William J. Brennan, Jr.

Name: Townsend v. Swank Alexander — Opinion of the Court
Author: William J. Brennan, Jr.

Townsend v. Swank Alexander — Opinion of the Court

Summary

“Townsend v. Swank Alexander — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by William J. Brennan, Jr.. It explores elements such as the Social Security Act, eligibility and program.

Quotes from Townsend v. Swank Alexander — Opinion of the Court (William J. Brennan, Jr.)

William J. Brennan, Jr., Townsend v. Swank Alexander — Opinion of the Court

“ The only discretion written into the statute permits a State to determine, 'in accordance with standards prescribed by the Secretary,' whether a particular student, without regard to whether his attendance is at a college or vocational school, is a student 'regularly attending' a bona fide school. [4] This particularization of the area of state authority is itself cogent evidence that Congress did not also authorize the States to limit eligibility to students attending vocational school. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William J. Brennan, Jr., Townsend v. Swank Alexander — Opinion of the Court

“ The majority justified the classification as designed to attain the twin goals of aiding needy children to become employable and self-sufficient, and of insuring fiscal integrity of the State's welfare program. We doubt the rationality of the classification as a means of furthering the goal of aiding needy children to become employable and self-sufficient; we are not told what basis in practical experience supports the proposition that children with a vocational training are more readily employable than children with a college education. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William J. Brennan, Jr., Townsend v. Swank Alexander — Opinion of the Court

“ Our examination of the legislative history has uncovered no evidence that Congress granted the asserted authority. On the contrary, we are persuaded that the history supports the conclusion that Congress meant to continue financial assistance for AFDC programs for the age group only in States that conformed their eligibility requirements to the federal eligibility standards.
Section 406 (a) (2) (B) makes dependent 18-20-year-olds eligible for benefits whether attending a college or university, or attending a course of vocational or technical training. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William J. Brennan, Jr., Townsend v. Swank Alexander — Opinion of the Court

“ Smith establishes that, at least in the absence of congressional authorization for the exclusion clearly evidenced from the Social Security Act or its legislative history, a state eligibility standard that excludes persons eligible for assistance, under federal AFDC standards violates the Social Security Act and is therefore invalid under the Supremacy Clause. We recognize that HEW regulations seem to imply that States may to some extent vary eligibility requirements from federal standards. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William J. Brennan, Jr., Townsend v. Swank Alexander — Opinion of the Court

“ The opinion concluded, however, that the classification could be reasonable in the context of a labor market in which 'the skills of manual laborers are in short supply,' because in such a market, 'as a means of utilizing limited state funds in an effort to channel persons into those employment positions for which the society has great need, the statutory discrimination between college students and post-high school vocational trainees is not purely arbitrary or invidious, but rather, a rational approach designed to correct a perceived problem.' 314 F.Supp., at 1091. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William J. Brennan, Jr., Townsend v. Swank Alexander — Opinion of the Court

“ Under the Illinois statute and regulation needy dependent children 18 through 20 years of age who attend high school or vocational training school are eligible for benefits under the federally assisted Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) program, 42 U.S.C. § 601 et seq., but such children who attend a college or university are not eligible. [2] Section 406 (a) (2) of the Social Security Act, on the other hand, defines 'dependent child' to include a child '. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William J. Brennan, Jr., Townsend v. Swank Alexander — Opinion of the Court

“ And a State's interest in preserving the fiscal integrity of its welfare program by economically allocating limited AFDC resources may not be protected by the device of adopting eligibility requirements restricting the class of children made eligible by federal standards. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William J. Brennan, Jr., Townsend v. Swank Alexander — Opinion of the Court

“ The Conference Report stated that the bill would 'eliminate the requirement that a needy child between 16 and 18 years of age must be regularly attending school in order to be eligible for aid to dependent children.' H.R.Conf.Rep. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William J. Brennan, Jr., Townsend v. Swank Alexander — Opinion of the Court

“ Any doubt must be resolved in favor of this construction to avoid the necessity of passing upon the equal protection issue. 'Congress is without power to enlist state cooperation in a joint federal-state program by legislation which authorizes the States to violate the Equal Protection Clause.' Shapiro v. ”

William J. Brennan, Jr.

Summary

Quotes from Townsend v. Swank Alexander — Opinion of the Court (William J. Brennan, Jr.)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature