Gardebring v. Jenkins

PETITIONER: Gardebring
RESPONDENT: Jenkins
LOCATION: Iowa District Court for Clinton County

DOCKET NO.: 86-978
DECIDED BY: Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

CITATION: 485 US 415 (1988)
ARGUED: Jan 13, 1988
DECIDED: Apr 19, 1988

ADVOCATES:
John L. Kirwin - on behalf of the Petitioners
Laurie N. Davison - on behalf of the Respondents
Paul J. Larkin, Jr. - on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, in support of Petitioner

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Gardebring v. Jenkins

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - January 13, 1988 in Gardebring v. Jenkins

Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - April 19, 1988 in Gardebring v. Jenkins

William H. Rehnquist:

The opinion of the Court in No. 86-978, Gardebring against Jenkins will be announced by Justice Stevens.

John Paul Stevens:

Under the Federal Statute authorizing aid to families with dependent children the receipt by a family of a large lump sum a non recurring payment, such a settlement of a personal injury case or something like that, will have an adverse effect on the family's eligibility for future payments.

In this case the respondents received such a payment and they used it to pay outstanding bills before they reported the receipt to the case worker or in charge of their case.

Then they learned for the first time that their eligibility for future benefits had been adversely affected.

They participated in a Federal action seeking a restoration of those benefits on the ground that the failure to tell them through an adequate notice of the consequences of receipt of such payment violated a regulation promulgated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services requiring the recipients and applicants for sucg benefits be given adequate information about conditions of eligibility.

The District Court and the Court of Appeals held that there was a violation of the regulation and granted respondents relief.

We have reviewed the case and the majority determined that regulation was not violated and therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

Justice O'Connor has filed an opinion which dissents in part from our conclusion and she has joined by Justice Brennan and partially by Justice Marshall.

Justice Kennedy has not taken any part in the consideration or decision of the case.