2015-0442, Carrie Hendrick & a. v. New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services

Concord (T. David Plourde, chief, civil division, on the brief), as amicus curiae. Sandberg, attorney, on the brief), and United States Attorney’s Office, of United States Department of Justice, of Washington, D.C. (J effrey E.

orally), for the defendant. Lynmarie Cusack, assistant attorney general, on the brief, and Ms. Misluk Joseph A. Foste r, attorney general (MaryBeth L. Misluk, attorney, and

plaintiff s. Heintz and Kay E. Drought on the brief, and Ms. Heintz orally), for the New Hampshire Legal Assistance, of Concord and Portsmouth (Ruth D.

No. 2015 - 0442 Merrimack

page is: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme. a.m. on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court's home reporter@courts.state.nh. us. Opinions are available on the Internet by 9:00 to press. Errors may be reported by E - mail at the following address: editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes Hampshire, One Charles Doe Drive, Concor d, New Hampshire 03301, of any Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule p. 2 22 as 2

( p. 2 2015). below the federal financial b enefit rate, 20 C.F.R. § § 416.1110 - 416.1 182 amount in assets, 20 C.F.R. § 416.1205 (a), (c) (2015), and “countable income” limited income and r esources is met when the child has less than a certain 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(C)(i) (2012). The requirement that the child have expected either to result in death or to last continuously for at least one year. that results in “marked and severe functional limitations,” and which can be (2012). A child is “disabled” if he or she has a “physical or mental impairment” disabled and have limited income and resources. See 42 U.S.C. § 1382(a)(1) For a child to be eligible for SSI payments, the child must be blind or

4 p. 2 2 U.S.C. § 1383 (2012 & Supp. II 2014). government and administered by the Social Security Administration (SSA). See see 42 U.S.C. § 1381 (2012). SSI payments are f unded by the federal disabled.” Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 524 (1990) (quotations omitted); income level” for individuals “who have attained age 65” or who “are blind or need s - based federal assistance program that sets a “guaranteed minimum The SSI program, codified as Title XVI of the Social Security Act, is a

A. Federal Law

state statutes and regulations. cl. p. 2 2. For context, we provide a brief overview of the applicable federal and Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. See U.S. CONST. art. VI, to Needy Families program (FANF). We hold that the rule violates the Families program (TANF), as administered by the State’s Financial Assistance family’s eligibility for benefit s under the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy child’s federal S upplemental Security Income (SSI) in the calculation of a Administrative Rule s, He - W 654.04(c). The rule requires DHHS to include a The issue before us is the constitutionality of New Hampshire

I. Legal Framework

Human Services (DHHS). We reverse and remand. judgment to the defendant, the New Hampshire Department of H ealth and appeal an order of the Superior Court (Smukler, J.) granting summary DALIANIS, C. J. The plaintiffs, Carrie Hendrick and Jamie Birmingham,

as amici curiae. Special Education Administrators, and the National Disability Rights Network, brief), for the Disability Rights Center – NH, the New Hampshire Association of Disability Rights Center – NH, of Concord (C. Adrienne Mallinson on the p. 3 3

(AFDC). See Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act TANF in 1996 to replace the Aid to Families with Dependent Chi ldren program children. 42 U.S.C. §§ 601 - 629m (2012 & Supp. II 2014). Congress enacted programs that offer, among other things, cash assistance to needy families with provides federal block - grant funding to states to create public assistance T he TANF program, codified as Title IV - A of the Social Security Act,

saved. 20 C.F.R. § 416.665 (2015). benefit was spent on the beneficiary’s care and support, and how much was an annual accounting to the SSA informing the agency how much of the SSI 20 C.F.R. § 416.645(a) (2015). Representative payees are required to submit current maintenance must be “conserved or invested on behalf of the [child].” § 416.6 p. 3 35(g) (2015) (citat ion omitted). Any funds not spent on the child ’s basis for providing benefits if [the child is] under age 18.” 20 C.F.R. considered medically necessary and available for the condition that was the payee must “[e]nsure that [the child is] receiving treatment to the extent medical care and personal comfort items.” Id. In addition, t he representa tive maintenance includes costs incurred in obtaining food, shelter, clothing, for the use and benefit of the [child].” 20 C.F.R. § 416.640(a) (2015). “Current used for the [child’s] current maintenance” are consid ered to “have been used [the child’s] best interests.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.635(a) (2015). SSI funds that “are manner and for the purposes [the representative payee] determines . . . to be in benefits received on [the child’s] behalf only fo r [the child’s] use and benefit in a payee who receives SSI funds on behalf of a disabled child must “[u]se the Guardianship Estate of Keff e ler, 537 U.S. 371, 376 (2003). A representative [SSI] benefits.” Washington State Dept. of Soc ial and Health Servs. v. promulgated “[d]etailed regulations govern[ing] a representative payee’s use of preventing misuse of benefits, id. § 1 383(a)(2)(A)(iv) (2012). The SSA has prescribing “the meaning of the term ‘use and benefit’ for purposes” o f administering the SSI program, 42 U.S.C. § 405(a) (2012), including The statute authorizes the SSA to implement regulations in

id. § 1 p. 3 383a(b) (2012) (same). and/or imprisonment of up to 5 years); id. § 1383(a)(2)(H)(i) (2012) (restitution); of civil and criminal penalties. See, e.g., p. 4 42 U.S.C. § 1383a(a)(4) (2012) (fine A representative payee who commits “misuse of benefits” is subject to a range of” the chi ld commits “misuse of benefits.” 42 U.S.C. § 1383(a)(2)(A)(iv) (2012). such payment, or any part thereof, to a use other than for the use and benefit the child. 42 U.S.C. § 1383(a)(2)(A)(ii)(I). A representative payee who “converts directs the representative payee to use SSI funds “for the use and benefit” of § 416.601(b) (2015); see 42 U.S.C. § 1383(a)(2)(A)(ii)(I) (2012). The statu te payments are directed to a third - party “representative payee.” 20 C.F.R. to a mental or physical condition or due to their youth,” the beneficiary’s For SSI beneficiaries who are unable to m anage their own payments “due 4

601.01(u). of benefits for financial or medical assistance.” N.H. Admin. R ules, He - W considered and combined together when determining eligibility or the amount individuals living together . . . whose needs, income and/or resources are Id. DHHS has issued rules that further define the “[a] ssistance group” as “the

adoptive brothers and sisters. parent s of the minor parent and all minor blood - related, step or assistance unit may also include all natural, step, or adoptive adults who share a minor child. In the case of a minor parent, the step, or adoptive parents of such children, including cohabitating related, step, or adoptive brothers and sisters, and all natural, from the household: any dependent child and all minor blood assistance, if living in the same household or temporarily absent group, unless such person receives foster care or adoption The following persons shall be included in the assistance

167:79, II (201 p. 4 4). The statute provides, in pertinent part: are considered as a unit in making FANF eligibility determinations. See RSA “assistance group,” which is the group of individuals who live together and who T o determine eligibility for FANF assis tance, DHHS first determines the

167:77 -: 93 (201 p. 4 4 & Supp. 2015); N.H. Admin. R ules, He - W 601.04(g). families with dependent children, through the State’s FANF program. See RSA public assistance programs, including a program to provide cash assistance to New Hampshire uses its federal TANF block grant to operate several

B. New Hampshire Law – FANF

equitable treatment.” Id. § 602(a)(1)(B)(iii) (2012). delivery of benefits and the determination of eligibility and for fair and § 60 p. 4 4(a)(1) (2012). States are directed to “set forth objective criteria for the manner that is reasonably calculated to accomplish” those purposes. Id. § 601(a)(1) - (4) (2012). A s tate may use its federal block - grant funds “in any encouraging “the formation and maintenance o f two - parent families.” Id. preventing and reducing the number of out - of - wedlock pregnancies; and (4) government benefits “by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage”; (3) cared for in th eir own homes”; (2) ending the dependence of needy parents on four goals: (1) providing assistance to needy families “so that children may be program. See 42 U.S.C. § 602 (2012). A s tate TANF program should advance Under TANF, each participating s tate designs its own public assistance

p. 4 40, 4 p. 5 5 (D. D.C. 2000). not an open - ended entitlement program.” Arizona v. Shalala, 121 F. Supp. 2d of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104 - 193, 110 Stat. 2105 (1996). “Unlike AFDC, TANF is 5

assistance. countable unearned income. Hendrick, therefore, no longer receives FANF determination, DHHS included the two children’s recurring SSI benefits as her assistance group’s total income exceeded the i ncome l imit. In making this determined that Hendrick was no longer eligible for FANF assistance because r educed to a monthly payment of $2 p. 5 59.20. Thereafter, in April 2014, DHHS 2014, that beginning March 15, 2014, her FANF cash assistance would be unearned income. DHHS informed Hendrick by notice dated February 25, included the two children’s monthly, recurring SSI benefits of $654.00 as included Hendrick and her six children in the FANF assistance group, and also the SSI benefits received by the two children. Beginning in March 2014, DHHS assistance group received a monthly FAN F benefit of $847.80, in addition to payee” for those two children ’ s SSI benefits. In February 2014, t he Hendrick six children, two of whom receive SSI benefits. Hendrick is the “representative The parties stipulated to the following facts. Hendrick is the mother of

II. F actual and Procedural Background

of FANF assistance for a FANF assistance group. recipients as countable income for purposes of determining the amount, if any, 6 p. 5 54.04(c). Pursuant to this rule, DHHS includes the SSI income of SSI pursuant to He - W 652.02 and He - W 654.02.” N.H. Admin. Rules, He - W be counted as unearned income for FANF . . . when computing income that “[p] ursuant to RSA 167:80, IV(h), supplemental security income . . . shall Effective June 2013, DHHS promulgated R ule He - W 654.04(c) providing

in the FANF assistance group. See Laws 2011, ch. 272:2. 2012, RSA chapter 167 was amended to require that SSI recipients be included the assistance group. See RSA 167: 79, II (Supp. 2011). Effective January supplement al security benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act” from II expressly excluded persons receiving “state supplemental assistance or chapter 167 and its regulations. Prior to its amendment in 2012, RSA 167:7 9, The case before us is based upon changes in 2012 and 2013 to RSA

RSA 1 p. 6 67:80, IV (h) (2014). tested assistance that is defined as included b y . . . rules adopted [by DHHS].” things, “Federal, state, and local means - tested assistance other than means see RSA 167:80, IV. Income that shall be excluded includes, among other unless that type of income is specifically excluded by s tatute. RSA 167:80, III; forms of earned and unearned income” of any member of the assistance group, assistance group.” RSA 167:80, I (2014). DHHS is required to include “[a]ll the available countable ear ned and unearned income of the persons in the The statute provides that “[e]ligibility for assistance shall be based in part on resources in order to determine whether the group is eligible for FANF benefits. DHHS then calculates the assistance group’s available income and 6

to the non - moving party. Id. at 15 - 1 p. 6 6. If our review of that evidence discloses record, and all inferences properly drawn ther efrom, in the light most favorable 164 N.H. 14, 15 (2012). We consider all of the evidence presented in the its summary judgment ruling. EnergyNorth Natural Gas v. City of Concord, We review de novo the trial court’s application of the law to the facts in

III. Standard s of Review

and granted the defendant’s cross - motion. Accordingly the trial court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment “even if that income is included in [DHHS’s] calculation of FANF benefits.” and that the representative payee may use SSI for the benefici ary’s benefit of the ability to use the SSI funds for the beneficiary’s current maintenance” in the statute or corresponding regulations deprive [s] the representative payee the calculation of FANF eligibility is lawful. The court reasoned that “[n]othing beneficiary. The trial court concluded that DHHS’s inclusion of SSI benefits in requirement that SSI benefits be expended for the use and benefit of the children’s SSI in calculating FANF eligibility does not interfere with the federal See U.S. CONST. art. VI, cl. 2. DHHS asserted that the inclusion of the invalid pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. the benefit of the FANF assistance group, and that state law to the contrary is representative payee only for the benefit of the child with disabilities, not for that under controlling federal law, children’s SSI must be used by a The parties cross - moved for summary judgment. The plaintiffs argued

it counts a n adult’s SSI as income to t he F ANF assistance group. group.” The plaintiffs do not seek to invalidate Rule He - W p. 6 654.04(c) insofar as respect to its inclusion of children’s SSI as income to the [FANF] assistance We note that the plainti ffs “seek invalidation of [Rule] He - W 654.04(c) only with fees “because this litigation will result in a substantial benefit to the public.” children’s SSI in FANF assistance group income and an award of attorney ’ s plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction enjoining DHHS from including that Rule He - W 654.04 “is invalid because it impairs [the ir] legal rights.” T he applicable federal law. In addition, the plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment SSI in FANF assistance group income is unlawful and void” pursuant to children, seeking a declaratory judgment that DHHS’s “inclusion of children’s The plaintiffs brought this lawsuit on behalf of themselves and their

assistance group received monthly FANF cash assistance of $1 p. 7 7.00. FANF benefit calculation. Beginning August 15, 2014, the Birmingham c hild’s monthly, recurring SSI benefit as countable unearned income in its determining Birmingham’s eligibility for FANF assistance, DHHS included her The Birmingham family applied for FANF assistance in July 2014. In benefits. Birmingham is the “representative payee” fo r her child’s SSI benefits. Birmingham is the mother of three children, one of whom receives SSI 7

beneficiary, and that “by deeming SSI benefits available to the entire representative payees to use SSI f unds solely for the “use and benefit” of the regulations.” The Solicitor General argues that federal law requires 654.04(c) conflicts with the federal Social Security Act and implementing submitted a brief on behalf of the United States asserting that “Rule He - W the federal Social Security Act and regulations. The Solicitor Gener al whether inclusion of the child’s SSI as TANF assistance group income violates because a child with disabilities in the household receives SSI benefits; and (2) unlawful for the State to terminate, reduce, or deny a household’s TANF United States to file an amicus brief addressing two questions: (1) whether it is After briefing and oral argument, we invited the Solicitor General of the

welfare benefit calculation. child does not preclude its use for common expenses or its inclusion in a asserts that the requirement that income be used for the benefit of a specific use and benefit” of the beneficiary. (Bolding and capitalization omitted.) It interfere with the federal requi rement that SSI benefits be expended for “the argues that the inclusion of SSI benefits in FANF determinations does not and in the best interests, of the SSI recipient child.” (Citation omitted.) DHHS representative payee spend the child’s SSI benefits only for the use and benefit, federal support for children with serious disabilities; and 2) mandating that the violates the Social Security Act’s purposes of: 1) ensuring a minimal level of that DHHS’s “policy of treating children’s SSI as FANF assistance group income for the child with disabilities, not for the FANF assistance group. They assert because under federal law a representative payee must use a child’s SSI only On appeal, the plaintiffs argue that Rule He - W 654.04(c) is invalid

IV. Analysis

isolation. EnergyNorth, 164 N. H. at 16. W e interpret statutes in the context of the overall statutory scheme and not in might have said, nor add words that it did not see fit to include. Id. at 364 - 65. is not subject t o modification. Id. We will neither consider what Congress meaning. Id. When the language of the statute is clear on its face, its meaning and, if possible, construe that language according to its plain and ordinary When interpreting a statute, we begin with the language of the statute itself, Dube v. N.H. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 166 N.H. 358, 364 (2014). interpret federal law in accordance wi th federal policy and precedent. See Statutor y interpretation is a question of law that we review de novo. Id. W e is essentially a matter of statutory interpretation and construction. Id. The issue before us raises a question of federal preemption; p reemption

judgment. Id. at 16. judgment as a matter of law, then we will affirm the grant of s ummary no genuine issue of material fact and if the moving party is entitled to p. 8 8

calculating FANF benefits, not to satisfy the needs of others in the household.” representative payee law because it only requires SSI to be included in Rule He - W 6 54.04(c) “does not violate the ‘use and benefit’ provision of welfare benefit calculation. According to DHHS, Sneed support s a ruling that does not pre clude its use for common expenses or its inclusion in a state that the requirement that SSI income be used for the benefit of a specific child App. 2004), a case interpreting Title II of the Social Security Act, DHHS argues Relying primarily upon Sneed v. Saenz, 16 Cal. Rptr. 3d 563, 577 - p. 8 80 (Ct.

373. and identifying its purpose and intended effects.. . .” Crosby, 530 U.S. at matter of judgment, to be informed by examining the fe deral statute as a whole Koor Communication, 14 p. 8 8 N.H. at 621. “What is a sufficient obstacle is a (1995) (quoting English v. General Electric Co., 496 U.S. 72, 79 (1990)); see objective s of Congress. ’” We nners v. Great State Beverages, 140 N.H. 100, 104 obstacle to the accomplishments and execution of the full purpose s and with both state and federal requirements or where state law stands as an “An actual conflict exists when ‘ it is impossible for a private party to comply naturally preempted to the extent of any conflict with a federal statute.” Id. omitted). “And even if Congress has not occupied the field, state law is to occupy the field, state law in that area is preempted.” Id. (quotation Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363, 372 (2000). “When Congress intends federal law congressional Act in at least two circumstances.” Crosby v. National Foreign without an express provision for preemption,. . . state law must yield to a Wastes Management Assn., 505 U.S. 88, 98 (1992) (plurality opinion). “Even “Pre - emption may be either express ed or implied.” Gade v. National Solid

(quotation omitted)). (“Federal regulations have the same preemptive force a s federal statutes.” (19 p. 8 88); see Koor Comm unication v. City of Lebanon, 148 N.H. 618, 621 (2002) frustrates the purposes thereof.” City of New York v. FCC, 486 U.S. 57, 64 pre - empt any state or local law that conflicts with such regulations or In addition, “[t] he statutorily authorized regulations of a [federal] agency will 2466, 2473 (2013) (state laws that conflict with federal law are without effect). (1986) (per curium); see Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. v. Bartlett, 1 33 S. Ct. interfere with an Act of Congress.” Rose v. Arkansas State Police, 479 U.S. 1, 3 dispute that the Supremacy Clause invalidates all state la ws that conflict or C ontrary notwithstanding.” U.S. CONST. art. VI, cl. 2. “There can be no be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any S tate to the law “shall be the supreme Law o f the Land; and the Judges in every S tate shall United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 2500 (2012). Article VI provides that fed eral the United States Constitution, U.S. CONST. art. VI, cl. 2. See Arizona v. The federal preemption doctrine is based upon the Supremacy Clause of

therefore preempted. (Bolding and capitalization omitted.) household, Rule He - W 654.04(c) conflicts with federal requirements” and is p. 9 9

person has paid into the Social Security system over time.” Tennessee DHS ex whereas “the amount of a [SSDI] recipient’s benefits is keyed to how much that nec essary to raise the recipient’s income to the prescribed minimum level,” income.” Burns, 842 A.2d at 1 p. 9 91. A n SSI recipient’s benefits “are the amount income due to disability; rather, they are a supplement to the recipient’s In contrast to SSDI payments, “SSI benefits are not a substitute for lost

SSDI benefit payments available to the entire TANF assistance unit. is a member of a TANF assistance unit, a representative payee may make the (2015). Thus, federal SSDI regulations specifically provide that if a beneficiary payments available to the [TANF] assistance unit.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.2040(a)(2) consider it inappropriate for a representative payee to make the benefit this section, if a beneficiary is a member of a [TANF] assistance unit, we do not expressly stating that “[n] otwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a)(1) of regulations provide an exception to th e current maintenance provision, personal comfort items.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.2040(a)(1) (2015). Notably, t he includes cost incurred in obtaining food, shelter, clothing, medical care, and they are used for the beneficiary’s current maintenance. Current main tenance re presentative payee have been used for the use and benefit of the beneficiary if further specify that SSA “will consider that payments [it] certif[ies] to a beneficiary’s] best interests.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.2035(a) (2015). The regulations for the purposes [the representative payee] determines. . . to be in [the beneficiary’s] behalf only for [the beneficiary’s] use and benefit in a manner and representative payee has a responsibil ity to “[u]se the benefits received [on the R egulations promulgated by SSA that govern SSDI benefits provide that a

earned income and are thereby non - means - tested benefits.” Id. (quotation omitted). “Stated another way, [SSD I] payments are a substitute for employee’s inability to work upon becoming disabled.” Burns, 842 A.2d at 1 p. 9 91 payments are for the purpose of replacing income lost because of the 191 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2004); see 42 U.S.C. § 40 1(b) (2012). “[SSD I] trust fund under the Social Security Act.” Burns v. Edwards, 842 A.2d 186, which his or her employer has paid for the employee’s benefit into a common which an employee has earned during his or her employment and also that U.S.C. § § 401 - 499 (20 12 & Supp. II 2014). “[SSD I] payments represent money pays into the Social Security system.” Sneed, 16 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 577; see 42 Under Title II, SSDI “benefits are paid on behalf of a wage earner who

(recognizing that SSDI benefits and SSI benefits have different purposes). another.” See In the Matter of Lister & Lister, 162 N.H. 48, 51 (2011) that the “use and benefit” provisions with regard to SSDI and SSI “mirror one unde r Title XVI of the Social Security Act, we reject DHHS’s underlying premise substantively different from the federal regulations governing SSI benefits Income (SSDI) benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act are determine that the federal regulations governing Social Security Disability Sneed, however, is not controlling in th ese circumstances. Because we p. 10 10

income - maintenance payments” including TANF, SSA finds that the child “[is] assistance household in which every member receives some kind of public C.F.R. § § 416.1161(a)(2), (3) (2015). In addition, if the child lives in a “public determine the amount of [the TANF] program’s be nefit to someone else.” 20 payment” and “[a] ny of the income of [the child’s]. . . parent that is used. . . to “and any income which was counted or excluded in figuring the amount of that regulations specifically exclude any TANF payments the child’s parent receives Indeed, as to the calculation of a disabled child’s SSI benefits, the

disabled”). offset the additional financial burden incumbent with children who are benefits are gra nted to provide parents of disabled children additional funds to Child Support Enfor. v. Kost, 964 S.W.2d 528, 531 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998) (“SSI generally have greater needs than nondisabled children”); see also State, ex rel. substitute for it” because “Congress determined that disabled children received by a disabled child “are intended to supplement other i ncome, not Kyle, 582 N.E.2d 842, 846 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (concluding that SSI benefits with the minimum amount necessary to satisfy their basic needs. S ee Kyle v. families with children under the TANF program, to provide disabled children additional source of federal funds, separate from funds available to needy Furthermore, Congress intended the SSI program to provide an

proposition, we are not persuaded. DHHS relies upon Bowen v. Gil liard, 483 U.S. 587 (1987), to support this into account income received by any members of the family.” To the extent that, in determining the amount of assistance for the family, a state may take state ma y treat an entire family as the relevant unit for public assistance, and that there is a uniform rule in the various welfare benefit programs whereby “a or in addition to, the SSDI beneficiary. Accordingly, we disagree with DHHS used for the current maintenance of persons in the assistance unit other than, medical care and personal comfort items, unlike SSDI benefits, w hich may be on that child’s current maintenance, i.e., the child’s food, shelter, clothing, the plain language of the regulations, a child’s SSI benefits may be spent only beneficiary’s assistance group, and the SSI reg ulations do not. Rather, under regulations expressly allow SSDI benefits to be used to support the provisions in the regulations for Title II (SSDI) and those for Title XVI (SSI), the A lthough there is some facial similarity between the “use and benefit”

Schweiker v. Wilson, 450 U.S. 221, 223 (1981)) (brackets and ellipses omitted). disabled.” Lyon v. Bowen, 802 F.2d 794, 796 (5 th Cir. 1986) (quoting allowance, under federal standards, to the Nation’s needy, aged, blind, and blind, and disabled persons.’ The SSI program provides a subsistence disability’ by ‘setting a Federal guaranteed minimum income level for aged, intended “‘to assist those who cannot work because of age, blindness, or rel. Young v. Young, 802 S.W.2d 594, 597 (Tenn. 1990). The SSI program is p. 11 11

that it requires inclusion of children’s SSI as income to the TANF assistance He - W 654.04(c) is preempted by federal law and, thus, invalid to the extent Congress,” Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2501 (quotation omitted), we hold that Rule to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of by a disabled child in the household. Because the rule “stands as an obstacle household’s TANF benefit by one dollar for every dollar in SSI that is received s ource of income for the entire household. The rule, thereby, reduces a available to the child’s “assistance group,” treats the child’s benefits as a 654.04(c). The rule, by counting a disabled child’s SSI benefits as income permit the State to redirect federal benefits as required by Rule H e - W We agree with the Solicitor General that the Supremacy Clause does not

SSI funds as income available to the assistance group. Id. at nn.3 - 4. assistance group for TANF purposes, those states do not count such recipients’ Although several states count SSI recipients as members of the

tabook%20(FINAL).pdf. http://wrd.urban.org/wrd/data/databooks/2014%20Welfare%20Rules%20Da July 2014, Final Report 66 - 67 (Aug. 2015), et al., The Urban Institute, Welfare Rules Databook: State TANF Policies as of were income available to the entire TANF assistance group.” See Erika Huber New Hampshire and Wisconsin — count a disabled child’s SSI benefits as if they (all States plus the District of Columbia) that participate in TANF, only two — Furthermore, acco rding to the Solicitor General, “[o]f the 51 jurisdictions

with or obstruct [ed] the purposes of federal law.” Eneliko, slip op. at 5. the family’s eligibility under the state’s TANF program was “in direct conflict children available to non - disabled household members for purposes of deciding Health and Human Services that would deem the SSI income of disabl ed determined that a rule proposed by the Washington State Department of Eneliko v. Dreyfus, No. C p. 11 11 - 0312JLR (W.D. Wash. Feb. 28, 2011), the court additional disability - related costs.” Id. at n.17 (emphasis added). Likewise, in fundamental purpose behind the SSI program – to assist families in meeting to be used only for the ben e fit of the beneficiary nor explicitly alter the provisions tha t make it clear that SSI benefits paid to representative payees are replacing AFDC with TANF, “Congress did not repeal any of the statutory benefit of the child beneficiary.” Ohl, slip op. at 22. The court noted that in requirement that representative payees use SSI benefits only for the use and eligibility for TANF benefits “presents an obstacle to fulfillment of Congress’s that counted a child’s SSI payments as household income in determining court concluded that a policy instituted under West Virginia’s TANF program conclusion s. In V.R. v. Ohl, No. 3:98 - CV - 1176 (S.D. W. Va. Feb. 3, 1999), the The only other jurisdictions to address this issue have reached similar

household.” 20 C.F.R. § 416. p. 11 1142 (a)(1), (b) (2015). not receiving in - kind support and maintenance from members of the p. 12 12

HICKS, CONBOY, LYNN, and BASSETT, JJ., concurred.

including a review of the plaintiffs’ pending request for attorney’s fees. we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, group for the purpose of determining eligibility for TANF benefits. Accordingly,