Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1973

United States Department of Agriculture v. Moreno

413 U.S. 528 | 93 S. Ct. 2821 | 37 L. Ed. 2d 782 | 1973 U.S. LEXIS 33

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that even under rational-basis review, Congress may not deny food assistance to households with unrelated members based on hostility toward an unpopular group or on an anti-fraud rationale the classification does not rationally serve.

Background

The Food Stamp Act provided assistance to low-income households so they could buy a nutritionally adequate diet. Eligibility was determined by household, based on shared living arrangements, common cooking facilities, and common food purchases. In 1971, Congress amended the Act to exclude, with limited exceptions, households containing a person unrelated to the other household members.

The appellees were indigent people who shared homes and expenses with unrelated persons for practical and humane reasons. Jacinta Moreno, a diabetic woman living on public assistance, lived with a woman who helped care for her and that woman's children. Other appellees shared housing to care for a child, assist a troubled young person, or reduce housing costs. Each household otherwise met the program's financial requirements but lost or faced losing food-stamp eligibility solely because it included an unrelated member.

The appellees brought a class action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against enforcement of the statutory provision and implementing regulations. A three-judge District Court held that the unrelated-person classification violated the equal-protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction and affirmed.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the Food Stamp Act's exclusion of otherwise eligible households containing unrelated persons violated the equal-protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.

Holding

Yes. The classification was not rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest and therefore violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.

Reasoning

Although the Fifth Amendment does not contain an Equal Protection Clause, its Due Process Clause forbids federal discrimination so unjustifiable that it violates due process. Under ordinary equal-protection review, a statutory classification must bear a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental interest.

The Act's stated purposes were to alleviate hunger and malnutrition among low-income households and to promote beneficial distribution of agricultural surpluses. Whether the members of an economically unified household were related had no connection to either their nutritional needs or their ability to purchase food and thereby advance the Act's agricultural objectives.

The limited legislative history showed that the 1971 amendment was aimed at excluding so-called hippies and hippie communes. A bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group is not a legitimate governmental interest. Equal protection means, at a minimum, that Congress may not impose a disadvantage solely because it dislikes the group affected.

The Government argued that the classification could deter fraud and discourage voluntary poverty. But the Act already directly addressed those concerns: it denied benefits to many able-bodied adults who refused available work and imposed criminal penalties for fraudulent acquisition or use of food stamps. Those targeted provisions undermined the claim that excluding all mixed unrelated households was a rational means of addressing the same problems.

Even accepting the Government's assumption that unrelated households might sometimes be more difficult to monitor, the blanket exclusion did not operate rationally to prevent fraud. Two unrelated people could preserve eligibility by changing their living arrangements enough to become separate households, while those too poor to afford separate arrangements remained excluded. The provision therefore burdened needy people who shared homes out of necessity rather than reliably identifying households formed to abuse the program.

The Court emphasized that rational-basis review does not demand mathematical precision. But this line was more than imperfectly drawn: it was wholly disconnected from the asserted anti-fraud objective and from the program's stated purposes. The Court therefore affirmed the District Court's invalidation of the unrelated-person provision.

Concurrences

Justice Douglas

Reasoning

Justice Douglas agreed that the provision was unconstitutional, but he relied on a more demanding framework than the majority. In his view, the law burdened the First Amendment freedom of association by penalizing impoverished people who chose to live together for mutual care, companionship, and survival.

The provision did not simply define a traditional family unit for benefit purposes. It allowed eligible individuals to live alone and allowed some nontraditional relationships to qualify, yet it penalized needy families or individuals who invited an unrelated needy person into the home. It thus discouraged poor people from joining together to confront hunger and poverty.

Because the restriction affected associational rights, Justice Douglas would subject it to the closest scrutiny and require a compelling governmental interest. Fraud prevention and fiscal concerns could be legitimate objectives, but the government could not pursue them through an invidious and broadly drawn distinction between related and unrelated needy households.

If Congress sought to prevent genuine abuses associated with communal living arrangements, it had to use a narrowly tailored measure aimed at those abuses. The blanket exclusion swept in people such as Moreno and the other appellees, whose living arrangements reflected mutual aid rather than fraud.

Dissents

Justice Rehnquist

Reasoning

Justice Rehnquist, joined by Chief Justice Burger, would have upheld the statute under ordinary rational-basis review. He maintained that the Court had improperly treated a debatable policy judgment as though it were a constitutional defect.

Congress could reasonably decide that the family-like household of related persons was the basic unit it wished to support through federal food-stamp funding. A related household supplied some assurance that the household existed for reasons other than obtaining subsidized food, an assurance Congress could conclude was weaker when unrelated persons pooled resources.

The classification was admittedly blunt and underinclusive: it would deny benefits to many innocent households and would not eliminate every household formed to exploit the program. But rational-basis review does not require precision or the best possible fit. Congress could reasonably conclude that the rule would deter abuse by at least a substantial portion of the relevant class.

In Justice Rehnquist's view, the food-stamp program was not intended to subsidize every person seeking low-cost food. The unfortunate consequences of Congress's chosen limitation were matters for legislative correction, not grounds for judicial invalidation where a conceivable rational basis supported the line Congress drew.