Anderson v. Green

PETITIONER: Anderson, Director, California Department Of Social Services, et al.
RESPONDENT: Green et al.
LOCATION: U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico

DOCKET NO.: 94-197
DECIDED BY: Rehnquist Court (1986-2005)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

CITATION: 513 US 557 (1995)
ARGUED: Jan 17, 1995
DECIDED: Feb 22, 1995

ADVOCATES:
Kathleen M. Sullivan - on behalf of the Respondents
Theodore Garelis - on behalf of the Petitioners

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Anderson v. Green

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - January 17, 1995 in Anderson v. Green

William H. Rehnquist:

We'll hear argument now in Number 94-197, Eloise Anderson v. DeShawn Green, et al.--

Mr. Garelis.

Is that the correct pronunciation of your name?

Theodore Garelis:

Garelis, Your Honor.

William H. Rehnquist:

Garelis.

Mr. Garelis.

Theodore Garelis:

Thank you.

Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:

California is seeking review of the summary affirmance by the Ninth Circuit of an order granting a preliminary injunction.

That order was made by the district court in this matter.

California asks this Court to reverse the judgment of the Ninth Circuit and remand this case with instructions that the preliminary injunction be dissolved.

David H. Souter:

Would that make any difference?

Theodore Garelis:

Yes, it would.

David H. Souter:

What would you do if the injunction were dissolved?

Would you enforce the statute by restricting the benefits at the Oklahoma level?

Theodore Garelis:

At the moment, Your Honor, we could not do so.

As noted in our brief, California is restricted from implementing the statute until a Federal waiver, which was invalidated by the Ninth Circuit in a related Ninth Circuit case, is restored.

William H. Rehnquist:

Why is that, Mr. Garelis?

Theodore Garelis:

Because State law, the statute here in question, absolutely requires, by its own terms, that California have that waiver.

William H. Rehnquist:

Well, I realize it says it has to have the waiver.

I'm looking on page 3 of your brief--

Theodore Garelis:

Yes.

William H. Rehnquist:

--which sets forth... it says, this section shall not become operative until the date of approval by the United States Secretary of HHS.

I take it at one time the Secretary did approve--

Theodore Garelis:

Yes, Your Honor, the Secretary--

William H. Rehnquist:

--and so the thing became operative then.

Theodore Garelis:

--Yes, it did.

William H. Rehnquist:

Well, the statute doesn't say anything about becoming nonoperative if the approval is revoked, does it?

Theodore Garelis:

Well, the... no, it does not, that is true, but we hav always--

William H. Rehnquist:

Has it been construed by the California courts on that point?