section of

Citation: section of
Parent Document: Connie Burton v. Tampa Housing Authority, 271 F.3d 1274 (2001)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2001-11-07
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/75678/connie-burton-v-tampa-housing-authority/ ↗

Full Text

1,780 chars

22
present case, the appellees in UAW argued that the
statute unconstitutionally burdened the right to
association because it "impermissibly directs the onus of
the striker’s actions against the rest of the family."
UAW, 485 U.S. at 363, 108 S.Ct. 1184.
The denial of food stamps undoubtedly imposed a
hardship on "innocent" family members. So long as
non-striking family members continued to share their
household with a striker, they were prohibited from
enjoying a government benefit to which they were
otherwise entitled. Although the Court recognized that
associational rights were implicated by the food stamp
statute, it held that the "withdrawal of a government
benefit" did not pose a significant danger to the exercise
of that constitutional right. Id. at 367 n.5, 108 S.Ct.
1184.
In UAW, the Court also acknowledged that the
means used by Congress in addressing this objective
were imperfect because the "statute works at least some
discrimination against strikers and their households." Id.
at 371-72, 108 S.Ct. 1184 ("in terms of the scope and
extent of their ineligibility for food stamps, § 109 is
harder on strikers than voluntary quitters.") Nevertheless,
the Court deferred to the congressional view of "what
constitutes wise economic or social policy" and upheld
the statute. Id. at 372, 108 S.Ct. 1184 (quoting
Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. at 486, 90 S.Ct. 1153.) Rucker, 237 F.3d at 1138-1139 (Sneed, J., dissenting).

Other Sections in This Document (356)

Full Text