Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Rodriguez v. United States
169 F.3d 1342 (11th Cir. 1999) ; Clearinghouse Number: 52219
Description
Welfare Act Provisions Terminating Supplemental Security Income and Food Stamps to Some Legal Aliens Are Upheld
Abstract
Affirming, the Eleventh Circuit upheld a provision of the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 that
provides that only 14 specified categories of aliens remain
eligible for Supplemental Security Income , food stamps, or both.
Plaintiff-appellants, a class of poor, elderly, and disabled aliens
who were legally residing in Florida before the welfare act was
enacted and who do not fit within any of the eligible categories,
argued that the statute violated their Fifth Amendment right to
equal protection. After determining that Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S.
67 (1976), dictated the application of the rational basis test, the
district court concluded that the challenged provision was
constitutional and dismissed plaintiffs’ claim. On appeal,
plaintiff-appellants argued that the district court should have
applied a heightened level of scrutiny and that, even if the
rational basis test were applicable, the district court erred in
concluding that the provision satisfied that test. The court of
appeals determined that under Mathews the rational basis test was
appropriate for Fifth Amendment challenges to classification of
aliens. Rejecting plaintiff-appellants’ argument that cost
savings was not a legitimate interest for Congress to pursue under
its sovereign immigration power, the court held that
Congress’ decision to reduce the number of aliens eligible
for Supplemental Security Income and food stamps by providing that
only the aliens in the 14 categories specified in the challenged
provision were eligible for those benefits was rationally related
to the legitimate purpose of reducing the cost of those welfare
programs. None of the fourteen eligible categories Congress
established, nor imposing a cutoff date for eligibility within
those categories, was wholly irrational.
