LASCARIS, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES OF ONONDAGA COUNTY
v. SHIRLEY ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.
Argued December 18, 1974.
Decided March 19, 1975. *
[ Footnote * ] Together with No. 73-1095, Lavine, Commissioner, Department of Social Services of New York v. Shirley et al., also on appeal to the same court.
Amendment, subsequent to this Court's noting probable jurisdiction of appeal from judgment of three-judge District Court, of 402 (a) of Social Security Act resolves question below of conflict between 402 (a) and provision of New York Social Services Law requiring the recipient, as a condition of eligibility for benefits under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program, to cooperate to compel the absent parent to contribute to child's support.
365 F. Supp. 818, affirmed.
Alan W. Rubenstein argued the cause for appellants in both cases. With him on the briefs for appellant in No. 73-1095 were Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of New York, and Ruth Kessler Toch, Solicitor General. Philip C. Pinsky and John B. LaParo filed a brief for appellant in No. 73-1016.
Douglas A. Eldridge argued the cause pro hac vice for appellees in both cases. With him on the brief for appellee Stuck was Isadore Greenberg.Fn
Fn [420 U.S. 730, 730] Ronald A. Zumbrun filed a brief for the Pacific Legal Foundation as amicus curiae urging reversal in both cases. Evelle J. Younger, Attorney General, Elizabeth Palmer, Assistant Attorney General, and John J. Klee, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, filed a brief for the State of California as amicus curiae urging reversal in No. 73-1095. [420 U.S. 730, 731]
After our previous remand, 409 U.S. 1052 (1972), the three-judge District Court held that amended New York Social Services Law 101-a "engraft[ed] . . . a condition on to the Congressionally prescribed initial AFDC eligibility requirements or on to the grounds for discontinuance of benefits." 365 F. Supp. 818, 821 (1973). That condition, the court held, rendered the amended section invalid because in conflict with the Social Security Act, 402 (a), 42 U.S.C. 602 (a), insofar as it required recipient cooperation in a paternity or support action against an absent parent as a condition of eligibility for benefits under the program for Aid to Families with Dependent Children. On June 17, 1974, we noted probable jurisdiction of the appeals of the State and County Commissioners of Social Service, 417 U.S. 943 . Since that time, however, on January 4, 1975, Pub. L. 93-647, 88 Stat. 2359, amended 402 (a) of the Social Security Act expressly to resolve the conflict as to eligibility found by the three-judge District Court to exist between the federal and state laws. Amended 402 (a), like New York's amended 101-a, requires the recipient to cooperate to compel the absent parent to contribute to the support of the child.
[ Footnote * ] Pub. L. 93-647 provides that 402 (a), as amended, shall become effective on July 1, 1975. However, President Ford announced when he signed the law that he would propose changes to several sections, including the child-support provisions, during the early months of the 94th Congress, stating: