Sojourner v. New Jersey Social Services

[Editor’s Note: This brief summarizes the amici curiae brief filed by the Center for Economic and Social Rights and others. The Quimbee brief of the New Jersey Supreme Court’s opinion can be found here. The facts included below are limited to those necessary to contextualize the amici curiae brief.] New Jersey’s state welfare provisions included a child-exclusion provision, also called a family cap. Under normal circumstances, state welfare benefits were determined in part by how many children were in the family receiving benefits. However, under the child-exclusion policy, the state did not upwardly modify welfare benefits if a new child was born to a family already receiving welfare benefits. The stated purpose of the child-exclusion policy was to discourage parents from having children while receiving welfare, and there was no exception for parents whose religious beliefs prevented them from using birth-control methods. Sojourner A. (plaintiff), among others, sued New Jersey Social Services (defendant), arguing that the child-exclusion policy violated the New Jersey Constitution. Both the trial court and the appellate court ruled for New Jersey Social Services. Sojourner appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court. The Center for Economic and Social Rights, among others, then filed an amici curiae brief in support of Sojourner’s challenge.