SCOTUS affirmed District Court: State may not exclude a category of applicants for disability assistance on the basis of the source of a diagnosed impairment, in particular persons suffering solely from psychoneurotic disorders, regardless of severity or permanence.
A state may not impose a condition of eligibility for AFDC benefits unless that condition is authorized by the Social Security Act. SCOTUS affirmed.
Expanded prior Supreme Court holding that exhaustion of administrative remedies was not required to bring a case in federal court challenging state welfare laws.
AFDC payments must be made within 30 days of application, absent fault of applicant, in accordance with federal HEW regulations. Plaintiffs’ complaint may continue as class action.
The court determined that if the premises become uninhabitable, the tenant is freed from their obligation to pay rent. SCOTUS affirmed.
The Court held that the landlord’s right to terminate a month-to-month tenancy “for any reason or no reason at all” did not include the “right” to terminate because the tenant complained of housing code violations.
Neither state nor federal regulations may discriminate without rational basis against certain children whose fathers happen to be out of work because of their own misconduct which justified their discharge by their employer, or because of a labor dispute. Because the fathers are unemployed, the families are entitled to AFDC assistance.