Summary
The Supreme Court of Nebraska upheld a Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services regulation reducing income eligibility for the Child Care Subsidy Program from 185 percent to 120 percent of the federal poverty level. The court rejected the appellants' separation-of-powers argument, concluding that the governing statutes and incorporated federal requirements did not prevent DHHS from adopting a lower eligibility threshold. The court also held that sending a termination-of-benefits notice before the regulation became effective did not violate due process because the benefits did not end until after the regulation took effect and the early notice provided additional time to make arrangements.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether DHHS exceeded its rulemaking authority and violated the Nebraska Constitution's separation-of-powers provision by reducing Child Care Subsidy Program income eligibility from 185 percent to 120 percent of the federal poverty level.
- Whether DHHS violated Johnsen's due process rights by sending a termination-of-benefits notice before the eligibility regulation had been on file with the Secretary of State for the statutory five-day period.
Holdings
- DHHS did not violate separation-of-powers principles by adopting a regulation setting Child Care Subsidy Program income eligibility at 120 percent of the federal poverty level. The governing Nebraska statutes did not establish a higher mandatory eligibility level, and even assuming that the statutes incorporated the federal Child Care and Development Block Grant Act, that federal law imposed an upper eligibility cap rather than requiring the State to provide benefits to every child below the cap.
- DHHS did not violate Johnsen's due process rights by sending the termination-of-benefits notice before the challenged regulation became effective because Johnsen's benefits did not terminate until after the regulation became effective, and the record did not show that the premature notice caused her harm.
Key quotations
“administrative agency cannot use its rulemaking power to modify, alter, or enlarge provisions of a statute which it is charged with administering”
“In short, the State gave Johnsen more process than was due to her, not less, and therefore, its conduct was not unconstitutional.”
Factual background
Nebraska DHHS administered a Child Care Subsidy Program under which eligibility had previously extended to families with income up to 185 percent of the federal poverty level. After the Legislature failed to override the Governor's line-item veto of funding for the relevant DHHS program, DHHS adopted a regulation reducing eligibility to 120 percent of the federal poverty level. Johnsen and Koch, whose benefits were affected, challenged the regulation under separation-of-powers principles and challenged notices sent before the regulation became effective under due process principles.
Procedural history
Johnsen and Koch filed a petition in Lancaster County District Court challenging DHHS's reduction of the Child Care Subsidy Program income-eligibility limit from 185 percent to 120 percent of the federal poverty level and alleging that premature termination notices violated due process. The district court certified the action as a class action and entered summary judgment for the State on both remaining causes of action. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.