
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: SATURDAY, October 8, 1994                   TAG: 9410110018
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL                    PAGE: A-3   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: Associated Press
DATELINE: WASHINGTON                                LENGTH: Medium

CALIF. WELFARE LAW REVIEWED

The Supreme Court will decide whether California and other states may limit the benefits paid to some welfare recipients who have lived there less than a year.

The court voted Friday to review rulings that said a California law imposing such limits violated new residents' constitutional right of interstate travel.

The justices issued orders granting review to six cases, and accelerated its review in each to help fill the court's light argument calendar this winter.

In some of those other cases, the court:

Said it will decide whether a state's regulation of hospital costs may include allowing different rates to be charged based on a patient's health care coverage. Lower courts struck down parts of New York's hospital-reimbursement system because of that.

Agreed to decide whether a Hawaii prison inmate may pursue his lawsuit against a prison official for what he alleges was impermissible punishment for cursing at a guard during a strip search.

Voted to decide in two Georgia cases whether vehicle manufacturers can be sued under state laws for failing to install safety devices, such as anti-lock brakes, not required under federal safety standards.

In the welfare case, lawyers for California told the justices that a 1992 state law limiting benefits under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program for new residents ``does not operate as a penalty on migration'' and should be allowed.

But lawyers for welfare recipients urged the court to reject the state's appeal and preserve ``a quarter-century of this court's precedents on residency discrimination.''

The 1992 law, part of an effort to cut spending in the face of a state budget crunch, limited applicants receiving AFDC benefits who had not lived in California for the 12 preceding months to the amount their family was entitled to in their former state.

State officials said the law would save California $8.4 million in fiscal year 1992-93 and $22.5 million in 1993-94.

For individual families, the law would have cut benefits by up to 80 percent for their first year in California.

For example, a family of four moving to California from Mississippi would receive only $144 a month for the first year instead of the standard California AFDC benefit of $743.

Three welfare recipients challenged the law on behalf of all new residents eligible for AFDC benefits.

by CNB