funily from an AIX: grant if the parent did not cooperate. The Court >as examined the Waiver and can not find ehak it proviEes authority t o remove the entire family from the A X grant in the event of the non-cooperation o f a parent.
.

14
15

1 6
17
1 8

- - ..

If RHS

had

wished

to

zttempt

t o waive

42 U . S o C .

4602(a)(19)(~), it should have done s o in a clear, unambiguous, declarative sentence, which identified the section t o b e waived.

20

The Waiver, however, is specific and names e a c h section of the
Act which it waives:

21
22

it does not name §602(a) (19)(P).

The C o u r t

cannot conclude t h a t HHS intended t o waive this section.
The Court, a l t h o u g h it finds that KHS is not a n e c e s s a q
party, finds that HHS is aware o f and h a s closely monitored both

23
24

25

this lawsuit and O r y o n ' s ADC and W I N programs.

Both HHS and the

26
Page

State of Oreaon were aware o f this case and the conceded law.

3 PERWNENT INJUNCTION Case 2:03-cv-02506-EHC Document 138-10

-

Filed 03/10/2008

Page 4 of 8

.

.

Under t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h i s C o u r t i s a d d i t i o n a l l y compelled

2

to

the

conclusion t h a t

a waiver of

t h e s e p r o t e c t i o n s was n o t

3
4 5
6

intended, and would h a v e r e q u i r e d p r e c i s e l a n g u a g e . Moreover, t h i s section.

it is u n c l e a r that HHS h a s the power t o waive

S e c t i o n 1315 r e q u i r e s t h a t a n y w a i v e r be l i k e l y t o I n t h e f a c e o f the

p r o n o t e t h e o b j e c t i v e s o f t h e A X program.

7

s p e c i f i c and c o n t i n u a l l y r e t a i n e d p r o t e c t i o n s o f §602(a)(19)(~), r e t a i n e d i n Con?ress1 r e c e n t e x t e n s i v e c h a n g e s i n t h e A c t , and %w

9

c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h a t e a c h c o u r t which h a s r e v i e w e d t h i s p r o v i s i o n of the A c t has found it t o b e " t h e common law" o f

10

the S o c i a l

11
12
13

S e c u r i t y Act and part of i t s e s s e n t i a l purposes, Rush v. S m i t h o
5 7 3 F.2d

110 (2nd C i r .

i978); A r m s t r o n g v. Candon.

4 5 1 P. Suppe
6 5 2 ( 4 t h Cir.

1148 (DOC. Ver.

1 9 7 8 ) ; Woolfolk v. Brown, 456 F.2d

'4

1 9 7 2 ) , c e r t . d e n . 409 U . S .
A - 2 d 849

-(Pa.

885 ( 1 9 7 2 ) : F r i t s c h v. Wohlgemuth. 3 7 8

IS

1977),

t h i s Court cannot

f i n d t h a t BES h a s t h e

I6
17
18

pover t o waive 9602(a)(19)(?).

The Rush case and t h e W m l f o l k case fron: the Second and

-

Fourth C i r c u i t s , r e s p e c t i v e l y ,

along

w i t h t h e A n n s t r o n q case,
the Supreme C o u r t

19
20

w h i c h i s . D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n Vermont,

and F i t s c h ,

of P e n n s y l v a n i a , a l l l o g i c a l l y and r a t i o n a l l y c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e purpose preclused and the specific language of

21 22

the
entire

Social
family

S e c u r i t y Ace unit f o r the

sanctioning

of

the

23

f a i l u r e o f o n e p a r e n t o r one c h i l d .

There has d e v e l o p e d i n t h e c a s e l a w , and i n the A c t , by
25
26
v i r t u e of Congress' nection with f a i l u r e t o c h a n g e it, a common l a w i n cona parent

t h e s t a t u t e t h a t the s i n s of

c a n n o t be

Page

4 - PERMANENT INJUNCTION Case 2:03-cv-02506-EHC Document 138-10

Filed 03/10/2008

Page 5 of 8

visited upon the child.
law.
'

That is an appropriate type of common

This Court has reservations about the authority o f the

Secretary to waive

the langiage engrafted o n the Act by

the

Courts, and believes that it is contrary to the purposes of the Act to grant such a waiver.
'

While $1315 does provide that all

portions of

6602 cah 'be waived,

a waiver of the particular

7

statute Involved, that is, $602(a)(19)( P ) , would n o t 'accomplish
the purpose the s t a t e seeks here, and is 'unnecessary to achieve

9
10

the State's intended purpose o f requiring non-exempt persons te
seek employment. The State rules would cut off completely the A D 6

11
12

benefits to innocent children and other family members who are othervise eligible for A i d to Dependent Children.

1 3

Persons who

are eligible

IS
l6
17

funds to sup&poW . themselves: o t h e w i s e they wouldn't be eliqible. It is appasene
ADC

for

benefits do not have

that this type of interpretation will r e s u l t in innocent persons

being subjected to severe hardship.
The

18. -. ..

State h a s

the

ability

to

protect

the

innocent

children with. payments. in spite of the fact that a non-working
20

parent lets the children dovn.
The State concedes. and the Court a g r e e s , t h a t it cannot

22

sanction the entire family of recipients.

It would be irrational

23

to punish the children of applicants while exempting those of recipients.

24
25

/////

26

/////
5 PERMANENT INJUNCTION Case 2:03-cv-02506-EHC Document 138-10

Page

-

Filed 03/10/2008

Page 6 of 8

*

1

The parties h a v e a g r e e d t h a t a permanent i n j u n c t i o n i s
appropriate a t t h i s time,

a n d that a l l t h e n e c e s s a r y f a c t s and

3
4
5

argument have been s u b m i t t e d to t h e C o u r t .

The need of members o f t h e p l a i n t i f f c l a s s , who would
o t h e r w i s e f a c e removal from or d e p r i v a t i o n of ADC g r a n t s needed for

6
7
8

their

survival,

after

O c t o b e r ' 1,

13er,

is

urgent

and

immediate.

The proposed S t a t e r u l e s would c o m p l e t e l y cut o f f ADC

h e n e f i t s t o c h i l d r e n i n need.

9
10
11
12

IT

IS

ORDERED

that

defendants

Leo B e g s t r o m ,

Keith

Putman, t h e Department o f Human Resources of the S t a t e o f Oregon,
and

t h e Adult and Fdmily ~ e n i ' c e s D i v i s i o n , Human R e s o u r c e s ; .&ttorneys, and and their

a Division of t h e
officer, agents, active

D e p ~ r t m e n t of

-

1 3
14

servants,

employees,

those p e r s o n s

in

c o n c e r t o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n with them who r e c e i v e a c t u a l n o t i c e of

15
16

t h e o r d e r by p e r s o n a l s e r v i c e o r o t h e n r i s e :

1.

May n o t

h p l e r n e n t OAR 461-05-427,

or any s i m i l a r

17
18

rule, which would withhold h e n e f i t s t o a n e n t i r e f a n i l y u n i t .
rather t h a n - o n l y .t o a n o n - c o o p e r a t i n g

i n d i v i d u a l , under t h e A i d
of
the Social S e c u r i t y

19
20
21

tb Dependent C h i l d r e n
Act,

(Am)

provisions

42 U.S.C.
2.

6601 e t s. w:
Shall f o r t h w i t h communicate t h e s u b s t a n c e o f
this
,

22

Permanent I n j u n c t i o n t o all r e l e v a n t and i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i e s .

-.

23
24
25
26
'

The requirement for security u n d e r Rule 65(c) i s waived,
d u e t o the indigency of

members of t h e class, and d u e t o t h e

n e p l i g i b l e c o s t s o r damages that may c o n c e i v a b l y be i n c u r r e d o r
suffered
6

by

any

party

who

is

found

to have

been

wrongfully

Page

Case 2:03-cv-02506-EHC

-

P E R M N E N T INJUNCTIobI

Document 138-10

Filed 03/10/2008

Page 7 of 8

enjoined or restrained. 1019 (E.D. W i s c .
(S.D.

Bartels v . Biernat, 405 F. Supp. 1012,

1975); Bass v. Richardson, 338 F. Supp. 478, 490
See - Wayne
Chemical,

N.Y.

1979).

I n c . v. C o l d u s Agency

Service C o r p . ,

567 P.2d 692, 701 (7th Cir. 1977).

Issued a t

/

o'clock 9 . m .

on

/

, 1981-

U n i t e d S t a t e s ~ i s t r i c tJudge

-

Page

7

PERMANENT INJUNCTION Case 2:03-cv-02506-EHC Document 138-10

-

Filed 03/10/2008

Page 8 of 8