State of California Department of Social Services v. Thompson

321 F.3d 835 (2003)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

State of California Department of Social Services v. Thompson

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
321 F.3d 835 (2003)

Facts

Enedina Rosales’s (plaintiff) grandson, Anthony, was informally placed in Rosales’s care after suffering abuse in his mother’s home. Thereafter, a petition was filed to legally remove Anthony from his mother’s custody, and Rosales was officially appointed Anthony’s foster parent. Anthony was not eligible for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits while living with his mother but was eligible for AFDC while living with Rosales. Rosales applied for AFDC foster-care payments (AFDC-FC) on Anthony’s behalf. The US Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson (the secretary) (defendant) rejected the application on the basis that Anthony was not eligible for AFDC-FC because Anthony had not been eligible for AFDC while living in his mother’s home. The California Court of Appeal concluded that AFDC-FC eligibility could be based on the child’s eligibility either in the home of removal or the home of the relative informally fostering the child at the time the removal petition was initiated. The State of California Department of Social Services (DSS) (plaintiff) submitted a state-plan amendment to the HHS secretary memorializing the court of appeal’s holding. However, the secretary rejected the amendment on the basis that the amendment violated federal statute and HHS policy. DSS filed a petition for review. The district court agreed with the secretary’s interpretation. Rosales appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Berzon, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 816,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership