A State public school taxing system that results in interdistrict spending disparities among local school districts is consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause as long as the system satisfies the rational basis standard of review and is, thus, rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest.
Individuals have a statutorily granted property right in Social Security benefits, and the termination of such benefits implicates due process but does not require a pre-termination hearing.
Because the right to marry is of fundamental importance, it is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendmen for a state law to bar marriage by noncustodial parents unless a court order finds that the child support is not in arrears and that the child(ren) will not become dependent on the State.
Court held that a parent jailed for civil contempt due to failure to pay child support is not categorically entitled to counsel under certain circumstances. The court also determined that there is not a presumption in favor of counsel when physical liberty is at stake. However, the Court did hold that the state must provide four safeguards to ensure due process.
Supreme Court reversed Ninth Circuit ruling that HUD’s interpretation permitting the eviction of so-called “innocent” tenants is inconsistent with congressional intent under Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, as amended.
A statute of California making it a misdemeanor for anyone knowingly to bring or assist in bringing into the State a nonresident “indigent person” held invalid as an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce.
Where the element of unconscionability is present at the time a contract is made, the contract should not be enforced. The case is remanded to the lower court to determine whether the contract was unconscionable.
AFDC cannot be withheld because of the presence of a “substitute father” who visited a family on weekends. The issue before the US Supreme Court involved how the states could determine how to implement a federal program. The court used the term “co-operative federalism.”
Absent a compelling state interest, state laws that impose residency requirements to obtain welfare assistance violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment. Such laws also violate the constitutional right to travel by inhibiting migration by needy persons into the state.
The Due Process Clause provides the right to a full hearing before welfare benefits are terminated.