Carleson v. Remillard

PETITIONER: Carleson
RESPONDENT: Remillard
LOCATION: Circuit Court of Cook County, Juvenile Division

DOCKET NO.: 70-250
DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1972-1975)
LOWER COURT:

CITATION: 406 US 598 (1972)
ARGUED: Apr 10, 1972
DECIDED: Jun 07, 1972

ADVOCATES:
Carmen L. Massey - for appellees, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court
Jay S. Linderman - for appellants

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Carleson v. Remillard

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - April 10, 1972 in Carleson v. Remillard

Warren E. Burger:

We'll hear arguments next in 70-250, Carleson against Remillard.

Mr. Linderman, you may proceed whenever you are ready.

Jay S. Linderman:

Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.

This case presents the question of whether the Social Security Act requires California to grant welfare benefits to children whose fathers are out of the home on active duty in the military service.

Specifically, the question is whether under Title IV of the Social Security Act, the Aid to Families with Dependant Children Program, a military orphan who is otherwise needy, in other words, the income standards of the family are sufficiently well that they qualify under the state standard, need standard, whether that child is “dependent child” under Section 406 (a) of the Federal Act.

William O. Douglas:

Is the entire group excluded or just the case by case, child by child?

Jay S. Linderman:

The entire group of military orphans, Your Honor?

William O. Douglas:

Yes.

Jay S. Linderman:

Servicemen children?

The entire group is excluded, as are the children of a father who is employed, away from home in a civilian capacity.

In other words, the exclusion under the California statute or regulation is that if there is a breadwinner in the family but out of the home, the child, be it a military or civilian employment situation, the child is ineligible.

Potter Stewart:

This is true regardless of whether or not the father was drafted or volunteered, and regardless to the nature of his service and regardless to his rank or grade.

Jay S. Linderman:

That's correct, Your Honor.

Warren E. Burger:

Now.

Let me ask --

Harry A. Blackmun:

And regardless of whether he is sending any part of his income home and regardless of whether he is a Prisoner of War?

Jay S. Linderman:

The assumption, Your Honor, is that the child is needy where he maybe sending some money home, but it's inadequate in terms of the need standards under California law.

Warren E. Burger:

But would it be difficult, would it be impossible or very difficult for California to determine how much of an allotment of a drafted man in confinement to that, a drafted man in the service, how much he is sending home on the allotment and then at least gives the benefits to the extent of the difference.

Would that be administratively a difficult thing to do?

Jay S. Linderman:

Is Your Honor's question the administrative burden?

Warren E. Burger:

Yes.

Jay S. Linderman:

I am not certain that I can answer it.

I assume it would be relatively difficult in that presumably there would be a fluctuating amount of income.

Warren E. Burger:

Well, not if he is a lower class that is in the first few grades, there is a fixed allotment sent home?

Jay S. Linderman:

There is, but then the question is that the state would have to ascertain on a month-by-month basis that in fact that amount did get there, so that I believe the answer to Your Honor's question in terms of the administrative effort is that it would have to be an ongoing month-to-month determination or verification of the precise amount that did actually end up in the hands of the family.

William J. Brennan, Jr.:

Well, Mr. Linderman, I gather that under the California practice, where the absence is due to imprisonment or medical treatment or parental separation, that inquiry is made on an individual basis, isn't it?

Jay S. Linderman:

That's correct.

William J. Brennan, Jr.:

Well then what's the distinction between those classifications and this across the board as applied to children of fathers absent on military orders?

Jay S. Linderman:

The distinction I believe, Your Honor, is that California concedes in the instances that you have mentioned that the federal law requires the granting of assistance.

We view or acknowledge that the situation of an imprisoned father or a deported father or dissolution of the marriage and so on that, that type of child is clearly within the scope and purpose of the Social Security Act.