U.S. Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528

Supreme Court of the United States

1973

Chapter

5

Title

Equality and the Constitution

Page

495

Topic

Equal Protection Methodology:  Rational Basis Review

Quick Notes

A provision in the food stamp program excluded any household containing an individual who was unrelated to any other members of the household.  One Pl had a daughter with an acute hearing deficiency who required special schooling located in an area she could not afford.  So she moved in with another lady.  Since she was not related to the other lady, she was threatened with termination of food stamps assistance.  She was otherwise eligible for the Food Stamp Program except for the fact that she was living with an unrelated person.  She claimed the provision was a violation of the 5th Amendment.  A lower court held the provision unconstitutional, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (D) appealed

Rule

o         Intent to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest.

Court Cannot be sustained

o         For if the constitutional conception of "equal protection of the laws" means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest.

Book Name

Constitutional Law : Stone, Seidman, Sunstein, Tushnet.  ISBN:  978-0-7355-7719-0

Issue

o         Whether a participation in the food stamp program CAN be denied to an otherwise eligible household that contains an individual who is unrelated to any other member of the household?  No.

Procedure

Trial

o         The district court held that the "unrelated person" provision of 7 U.S.C.S. § 2012(e) created an irrational classification in violation of the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Supreme

o         Affirmed. 

Facts

Discussion

Key Phrases

Rules

Pl -   Agriculture

Df -  Moreno

Food Stamp Act of 1964

o         Section 3(e) of the Food Stamp Act of 1964, as amended in 1971, generally excludes from participation in the food stamp program any household containing an individual who is unrelated to any other household member.

Individuals that brought Suit

o         One Pl had a daughter with an acute hearing deficiency who required special schooling located in an area she could not afford.

o         So she moved in with another lady.

o         Since she was not related to the other lady, she was threatened with termination of food stamps assistance.

Justice Brennan

Classification must be rationally related to legitimate government interest

o         Under traditional equal protection analysis, a legislative classification must be sustained if the classification itself is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest.

History Raise Nutrition and Increase Utilization

o         The act was the policy of Congress to raise levels of nutrition among low-income households and increase utilization of food so as to strengthen our agricultural economy.

o         The classification excluding households with nonrelatives is clearly irrelevant to the statutes purposes.

To be sustained

o         The challenged classification MUST rationally further some legitimate governmental interest other than those specifically stated in the act.

Not must history To prevent hippie communities

o         To prevent hippie communities from participating in the food stamp program.

Court Cannot be sustained

o         For if the constitutional conception of "equal protection of the laws" means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest.

Rule

o         Intent to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest.

DISSENT Justice Rehnquist, Chief Justice Burger

o         This unit provides a guarantee which is NOT provided by households containing unrelated individuals that the household exists for some purpose other than to collect federal food stamps.

o         He is more concerned about Fraud.  People might be arranging their family units to obtain food stamps.

Rules

Rule

o         Intent to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest.

Class Notes

Disadvantage to unpopular group without reason = rational basis with a bite

What is the classification?

o         Unrelated vs. related households.

How are these two groups involved being treated differently?

o         Unrelated households ineligible for food stamps (this is a federal issue, thus 5th amendment)

Presume rational basis (non-suspect class + non-fundamental right)

o         TEST the classification must (1) be rationally related (ie, means prong) to a (2) legitimate government (ie purpose prong)

Page 496

Court says it is unconstitutional

o         Legislative history (looking for purpose)  Page 496.

o    Increase utilization of food and nutrition.  Possible 3rd objective Did not want hippy and hippy communes from benefiting.

§  Means not rationally related to the purpose.  You need food/nutrition if you live in a unrelated or related household.

§  The bear desire to harm a politically unpopular group (hippies) is not a legitimate concern.

o         Just to exclude somebody because they are icky, is not  justification.

         Disadvantage to unpopular group without reason = rational basis with a bite

o    Give us a reason why you are singling out unrelated households.

o    Not liking a group of people is not a valid purpose.