Barry v. United States Brief for the United States in Opposition

Public Court Documents
May 1, 1988

Cite this item

Barry v. United States Brief for the United States in Opposition preview

Document text

The following text has been generated automatically during the document scanning process. It may contain errors, omissions, or incorrect formatting. Please refer to the PDF document if this text is not usable.

Download

By downloading, publishing, or reusing the Materials outside of the Website, you hereby confirm and attest that you have read and agree to the LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use linked below. We draw your attention to the following:

For those Materials owned by LDF, your use of the Material outside the Site is solely for one or more of the following (the “Permitted Purposes”):

Non-commercial research and private study;
Teaching, scholarship and instruction (including distance learning);
Non-commercial print and non-commercial online use;
Criticism, comment or news reporting; or
For people with visual disabilities (See Section 121 of the Copyright Act).
For those Materials not owned by LDF you understand that:
- It is your responsibility to determine whether the way you plan to use the materials falls within the copyright exception of Fair Use.
- For any use outside of Fair Use, it is your responsibility to seek and obtain all required permissions from any existing rights holders.

LDF hereby grants you the right to use LDF owned Materials for the Permitted Purposes without seeking further permission from LDF.

If you publish or redistribute any Materials (including excerpts and quotes), you must include a credit line and/or proper citation to the source of the Material. However, you may not use the name of LDF in any manner which creates any false association between you and LDF or that incorrectly implies any sponsorship or endorsement of you by LDF.

NOTICE: Uses that do not comply with these Terms or that do not fall under Fair Use (or another exception) may make you liable for copyright infringement.

Read the full LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use Here.

I agree to the terms and conditions for use of this content.

If you would like to use this content in other ways, contact us at

Date is approximate.

Collection
- Legal Department General
Creator
- Lani Guinier and others
Taxonomy
Identifier
- dfefebef-ec92-ee11-be37-6045bdeb8873

Cite this item

Press Releases, Volume 6. Welfare Recipients Encouraged to Work in Maine Court Ruling, 1969. 27f0ad64-b992-ee11-be37-00224827e97b. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/17f7c04e-0f75-4cd4-9683-2f84436c47ba/welfare-recipients-encouraged-to-work-in-maine-court-ruling. Accessed July 31, 2025.

Copied!

    President 
Hon. Francis E. Rivers 

BAA) FE PRESS RELE/ Director Counsel 
egal efense und a ee 

eVore, Jr. NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. 

10 Columbus Circle, New York, N.Y. 10019 © JUdson 6-8397 

FOR RELEASE: April 1, 1969 

WELFARE RECIPIENTS ENCOURAGED 
TO WORK IN MAINE COURT RULING 

Legal Defense Fund Attacks Bias Requirements 

PORTLAND, MAINE---Six thousand welfare recipients will be encouraged 
tc seek employment and 52 families will receive additional state aid 
because of a decision handed down this week by a panel of three 
federal judges here. 

The three-judge panel, ruling that Maine's welfare laws did not 
ecually protect the rights of all recipients, said parts of the laws 
were "void and unenforceable." 

Their decision was prompted by the NAACP Legal Defense and Edu- 
cational Fund, Inc. (LDF) and the Pine Tree Legal Assistance Corpora- 
tion who attacked the state's maximum budget and maximum grant 
requirements. 

The two organizations charged that these sections of the state's 
Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) discriminated against 
large families. 

LDF Director-Counsel Jack Greenberg said the decision means that 
52 families currently affected by the maximum grant provision will 
receive increased AFDC assistance. He also said that more than 6,000 
recipients affected by maximum budget requirements will be encouraged 
to seek jobs. 

Families will now be permitted to earn monies to make up the 
difference between their actual need and the aid they receive. 

LDF based its attack on the plight of three recipients of AFDC 
assistance, Mr. and Mrs. Richard Westberry and Mrs. June Martin. 

According to an official state schedule for determining monetary 
need, Mr. Westberry, who is totally disabled, his wife and their ten 
children required $643.86 per month to live adequately. 

But because of the maximum budget requirement, their needs were 
set by the state at $300 minus $156.62, the latter being the family's 
only outside income. They therefore ended up with $345 less than 
what they actually needed. 

Mrs. June Martin is the Negro mother of nine children. Official 
tabulation shows her income requirement to be $514.36 per month. But 
the maximum grant stipulation allows her only $250, even though she 
has no other income. 

Now that the maximum budget and maximum grant requirements have 
been ruled void, the state must create budget allowances based on 
actual need for these families rather than the artificial requirements 

LDF officials say that as a result of this decision, similar 
maximum grant cases pending in 10 other states across the nation are 
also likely to receive similar rulings. 

-30- 

E25

Copyright notice

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.

Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.

Barry v. United States Brief for the United States in Opposition

Collection

Creator

Taxonomy

Identifier

Cite this item

Copyright notice

Additional info

You may also be interested in