Iharvard Law Review
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
VOLUME 112 APRIL 1999 NUMBER 6 IHARVARD LAW REVIEW ARTICLE POSITIVE RIGHTS AND STATE CONSTITUTIONS: THE LIMITS OF FEDERAL RATIONALITY REVIEW Helen Hershkoff TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1132 I. STATE CONSTITUTIONAL WELFARE PRACTICE ............................................................. 1144 A. A Mandatory Obligation:The New York Example .................................................. 1144 B. A Typology of CurrentState Court Decisions .......................................................... 1145 IT. RECONSIDERING FEDERAL RATIONALITY REVIEW IN STATE CONSTITUTIONAL WELFARE CASES ................................................................................ 1153 A. Rationality Review and Positive Rights .................................................................. 1155 B. RationalityReview and DemocraticLegitimacy .................................................... 1157 C. Rationality Review and JudicialFinality ............................................................. xi61 D. RationalityReview and Federalism......................................................................... i166 E. Rationality Review Revisited.................................................................................... 1169 III. TOWARD A NEW STANDARD OF REVIEW ......................................................................... 1169 A. The Need for JudicialReview .................................................................................. 1170 B. InstitutionalCompetence and Welfare Litigation................................................... 1175 I. State Courts as Fact Gatherers ......................................................................... 1175 2. State Courts as Policymakers ......................................................................... "179 3. State Courts as Rights Enforcers ..................................................................... 1182 C. A Jurisprudenceof Consequences.............................................................................. 1183 D. Why Education and Not Welfare? ........................................................................... i86 E. Implicationsfor Welfare Litigation........................................................................... i9i IV. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................ 1194 1131 HeinOnline -- 112 Harv. L. Rev. 1131 1998-1999 POSITIVE RIGHTS AND STATE CONSTITUTIONS: THE LIMITS OF FEDERAL RATIONALITY REVIEW Helen Hershkoff* Many state courts rely on federal standards of review in their state constitutional decisionmaking without considering whether the institutional concerns that justify the federal approach play out differently in the state context. In this Article, Professor Hershkoff questions the premises of federal rationalityreview as applied to the adjudica- tion of claims to welfare assistance under state constitution poverty clauses. Federal ra- tionality review, she argues, rests on doubts concerning democratic legitimacy, federal- ism, and separation of powers that are not completely apposite to state common law courts interpreting state constitutionalpositive rights. When a state constitution man- dates the government provision of social services such as welfare, the relevant judicial question should be whether the challenged law achieves, or is at least likely to achieve, the constitutionallyprescribed end, and not, as federal rationality review would have it, whether the law is within the bounds of state legislative power. Answering concerns that enforcement of positive rights is beyond the institutional competence of state common law courts, Professor Hershkoff proposes an alternative standard to federal rationality review for state court interpretation of state constitutional welfare rights that is conse- quential in focus and consistent with the provisional nature of state court decision- making. The restraining power of the judiciary does not manifest its chief worth in the few cases in which the legislature has gone beyond the lines that mark the limits of discretion. Rather shall we find its chief worth in making vo- cal and audible the ideals that might otherwise be silenced, in giving them continuity of life and of expression, in guiding and directing choice within the limits where choice ranges.' A lmost thirty years ago, the Supreme Court refused to find a right to welfare in the Federal Constitution, contending that the "administra- *Associate Professor of Law, New York University School of Law. A.B., Radcliffe College, Harvard University, 1973; B.A., St. Anne's College, Oxford University, 1975; J.D., Harvard Law School, 1978. I thank Ed Baker, Vicki Been, Yochai Benkler, Paul Chevigny, Chris Eisgruber, Barry Fried- man, Abner Greene, Marcel Kahan, Lewis Kornhauser, Larry Kramer, Sylvia Law, Stephen Lof- fredo, Holly Maguigan, Nancy Morawetz, Burt Neuborne, Rick Pildes, Ricky Revesz, Larry Sager, Linda Silberman, and Frank Upham for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this Article. I presented a version of this Article at the New York University School of Law Colloquium on Constitutional Theory, and also outlined some of its ideas at the New York University School of Law Review of Law and Social Change Colloquium on Confronting Welfare Reform: Strategies for Advocates, and at the Government Law Center of Albany Law School and the Touro College Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center Symposium on State Constitutional Law: Adjudication and Re- form. A version of my conference remarks is published as Rights and Freedoms Under the State Constitution:A New Dealfor Welfare Rights, 3 TOURo L. REV. 631 (i997). I am grateful to Ron Brown for library support, and to the New York University School of Law Filomen D'Agostino and Max E. Greenberg Research Fund. Finally, I would like to thank Dean John Sexton for en- couragement. 1 BENJAMIN N. CARDozo, THE NArURE OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS 94 (192 1). 1132 HeinOnline -- 112 Harv. L. Rev. 1132 1998-1999 19991 POSITIVE RIGHTS AND STATE CONSTITUTIONS "133 tion of public welfare assistance" raises "intractable economic, social, and 2 even philosophical problems" that "are not the business" of the Court. Since then, the Court has rejected constitutional claims to housing,3 to public education,4 and to medical services, 5 on the view that the govern- ment does not owe its citizens any affirmative duty of care.6 Endorsing a view of the Federal Constitution as a "charter of negative rather than posi- tive liberties,"7 the Court has resisted acknowledging any "affirmative right to government aid, even where such aid may be necessary to secure life, liberty, or property interests of which the government itself may not deprive the individual."' Although some commentators question the normative basis for the Court's approach, 9 they generally agree that a fed- 2 Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471, 485, 487 (197o). But see Stephen Loffredo, Poverty, Democracy and ConstitutionalLaw, 141 U. PA. L. REv. 1277, 1388-89 (1993) (criticizing the Court's approach as ignoring the structural role of money in American politics). 3 See Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56, 74 (1972) (rejecting the idea of a fundamental right to housing). But cf Frank I. Michelman, The Advent of a Right to Housing: A Current Appraisal, 5 HARv. C.R.-C.L. L. REV. 207, 209-12 (1970) (presenting arguments in favor of a constitutional right to housing). 4 See San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1,35 (1973) (rejecting education as a fundamental constitutional right). But cf Susan H. Bitensky, Theoretical Foundationsfor a Right to Education Under the U.S. Constitution:A Beginning to the End of the National Educa- tion Crisis, 86 Nw. U. L. REV. 550, 553 (1992) ("Doctrines interpreting the Constitution are rich with possible theoretical bases for asserting an unenumerated affirmative right to education."). 5 See Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297, 318 & n.2o (i98o) (finding no constitutional obligation upon the government to provide financial assistance to indigent women seeking to exercise repro- ductive choice). But cf Wendy E. Parmet, Health Care and the Constitution: Public Health and the Role of the State in the FramingEra, 20 HASTINGS CONST. L.Q. 267, 312-19 (1993) (using an analysis of social contract theory and early public health laws to contend that the framers in- tended not only to empower but also to obligate the government to provide for the public health). 6 See ISAIAH BERLIN, Two Concepts of Liberty, in FouR ESSAYS ON LIBERTY 118, 122-44 (1969) (setting forth the conventional distinction between negative and positive rights); ROBERT E. GOODIN, REASONS FOR WELFARE: THE POLITICAL THEORY OF THE WELFARE STATE 184- 85 (1988) ("It is now well established that certain rights of both a negative ('security') and a posi- tive ('subsistence') kind are not only compatible with but are actually presupposed by all rights claims." (citations omitted)); JEREMY WALDRON, Liberal Rights: Two Sides of the Coin, in LIBERAL RIGHTS i, 6 (1993) (discussing this distinction, and emphasizing the importance of posi- tive rights to material well-being). 7 Jackson v. City of Joliet, 715 F.2d 1200, 1203 (7th Cir. 1983). But see Susan Bandes, The Negative Constitution:A Critique, 88 MICH. L. REV. 2271, 2278-2309 (1990) (criticizing this nega- tive conception); James E. Fleming, Constructing the Substantive Constitution,