Court hears debate on end of assistance program

The state Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday morning on whether it should grant a preliminary injunction that would restore the Pennsylvania General Assistance program that provided funding to some 12,000 people before it was eliminated Aug. 1.

A lawsuit that challenges the elimination of the program was filed in July, asserting that the legislation was unconstitutional because it combined several unrelated issues into one bill.

Community Legal Services and Disability Rights Pennsylvania filed the complaint, seeking class-action status to represent all state residents who received the $205 per month funding.

As part of the complaint, the plaintiffs also filed a motion for an injunction with the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, but in a sixpage opinion issued Aug. 1, the lower appellate court found that the plaintiffs failed to show their likelihood of success in the lawsuit and that the elimination of the program would cause irreparable harm — both of which are required.

Maria Pulzetti, who argued to the seven-justice panel of the state Supreme Court, said that all of the recipients of General Assistance are unable to work and have no other income. Without the money from the program, she said, there would be an increase in homelessness, hunger and other potential harms.

Justice Debra Todd agreed, saying, “Common sense tells you it would be irreparable harm.” Ms. Pulzetti argued that she believes her clients have a likelihood of success based on how the legislation was passed.

The initial bill was specifically drafted to eliminate General Assistance. However, over the life of the legislation, it was amended several times and items were added, including issues like medical assistance and nursing home funding and hospital assessments, she said.

“This is the type of logrolling Article III [of the state Constitution] was designed to prevent,” she said.

Christopher Lewis, the attorney who argued on behalf of the state Department of Human Services, however, countered that all of the items within the legislation relate to medical care for low-income individuals.

As long as there is an overarching, single subject in the legislation, Mr. Lewis said, there’s no violation.

He also argued that the Commonwealth Court’s conclusion that there is no irreparable harm was “reasonable.”

“It’s whether and when the harm will occur,” Mr. Lewis said.

Justice David Wecht countered that if a person doesn’t receive funding and therefore cannot buy food, the harm would arise quickly.