Law for The Poor

Yale Law & Policy Review
Vol. 17:319, 1998
The staff and Board of Community Legal Services, Inc. of Philadelphia
(CLS) watched these developments with deep concern. CLS, then
approaching its thirtieth anniversary as the legal services provider for the
city of Philadelphia, had a distinguished history of aggressive and effective
advocacy on behalf of the indigent. In 1990, an article in the Hastings
Constitutional Law Quarterly reviewed litigation brought by legal services
programs and concluded that CLS was the most successful legal
services provider in the nation. 3
A significant amount of CLS's traditional work would have been prohibited
by the proposed restrictions. Moreover, CLS was still suffering
the aftermath of an unexpected loss of state funding in the summer of
1994, and had a significant longstanding budget deficit that had necessitated
office closings and staff reductions. Further funding cuts were unfathomable
in an organization already stretched far beyond its means.
However, in the summer of 1995, it became obvious that funding cuts
and the proposed congressional restrictions were virtually certain to be
imposed. In Philadelphia, federal funding was likely to be reduced to $2.4
million, a $1 million reduction. This was an enormous loss for a program
already struggling with a sizeable deficit and a total budget of only $7.5
million. By September 1995, the news from Washington legal services
lobbyists was clear: cuts and restrictions were inevitable, though the full
extent of the changes was still unknown.
Management at CLS quickly determined that the organization simply
could not accept federal money, which until that time had comprised
about 40% of CLS's budget, if doing so would prevent it from engaging
3. See 19 HASTINGS CONST. L.Q. 745, 773 (1992). For examples of successful litigation
brought or co-counseled by CLS, see Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521 (1990) (successful challenge
to federal regulations regarding eligibility of children with disabilities for supplemental
security income benefits); Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (1982) (establishing rights of institutionalized
persons to receive appropriate care); Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (1972)
(holding replevin with bond creditor procedures unconstitutional); Swarb v. Lennox, 405 U.S.
191 (1972) (holding confession of judgment unconstitutional); Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S.
365 (1971) (holding a citizenship requirement in a state welfare program unconstitutional);
Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) (holding that residency requirements for state welfare
programs are unconstitutional); Rosetti v. Shalala, 12 F.3d 1216 (3d Cir. 1993) (successful
challenge to Secretary of Health and Human Services' rules and policies for determining eligibility
for disability benefits of people infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV));
Robinson v. Block, 869 F.2d 202 (3d Cir. 1989) (upholding a challenge to a state's interpretation
of eligibility requirements for food stamp benefits); Kuehner v. Heckler, 778 F.2d 152 (3d Cir.
1985) (challenging the termination of payments to 500,000 Social Security and Supplemental
Security Income recipients across the country); Ferrell v. Pierce, 734 F.2d 454 (7th Cir. 1984)
(enjoining the implementation of a major change in the Department of Housing and Urban Development's
mortgage relief program); Finberg v. Sullivan, 634 F.2d 50 (3d Cir. 1980) (striking
down Pennsylvania rules that allowed creditors to seize consumers' bank accounts containing
social security benefits without notice); Bolden v. Pennsylvania State Police, 578 F.2d 912 (3d
Cir. 1978) (upholding a challenge to longstanding race discrimination in state police hiring and
promotion practices); and Pugh v. Holmes, 486 Pa. 272, 405 A.2d 897 (1979) (establishing an
implied warranty of habitability in residential leases).