Bowen v. Gilliard

1987-06-25

Headline: Federal welfare rule upheld: Congress may require families to include parents and siblings and count child support as income, allowing states to reduce AFDC benefits for households with supported children.

Holding: The Court ruled that Congress may require families seeking AFDC to include parents and minor siblings living together and count assigned child support as family income, and that the 1984 amendment does not violate the Fifth Amendment.

Real World Impact:

Lets states count child support as household income for AFDC eligibility.
May reduce monthly AFDC payments for families with children receiving support.
Contributed to some noncustodial parents stopping payments or custody changes.

Topics: welfare eligibility, child support, family living arrangements, government budgeting

Summary

Background

The dispute involved needy families receiving AFDC benefits and the Secretary of Health and Human Services after Congress passed the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984. That law required parents and minor siblings living together to be included in an AFDC filing unit and made child support part of family income, while remitting the first $50 of collected support to the family. The District Court struck down the change as a violation of the Fifth Amendment’s due process and takings protections after evidence that some families lost income and some noncustodial parents stopped payments.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court applied a deferential, rational-basis review used for large federal benefit programs. It held Congress had a reasonable interest in saving money (the Senate estimated roughly $455 million in near-term savings) and in fairly allocating limited funds among needy families. The Court rejected heightened scrutiny of the rule about family living arrangements and found no unconstitutional taking, applying the usual Penn Central factors and noting mitigations such as the $50 remittance and the State’s enforcement role. The Court reversed the District Court’s judgment.

Real world impact

The ruling lets states and the federal AFDC program count child support as household income and include resident parents and siblings when computing benefits, which can reduce or change monthly payments for affected families. The opinion relied on evidence that some noncustodial parents stopped payments and that some families rearranged custody to preserve support, showing concrete effects on family finances and relationships.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Brennan (joined by Justice Marshall and echoed by Justice Blackmun) dissented, arguing the law forced children to choose between parents, deeply intruded on parent-child bonds, and required more than mere rational-basis review.