Search

From affidavits given this summer by plaintiffs in Capers v. Giuliani, a class-action suit filed by the New York Legal Assistance Group, the Welfare Law Center, and the National Employment [...]

In the fall of 1994 Congress amended the Social Security Act to clarify the circumstances under which a private plaintiff can bring a suit to enforce a provision of a state plan statute such as Medicaid under 42 U.S.C. [sections] 1983. In this amending provision, Congress stated that it overruled any reasoning on this issue applied by the Supreme Court in the 1992 Suter v. Artist M. decision but not in previous decisions. This legislation proved problematic to apply because a careful reading of Suter reveals no reasoning that was not applied in previous decisions. The Author addresses lower court decisions considering Suter both before and after the new legislation, concluding that courts should disregard the new legislation because applying it would require an incorrect interpretation of the Suter decision.

United States v. City of New York, 2d Cir., No. 02-6102, Feb. 13, 2004. Participants in a mandatory welfare-to-work program, who worked in exchange for cash payments, food stamps and [...]

TORONTO -- Ontario's spouse-in-the-house rule is unconstitutional, the Ontario Court of Appeal said in a ruling that recognizes receipt of social assistance as a prohibited ground of discrimination under the [...]