Child Rights & Remedies Fall 2012 Class 6

Review of Class # 5 1)Remedies – the Default Rule –Specificity and 42 USC )Griswold – FLI, Right of Privacy 3)Roe v. Wade 4)Casey – 3 restrictions and “undue burden” 5)Whitner

Note on Constitutional Analysis Reaching Strict Scrutiny –Fundamental Liberty Interest –Suspect Class and Equal Protection (Discr.)  If SS: compelling state interest and no less restrictive alternative  If not SS: might be “Heightened Scrutiny”  If not SS or HS: Rational Relation

The Checklist *Federal Constitutional Standards: 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 10th, 14 th FLI or suspect class, SS/undue/HS/RR Federal Statute Supremacy (Int. Commerce) or Federal $ Condition Federal Rule State Constitution (Higher Floor? E.g. Casey) State Statute State Rule

Entitlements: Defending a Federal Floor Townsend v. Swank U.S. (1971) Illinois: No AFDC for kids if they are in college

Bowen v. Gilliard (1987) 483 U.S. 587 –“Deeming” and family income –AFDC for Mom + 8 = $227/month (8 th child yields $10/month) –Dad pays $43 for #7 –NC subtracts $43, not $10

AFDC to TANF Personal Responsibility … Act of 1996 Saenz v. Roe U.S. (1999) –1992 California law limiting welfare level to previous state’s allowance for first 12 months in California; 1996 PRA OKs