Kansas v. United States

214 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2000)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Kansas brought a declaratory and injunctive relief action against changes in child support enforcement policy under Title III of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA). This act was also known as welfare reform and replaced the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) with Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). TANF was a block grant program for states to use the money to provide cash assistance to low-income families. The states were allowed to create their own programs, but they were required to work toward program goals, satisfy maintenance of effort requirements, and abide by federal regulations. The PRWORA also amended the Child Support Enforcement Program (IV-D). There was to be greater federal oversight in the IV-D program in an effort to increase efficiency in child support enforcement in interstate cases. The states were obligated to establish a case registry containing all child support enforcement orders, and a directory of new hires and these databases were to be matched and then run against the federal database as part of the Federal Parent Locator Service. PRWORA also required the states to adopt the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act. This allowed income-withholding orders to be sent across state lines. The act also required laws facilitating genetic testing and paternity establishment and laws expediting enforcement actions against nonpaying noncustodial parents. When a parent fails to pay support, the act requires states to revoke passports, suspend professional and other licenses, place liens on property, and notify customer credit reporting agencies. The State was given the option not to participate in the IV-D program, but then it wouldn’t get its block grant. In 1996, Kansas got $29.3 million in IV-D money and $101.9 million in TANF funding. Kansas contends that the IV-D requirements are too onerous. Kansas contends that it was coerced into violating two provisions of the U.S. Constitution (The Spending Clause and the Tenth Amendment).