## Facts

- New Jersey’s welfare program (Work First New Jersey) calculated cash assistance in part based on family size, but included a “child exclusion” or “family cap” rule that did not increase cash assistance when a child was born into a family already receiving benefits.
- The stated aim of the child-exclusion policy was to discourage welfare recipients from having additional children while on public assistance and to limit welfare costs.
- The policy did not create an exception for recipients whose religious beliefs prevented them from using birth control.
- Sojourner A. began receiving welfare benefits after the birth of her first child and was later told that, because she was already on welfare, the birth of another child would not increase her cash grant.
- Sojourner A. testified that financial hardship associated with the denial of additional cash assistance affected her reproductive decisions, including decisions to terminate pregnancies.
- Angela B. had received welfare benefits for years and received increased cash assistance for children born before the child-exclusion policy applied, but did not receive an increase in cash assistance for a later-born child once the policy was in effect.
- Sojourner A., Angela B., and others filed a class action alleging that the child-exclusion provision violated the New Jersey Constitution.
- The trial court entered summary judgment for the state welfare agency, and the Appellate Division affirmed. Plaintiffs sought review in the Supreme Court of New Jersey; amici curiae (including the Center for Economic and Social Rights and others) filed in support of plaintiffs.

## Issues

1. Whether New Jersey’s child-exclusion (“family cap”) provision unconstitutionally burdens the state constitutional right of privacy and procreative choice by using reduced cash assistance to influence decisions about having children.
2. Whether the child-exclusion provision violates New Jersey’s equal protection guarantee by treating similarly situated families and children differently based on whether a child is born while the family is already receiving welfare benefits.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey upheld the child-exclusion (family cap) provision and affirmed the judgment for the state agency.
- The court concluded that denying an incremental cash increase for a later-born child did not amount to an unconstitutional interference with the right to have children; at most, the policy exerted financial pressure that was not an undue legal burden.
- The court rejected the equal protection challenge, treating the classification as part of a social welfare benefits scheme and sustaining it under a deferential standard because it was reasonably related to legitimate governmental objectives such as cost control and encouraging self-sufficiency.
- The court emphasized that disputes about the wisdom or fairness of welfare benefit levels are primarily for the Legislature, absent a clear constitutional violation.

## Legal Principles

- A government decision to limit or withhold additional public cash benefits is generally analyzed as a refusal to subsidize, not as a direct prohibition of constitutionally protected conduct.
- Indirect economic pressure that may influence reproductive decision-making does not, without more, establish an unconstitutional burden on the right to procreate.
- Welfare classifications that do not employ a suspect classification and do not directly bar the exercise of a fundamental right are reviewed with substantial judicial deference and will be upheld if reasonably related to legitimate governmental purposes.
- Under New Jersey equal protection analysis in the public benefits context, a statutory distinction will be sustained when it has a rational connection to goals such as budget management, work incentives, and limiting long-term dependence on assistance.
- Courts will not invalidate a welfare policy simply because it is harsh in effect; the constitutional question is whether the policy crosses the line into a direct and unlawful penalty on a protected right.

## Conclusion

The court upheld New Jersey’s welfare child-exclusion (“family cap”) provision, holding that the denial of additional cash assistance for children born while a family is already receiving welfare does not impose an unconstitutional burden on procreative choice and does not violate state equal protection guarantees because the Legislature may structure cash benefits in ways reasonably tied to legitimate welfare and fiscal objectives.


Sojourner v. New Jersey Social Services, 803 A.2d 1165 (2002)