Van Lare v. Hurley

Background

Three women receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) in New York had their separate monthly shelter allowance reduced after unrelated, nonlegally-responsible lodgers moved in. New York regulations treated such lodgers as income for the household and cut shelter payments pro rata if a lodger paid less than $15 per month. The recipients sued, arguing the rule conflicted with federal AFDC law and a federal Health, Education, and Welfare regulation that requires actual proof of contributions before counting another person’s income.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether New York could reduce a family’s shelter allowance merely because a nonpaying lodger lived in the home. Relying on earlier decisions and the federal implementing rule (45 CFR §233.90(a)), the Court held that states cannot assume nonlegally-responsible people will support welfare children. New York’s automatic pro rata cuts treated the lodger’s presence as proof of contribution without verifying any actual payment. Because that practice conflicts with federal law and regulation, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals and declared the state rule invalid.

Real world impact

The decision prevents New York from cutting AFDC shelter payments solely because someone not legally obliged to support the family lives there. Families will keep their full shelter allowance unless the State can show the lodger actually contributes money. The Court did not decide the recipients’ separate constitutional claims, and one lower-court judgment was vacated as moot.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Rehnquist dissented, arguing the New York rule did not conflict with federal law and that the Court should have addressed the constitutional issues.