413 U.S. 528 (1973)
The federal food stamp program was established in 1964 to alleviate hunger and malnutrition among the more needy segments of society.1 Eligibility for participation is determined on a household rather than an individual basis.2 An eligible household purchases food stamps at a reduced rate based on its size and cumulative income.3 The stamps are then used to buy food at retail stores.4
In January 1971 Congress redefined the term household in section 3(e) to include only groups of related individuals.5 The Secretary of Agriculture promulgated regulations rendering ineligible any household whose members are not all related to each other, with limited exceptions for certain nonrelated individuals over age sixty.6
Appellee Jacinta Moreno is a 56-year-old diabetic who lives with Ermina Sanchez and Sanchez's three children.7 They share common living expenses and Sanchez helps care for Moreno.8 Moreno's monthly income from public assistance is seventy-five dollars.9 After paying rent and other costs she has ten dollars per month for food and necessities.10 Appellee Sheilah Hejny and her family took in an unrelated twenty-year-old girl.11 They faced termination of their food stamp benefits if the girl continued to live with them.12 Appellee Victoria Keppler shared an apartment with an unrelated woman on public assistance to access a school for the deaf for her daughter with acute hearing deficiency.13
These and two other groups of appellees instituted a class action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the Department of Agriculture and its officials.14 They sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the 1971 amendment.15 A three-judge district court held the classification invalid.16 The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction.17
Whether section 3(e) of the Food Stamp Act of 1964, as amended in 1971 to exclude from participation any household containing an individual unrelated to any other member, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?18
Under traditional equal protection analysis, a legislative classification must be sustained if the classification itself is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest.19 The purposes of the Food Stamp Act were expressly set forth in the congressional declaration of policy to safeguard the health and well-being of the Nation's population and raise levels of nutrition among low-income households.20 The challenged statutory classification of households of related persons versus households containing one or more unrelated persons is clearly irrelevant to the stated purposes of the Act.21
Yes. The 1971 amendment creates an irrational classification by denying food stamp eligibility to the households of Jacinta Moreno, Sheilah Hejny, and Victoria Keppler solely because their members are not all related.22 These households meet income requirements and share living expenses as one economic unit.23 The classification does not rationally further any legitimate interest in preventing fraud.24
The Food Stamp Act already contains independent provisions such as section 5(c) requiring able-bodied adults to register for work and sections 14(b) and (c) imposing criminal penalties for fraud.25 The legislative history reveals the amendment targeted hippies and hippie communes.26 A bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest.27
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Douglas concurs because the unrelated-person provision penalizes the poorest households for exercising their right of association by banding together for mutual assistance against poverty.31 This right is protected in the penumbra of the First Amendment and extends to the choice of associates for social or economic purposes.32 The provision requires a compelling governmental interest rather than mere rationality.33
The provision is not aimed at maintaining family units as it permits common-law couples and single individuals while disqualifying unrelated needy persons.34 The classification draws an invidious line that cannot survive strict scrutiny when associational freedoms are at stake.35
Joined by The Chief Justice
Justice Rehnquist dissents because Congress could rationally conclude that the basic household unit eligible for food stamps should consist of related individuals.36 This unit provides a guarantee that the household exists for purposes other than collecting federal benefits.37 The limitation serves to discourage households formed solely to exploit the program.38
Traditional equal protection analysis permits some imprecision in classifications as long as a rational basis exists.39 Questions of policy in allocating public funds are for Congress.40 The provision is consistent with the Act's underlying policy even if it produces unfortunate consequences for some eligible households.41