Jones v. Shalala

The majority opinion offers a method of applying the statute that cannot be called wrong. Indeed, it is more fair to aid recipients than the method used by the Secretary. However, in the face of the inherently spongy phrase, “other relevant circumstances,” the majority reaches its conclusion by dubbing the statute clear and unambiguous. That result is reached by considering only one of Congress’ often competing intents— providing for the needy. Practically speaking, the opinion overlooks Congress’ other intentions, viz., avoiding dissipation of funds through fraud, neglect or abuse, see…