The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P is the mother of a son who was born in May 1967. They reside in New York City. P applied for AFDC assistance shortly before Maurice's birth. A caseworker made a visit to her apartment at that time without objection. The assistance was authorized. Two years later, on May 8, 1969, a caseworker wrote P that she would visit her home on May 14. P telephoned the worker that, although she was willing to supply information 'reasonable and relevant' to her need for public assistance, any discussion was not to take place at her home. P was told that the visit was required by law and that refusal to permit the visit would result in the termination of assistance. Permission was still denied. D sent a notice of intent to discontinue assistance because of the visitation refusal and P's right to a hearing before a review officer. The hearing was requested and was held on May 27. P appeared with an attorney. They continued to refuse permission for a worker to visit but again expressed willingness to cooperate and to permit visits elsewhere. The review officer ruled that the refusal was a proper ground for the termination of assistance. D sent a notice of intent to discontinue assistance because of the visitation refusal and P's right to a hearing before a review officer. The hearing was requested and was held on May 27. P appeared with an attorney. They continued to refuse permission for a worker to visit but again expressed willingness to cooperate and to permit visits elsewhere. The review officer ruled that the refusal was a proper ground for the termination of assistance. A notice of termination was issued on June 2. P sued under 42 U. S. C. § 1983. P alleged that she and her son have no income, resources, or support other than the benefits received under the AFDC program. She asked for declaratory and injunctive relief. A temporary restraining order was issued. A three-judge panel held several New York laws and rules unconstitutional because they required P to submit to a home visit for continued assistance under the AFDC program. Ds appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.