The Role of the Courts in Securing Welfare Rights and ...

Welfare Law Centereligible under federal standards. 4 Federal regulations were used successfully in many cases toattack abusive eligibility verification practices and excessive applications process delays. 5 Needyfamilies could bring court cases based on federal AFDC law because the federal statute, 42 U.S.C.602 (a)(10), gave individuals an entitlement to aid and provided the federal matching funds toback up that entitlement. Of course, because the former AFDC program was a federal-stateprogram, states also had their own welfare statutes. However, litigation typically focused onenforcing federal requirements, rather than state law. 6 Generally federal courts were considered afriendlier forum than state courts, and there was a body of uniform federal law on whichadvocates could rely.The federal law establishing TANF, the block grant program that replaced AFDC,eliminates the federal guarantee of aid to individuals. 7 The federal law also gives states broaddiscretion to design welfare programs and at the same time limits that discretion in key areas,notably by requiring time limits on an individual’s receipt of federal aid and imposing strict workrequirements.In light of these changes in federal welfare law, a family’s rights to welfare benefits arenow defined under state law and individuals must look primarily to these state welfare laws,which vary from state to state, to determine the extent of their rights. In addition, in some stateswhich have delegated decisionmaking to localities, there may not even be state law to enforce.Advocates may have to explore local law.There has not yet been extensive litigation seeking to enforce state TANF laws, but thelitigation to date has primarily involved work program requirements and the fair hearings system(as to the latter see also the due process discussion, below). Examples of recent litigationenforcing state welfare laws (under both TANF and the former AFDC program) include thefollowing:TANF Litigation:Davila v. Hammons (New York). 8 This case is based on state welfare law and challengesNew York City’s practice of assigning recipients to unpaid workfare without doing an individualMay 1999⋅ 6 ⋅