New York Dept. of Soc. Svcs. v. Dublino
413 U.S. 405 (1973)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

New York Dept. of Soc. Svcs. v. Dublino, 413 U.S. 405 (1973)

New York Department of Social Services v. Dublino

No. 72-792

Argued April 17-18, 1973

Decided June 21, 1973*

413 U.S. 405

Syllabus

The 1967 amendments to the Social Security Act included the Federal Work Incentive Program (WIN), designed to help individuals on welfare become wage-earning members of society. The States were required to incorporate this program into their Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) program, to provide that certain "employable" individuals, as a condition for receiving aid, shall register for manpower services, training, and employment. In 1971, New York enacted provisions of its Social Welfare Law, commonly referred to as the New York Work Rules, which similarly required cooperation by employable individuals to continue to receive assistance. Appellees, New York public assistance recipients subject to the Work Rules, challenge those Rules as having been preempted by the WIN provisions of the Social Security Act. The three-judge District Court ruled that, "for those in the AFDC program, WIN preempts the New York Work Rules."

Held:

1. The WIN provisions of the Social Security Act do not preempt the New York Work Rules of the New York Social Welfare Law. Pp. 413 U. S. 412-423.

(a) There is no substantial evidence that Congress intended, either expressly or impliedly, to preempt state work programs. More is required than the apparent comprehensiveness of the WIN legislation to show the "clear manifestation of [congressional] intention" that must exist before a federal statute is held "to supersede the exercise" of state action. Schwartz v. Texas,344 U. S. 199, 344 U. S. 202-203. Pp. 413 U. S. 412-417.

(b) Affirmative evidence exists to establish Congress' intention not to terminate all state work programs and foreclose future state cooperative programs: WIN is limited in scope and application;

Page 413 U. S. 406

it is a partial program, with state supplementation, as illustrated by New York; and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, responsible for administering the Social Security Act, has never considered WIN as preemptive. Pp. 413 U. S. 417-421.

(c) Where coordinate state and federal efforts exist within a complementary administrative framework in the pursuit of common purposes, as here, the case for federal preemption is not persuasive. Pp. 413 U. S. 421-422.

2. The question of whether some particular sections of the Work Rules might contravene the specific provisions of the Social Security Act is not resolved, but is remanded to the District Court for consideration. Pp. 413 U. S. 422 423.

348 F.Supp. 290, reversed and remanded.

POWELL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and DOUGLAS, STEWART, WHITE, BLACKMUN, and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined. MARSHALL, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BRENNAN, J., joined, post, p. 413 U. S. 423.

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.