Citation network
Schweiker Vs. Wilson
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 04, 1981
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 221 (1981) U.S. Supreme Court Schweiker v. WilsonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U.S. 221 (1981) Schweiker v. WilsonSearch
-
the federal and Illinois assistance schemes that prevailed prior to the effective date of the SSI program. See Wilson v. EdelmanSearch
-
with another that challenged the exclusion from SSI benefits of any pretrial detainee. Relying on Weinberger v. SalfiSearch
-
the class members violated the equal protection guarantee of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Sterling v. HarrisSearch
-
Ibid. Upon the Secretary's direct appeal from this judgment, we noted probable jurisdiction. Harris v. WilsonSearch
-
makes democratic choices among alternative solutions to social and economic problems. See San Antonio School District v. RodriguezSearch
-
the persons it affects in a manner rationally related to legitimate governmental objectives. See, e.g., Dandridge v. WilliamsSearch
-
f). See Califano v. AznavorianSearch
-
to their needs and, therefore, its prejudice against them. Brief for Appellees 39. As in Jefferson v. HackneySearch
-
does not, without more, move us to regard it with a heightened scrutiny. Cf. Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. FeeneySearch
-
classification 'is not made with mathematical nicety or because, in practice, it results in some inequity.' Lindsley v. NaturalSearch
-
Massachusetts Bd. of Retirement v. MuriaSearch
-
S. 307 , Page 450 U. S. 235 427 U. S. 314 (1976). See also United States Railroad Retirement Bd. v. FritzSearch
-
we decline to regard such deliberate action as the result of inadvertence or ignorance. See Maine v. ThiboutotSearch
-
may assume that the States would, or should, provide an equivalent, either in funds or in basic care. See Baur v. MathewsSearch
-
institutions that are the most needy and the most deserving of the small monthly supplement. See, e.g., Califano v. BolesSearch
-
et seq. (1970 ed.). See Califano v. AznavorianSearch
-
required of state legislation by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., Weinberger v. SalfiSearch
-
constitutional holding on the ground that review from the three-judge court could be had only in this Court. Wilson v. EdelmanSearch
-
HEW Region v. whoSearch
-
Id. at 1051-1052, quoting Frontiero v. RichardsonSearch
-
strict standards exclude many facilities, but work to the ultimate benefit of those receiving Medicaid. Cf. O'Bannon v. TownSearch
-
id. at 144). This exclusion was upheld in Legion v. RichardsonSearch
-
F.Supp. 456 (SDNY), summarily aff'd sub nom. Legion v. WeinbergerSearch
-
U.S. 1058 (1973), and Kantrowitz v. WeinbergerSearch
-
Louisville Gas Co. v. ColemanSearch
-
et seq. See generally Califano v. AznavorianSearch
-
mental institutions has a lengthy history in the development of the federal medical assistance programs. See Legion v. RichardsonSearch
-
the legislative means are rationally related to a legitimate Government purpose. United States Railroad Retirement Bd. v. FritzSearch
-
U. S. 166 (1980). See San Antonio Independent Page 450 U. S. 243 School District v. RodriguezSearch
-
its view of wise or fair legislative policy for that of the duly elected representatives of the people, Vance v. BradleySearch
-
on legislative power. At a minimum, the legislature cannot arbitrarily discriminate among citizens. E.g., Johnson v. RobisonSearch
-
Weber v. AetnaSearch
-
which the legislature intended Page 450 U. S. 244 to serve. See, e.g., United States Dept. of Agriculture v. MorenoSearch
-
requires that legislation intended to serve a discernible purpose receive the most respectful deference. See Harris v. McRaeSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial