Miller v. Department of Treasury

The plaintiffs claim that the act denies equal protection of the laws because it “soaks the rich.” The majority adopts plaintiffs’ conclusion and holds that the act does indeed deny equal protection but for a converse reason — because *159its impact can be avoided or reduced by those with tax-sheltered incomes. I find myself in disagreement with both views.)

The act, PA 1965, No 335 (MCLA § 330.651 et seq. [Stat Ann 1965 Cum Supp § 14.870(101) et seq.]), requires parents of mentally retarded minors residing in State institutions to reimburse the State for the cost of their care.1 The amount of the…