## Facts

- New York required periodic home visits by welfare caseworkers as a condition of continued Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) assistance, with limits barring forcible entry and “snooping” and restricting visits to working hours.
- Barbara James, an AFDC recipient, initially received benefits after an initial home visit.
- About two years later, the agency scheduled a routine biannual home visit and gave advance notice.
- James refused to allow the caseworker to enter her home but offered to be interviewed at another location.
- After a hearing, New York terminated her AFDC benefits for refusing the home visit.
- James sued state and local welfare officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that conditioning benefits on a home visit and terminating benefits upon refusal violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
- A three-judge federal district court ruled for James and enjoined enforcement of the home-visit condition as applied.
- The state officials appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether a welfare recipient may refuse a caseworker home visit required for continued AFDC benefits without risking termination of benefits.
2. Whether conditioning AFDC benefits on consent to a caseworker home visit, and terminating benefits for refusal, constitutes an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the district court and remanded with directions.
- The Court held that New York’s home-visit requirement and termination of benefits upon refusal did not violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
- The Court concluded that the home visitation was not a traditional Fourth Amendment search because it was not forced, involved no forcible entry, and was conducted by a caseworker for welfare administration rather than criminal investigation.
- Alternatively, even if the visit had characteristics of a search, it was reasonable given the program’s purposes and the limits placed on the visit.

## Legal Principles

- A non-criminal, welfare-administration home visit by a caseworker, without forcible entry and not aimed at gathering criminal evidence, may fall outside the traditional concept of a Fourth Amendment “search.”
- Even when an administrative practice has some search-like qualities, the Fourth Amendment inquiry turns on reasonableness in context, including governmental interests and the degree of intrusion.
- Government may condition continued participation in a benefits program on cooperation with reasonable, limited administrative verification tools, where the consequence of refusal is loss of benefits rather than criminal sanction.
- Warrant procedures associated with criminal enforcement are not necessarily required for non-criminal welfare administration when the program includes safeguards limiting intrusions into the home.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld New York’s AFDC home-visit condition, ruling that terminating benefits for refusing a caseworker’s home visit did not amount to an unconstitutional search and, in any event, was a reasonable administrative measure consistent with the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.


Wyman v. James, 400 U.S. 309 (1971)